EVIDENCE

I. Object Evidence
One which is submitted to the court and will view it to the full range of human senses
o Apply the rule on Relevancy
o Then Authenticate
Chain of Custody
o Marking of the seized items immediately
o Inventory & Photograph
With the accused or his representative
Elected official
National Prosecution Service or Media
o Where?
With Warrant Place of seizure
Without Warrant Nearest Police Station
Exception to Chain of Custody: Substantial Compliance Rule
o Integrity and evidentiary value are preserved
o With justifiable reason for non-compliance
Demonstrative Evidence
Anyone who is familiar can authenticate(Sison vs People)
o EVENT- persons needs to be present at the time of happening
o PERSON/OBJECT No need
DNA Test
o Biological Sample is relevant to the case
o Sample was not previously tested or was previously tested but still needs confirmation for
good reasons
o Uses a scientifically valid technique
o Potential to produce new information which is relevant to the case
o Existence of other factors which the court may consider
o Prima Facie evidence of paternity(Lucas vs. Lucas)

II. Documentary Evidence

Evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents
Best Evidence Rule
o Original Document
Original is one of the contents subject of inquiry
2 or more copies executed at the same time with identical contents (People vs. Tan)
Entry is repeated in the regular course of business and made at or near the time of
transaction
When BER does not apply

Bar Bet Notes

Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 1
 EVIDENCE

o Document is merely collateral to the fact in issue (Air France vs. Carracoso)
o Purpose is to establish a fact which has an existence independent from the document (Meyers
o Express or Implied Admission of the genuineness and due execution of the document
o Purpose is to prove external matters (People vs. Tandoy)
o Waiver (Dela Cruz vs. CA)
Exceptions to BER (Sec 3, Rule 130)
o Original has been lost, destroyed or cannot be presented in court
Establish the existence and due execution of the original
May be proven by testimonial witness
o Either party
o A witness to the execution
o Notary Public
o Any person who was shown the copy of the original
o Someone who was made aware by either party about the execution
of the contract
Prove the fact of loss of ALL the original (De Vera vs Aguilar)
o Any person who is personally aware of the fact of loss
o Anyone who can prove that he exerted reasonable efforts to locate the
missing document in the place where it is usually kept
o A person who made any other form of examination to locate the original
Prove the contents
o Copy of the original
o Certification or recital of the contents in other authentic documents
o Testimony of a witness
No Bad Faith
o Original is in the custody of the adverse party
Prove the existence of the original
Prove that it is in possession of the adverse party
Prove that with reasonable notice he was unable to produce the original (Shangri-La
vs BF Corp.)
o Original consists of numerous accounts
Establish the numerous nature the documents
Original is made accessible to the adverse party(Compania Meritima vs. Allied Free
Workers)
Facts sought to be established are mere general result of the whole instrument.
o Original is a public record

Electronic Evidence
o Rules on Authentication
As Documentary Evidence
o It was digitally signed by the person who is purported to have signed it
o Any procedure on authentication authorized by SC or Law

Bar Bet Notes

Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 2
 EVIDENCE

o Any other evidence as long as the court is satisfied to the integrity and
reliability of the electronic evidence
As Object Evidence
o Someone who caused the recording
o Someone who can testify as to the accuracy of the recording
Authentication of Text Messages ( People vs Enojas)
o Party to the communication
o Anyone aware of the communication
Parol Evidence Rule
o Applies only to documentary evidence
o Precludes presentation of any other evidence than the written agreement
Where Parol Evidence Does Not Apply
o Document do not constitute a contract(Cruz vs CA)
o 1 of the parties to the suit is not a party to the contract(Lechugas vs CA)
Stipulation pour autrui(Pacres vs Ygona)
o Collateral Agreement Rule(Robles vs Hermanos)
o Failure to object(Willex vs CA)
Exceptions to PER
o Needs to be put in issue to the pleadings
Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection(Palanca vs Wilson Co.)
Failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties(Enriquez vs. Ramos)
Exception to the exception Statute of Frauds
o Exception to the exception to the exception Partially/Fully
executed
Validity of the agreement(Oreta vs. Oreta)
Agreement subsequent to the written agreement(Canoto vs Mariano)

III. Testimonial Evidence

A witnesses perception of a past event being recollected and communicated to the court in any form of
communication
Qualifications of a Witness
o Personal Knowledge/Perception
o Capacity to Remember
o Communication
o Take an Affirmation or Oath
o Not Disqualified by Law
Disqualification Rule
o Mental Incapacity
o Immaturity(Child as a Witness)
o Spousal Immunity
Except
Civil case between each other

Bar Bet Notes

Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 3
 EVIDENCE

Criminal case for crimes commited by one against the other or against the
direct ascendants or descendant of the other
With consent of the AFFECTED spouse
When the reason for the rule does not anymore exist (Alvarez vs. Ramirez)
Valid Marriage
Affected spouse is a party to the case
Marriage still subsists
o Dead Man Statute
Defendant is sued as executor, administrator, heir, or representative of the deceased
(Guerrero vs St. Claire)
Suit AGAINST the estate ( Tiongco vs Vianzon)
Only the plaintiff, assignor, or person in behalf the suit is prosecuted is disqualified to
testify (Guerrero vs St. Claire)
DMS does not Apply
If the estate interposes a counterclaim against the complainant
(Gunye vs CA)
Represented by an agent and the agent was still alive (Gunye vs CA)
Something the deceased could not rebut even if he were still alive
Testimonies on events that occurred after the death (Mendezona vs
Vda. De Guitia)
Negative Testimony
Privilege Communication
o Spouses
There must be a Valid Marriage
Given in CONFIDENCE
Exception
o Civil case between the spouses
o Criminal case for crimes commited by one against the other or
against the direct ascendants or descendant of the other
o When the privileged information has been relayed to a 3rd person
(People vs Carlos)
o Lawyer-Client
Lawyer-Client Relationship
Except
Common defense or Joint interest (US vs. Mcpartlin)
Information is in respect to a PAST Crime/Act (People vs. Sandiganbayan)
Given in CONFIDENCE (Uichico vs. Union Assurance Life)
o Physician-Patient
Applies only in Civil Cases
Made in the course of professional employment
Treatment given in the Drs professional capacity (Lim vs. CA)
Given in Confidence

Bar Bet Notes

Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 4
 EVIDENCE

May only be invoked against a person authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or

obstetrics (Krohn vs CA)
o Priest Penitence
Given during confession
Minister is duly ordained by the church

Bar Bet Notes

Exclusive use for Bar Bets only
By: Arfil Sta. Ana Yongco
Page 5