Evidence evidence)
The result of the probative See definition
Rule 128 Section 1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of a fact.
Other definitions
Anything that may legally be submitted to a court to prove
an assertion about a matter of fact.
Any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical
principle considered with a view to its being offered before
the tribunal for the purposes of producing persuasion,
positive or negative, on the part of the tribunal as to the
truth of a proposition, not of law of logic, on which the
determination of the tribunal is to be asked.
Not all facts connected with the truth or falsity of a
fact is considered as evidence. To be considered as such
it must be sanctioned by the rules of court or by law.
Purpose: to ascertain the truth repsecting a mater of fact in
a judicial proceeding
o the truth is to be determined by the rules of
admissibility and and proof
o court is not aware of the veracity of the facts
involved in the case hence, incumbent upon the
parties to prove a fact in issue through presentation
of evidence
o to ascertain the judicial or legal truth: the
limitation of human judicial systems cannot always
guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth;
legal truth is what is proven by the evidence
admitted to the court
What is the difference between proof and evidence?
Proof (the Effect of providing Evidence
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
effect of evidence and is the
conviction of persuasion of
the mind resulting fro a
consideration of the matter
When the requisite quantum
of evidence of a particular
fact has been duly admitted
ad given weight, the result is
the proof of that fact
Section 2. The rules in evidence shall be the same in all courts
and on all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law
or these Rules.
Principle of uniformity
GR: the same for the trial of civil and of criminal cases not
only principle, but also in spiritthat is the relation between
the Evidentialry fact and the Proposition is always the same
without regard to any kind of litigation.
Not however that Section 4 of Rule 1 provides for the
non-applicability of the Rules of Court, including the
rules on evidence to specified proceedings such as:
o Election cases, land registration proccedings,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases , except in analogy or in a suppletory
character
o Administrative agencies are not also bound by the
technical rules of evidence, it can choose to give
weight or disregard evidence, depending on the
trustworthiness
Difference between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
Evidence is always a relative term and it signifies a relation
between two facts, the factum probandum and the factum
probans
1
Factum probandum Factum probans Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is
Proposition to be established Materials evidencing the admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
proposition excluded by the law of these rules.
Necessarily hypothetical; it is brought forward as a reality to
that which one party affirms or convince the tribunal that the Two Elements/ requisites of Admissibility of evidence:
denies fact being asserted is real 1. Substantial requirement: It is relevant and material to
the issue of fact raised in the pleadings; has rational and
Note however that an evidentiary fact may in turn be probative value
an evidentiary proposition until some final ultimate 2. Procedural requirement: it is competent meaning to
evidentiary fact is reached. say, that it is not excluded by rules of evidence
In practical terms:

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must

Civil Cases Criminal Cases have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
The factum probandum refers to Factum probandum includes all in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral
the elements of the cause of matters that the prosecution matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any
action from the point of view of must prove beyond reasonable reasonable degree to establish the probability or
the plaintiff and the elements of doubt in order to justify a improbability of the fact in issue.
the defense in the standpoint of conviction when the accused
the defendant pleads not guilty
Test of Relevance:
Must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
Rules on evidence must also be liberally construed similar to belief in its existence or non-existence
all other provision of the Rules of Court because they are It is clearly one of logic and reasoning because it deals with
mere rules to facilitate justice and to prevent the frustration the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact
of the same because of strict adherence to the court to be proven
There is no vested right in the rules of evidence such Irrelevant facts and circumstances are those which do not
that it may subject to changes by the court pursuant to its throw any light upon or have any logical relation to , the fact
power to promulgate rules of procedure in issue which must be established by one party or
o However, it must be subject to the disproved by the other which are remote and collateral
constitutional limitation of ex post facto laws Evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in
which includes the alteration of the rules of evidence dispute and any evidence which has neither direct nor
that receives less or different testimony than that indirect relationship to such matters shall be considered as
required at the time of the commission of the offense irrelevant
in order to convict an accused Immediate fact presented must have a connection with the
Rules of evidence may be waived. ultimate issue
o Example: a car caused an accident
The car was alleged to be running beyond the
speed limit
The driving beyond the speed limit is
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 2

Collateral matters
Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered
as a basis merely for inference as to the existence or non-
existence of the facts in issue
Parallel or diverging line, merely additional or auxiliary;
absence of direct connection between the evidence and the
matter in dispute
o E.g., motive; bad reputation of the accused;
resemblance of the child to prove paternity; flight of
the accused
General Rule: not allowed because it has no direct
relevance with the issue of the case
o Exceptions: there may be cases when they may
be allowed if it tends in any reasonable degree
to establish or induce belief of the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue
Competent Evidence
One that is not excluded by the rules
If relevance is determined by logic, competence is
determined by law
Note however that in usage, there is no incompetent
evidence but only inadmissible evidence. Incompetence
refers to the person who could not be a witness
Doctrines:
1. Multiple admissibility
Evidence proffered is admissible for two or more
purposes
Evidence may also be admissible for one party and
inadmissible for another (e.g., extrajudicial admission of
one of the two accused only binds him, not the other one
res inter alios acta rule)
2. Conditional Admissibility
The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that
the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
subject to the condition that he is going to establish its
relevancy and competency at a later
o When relevance of a piece of evidence is not
apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which will readily be seen when
connected to the other pieces of evidence not yet
offered
3. Curative Admissibility
Doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise
inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys
previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would
remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of
the earlier introduced inadmissible evidence
RULE 129 SECTIONS 1 & 2 JUDICIAL NOTICE
Judicial Notice; in general
it is the cognizance of certain facts by the courts without
proof because they are facts, which by common
experience, are of universal knowledge or that which the
courts already have knowledge
under the present rules, there are facts which the courts
must now take judicial notice and of which they may
take judicial notice
purpose: convenience and expediency
requisites:
a. must be a matter of common knowledge
b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubted or uncertain
c. it must be known within the limited jurisdiction of the
courts
What Need Not Be Proved
3

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court
shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution
and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the
laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions.
Mandatory Judicial Notice
no motion or hearing necessary for the court to take judicial
notice of the fact
however, the court may receive evidence upon any of the
following subjects, when it shall find it necessary for its own
information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books
or documents for reference:
a. existence and territorial extent of states
b. their political history
c. forms of government and symbols of nationality
d. the law of nations (general principles of international
law under the constition)
e. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals
f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines
g. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines
h. the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions
RULES AS TO ORDINANCES
a. municipal trial courts are reuired to take judicial notice of
the ordinances of the municipality or city in which they sit.
b. RTCs, they must take such judicial notice only when:
a. Required to do so by statute
b. In case on appeal before them and wherein the
inferioir court took judicial notice of an ordinance
involved in said case
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
c. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of municipal or
city ordinance not where the lower courts took judicial
notice thereof but because these are facts capable of
unquestionable demonstration.
RULES AS TO FOREIGN LAWS
Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like
any other facts, they myst be alleged and proved.
Otherwise, it will be presumed that it is the same as the
Philippine Law (processual presumption doctrine)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court
may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
When is judicial notice discretionary?
Requisites:
a. The matter must be one of common knowledge; of universal
notoriety
b. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
because if there is uncertainty, presentation of evidence
would be necessary or that generally accepted as true and
are capabe of ready and unquestioned demostration
c. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
or capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting
to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonable by
questionable
Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
pertains to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. As to
matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions, e.g., ascertainable from the records of court proceeding.
(People vs Tundag)
4
Judicial notice is different knowledge of the judge
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to
know because of their functions
Note however that the personal knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and
he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge
of the fact, not generally or professionally known, as
the basis of his action.
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
request of a party, may announce its intention to take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be
heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the
proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party,
may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties
to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
issue in the case.
Judicial notice of a fact may be taken by a court on its own
motion or when it is requested or invited by the parties or
either of them to do so. In either case, the court may allow
the parties to be heard on the matter in question
o It must be exercised with caution and reasonable
doubt on the subject must be resolved in the
negative
When is judicial notice taken?
1. It may be taken during the trial of the case
2. It may also be taken after the trial and before the judgment;
3. It may also be taken durig appeal
1. State Prosecutors vs. Muro 236 S 505
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
The present case is an administrative case filed by the State
Prosecutors against the RTC Judge Muro, the respondent of the this
case.
Facts:
1. the State Prosecutors charged Judge Muro fo the RTC of
Manila with ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and
violation of provisisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
alleging that:
a. Judge Muro issued an order dismissing 11 cases filed
by the prosecutors against accused Imelda Marcos
for violation of provisions of the Central Bank Foreign
Exchange Restrictions in Central Bank Circular no.
960.
b. That judge Muro based his orders of dismissal solely
on the basis of newspaper reports (Philippine Daily
Inquirer and the Daily Globe) concerning the
announcement by the President of the Philippines of
the lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions
c. That the said circular which purportedly lifted the
restrictions under which the accused Marcos is being
prosecuted has not been officialy issued yet
d. That the said Judge Muro gravely erred in taking
judicial notice of the said announcement by the
president as a matter of public knowledge a mere
newspaper account that the president lifted the said
restrictions before it si officially released by the
Central Bank and its full text published as required by
law to take effect
2. Argument of Judge Muro: there was no need to await
publication of the Central Bank circular repealing the
existing law on foreign exchange controls for the simple
reason that the public announcement made by the President
in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign
exchange controls was total, absolute, without qualification,
and was immediately effective; that having acted only on
the basis of such announcement, he cannot be blamed for
relying on the erroneous statement of the President that the
5
 new foreign exchange rules rendered moot and academic
the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and which was
corrected only after respondent judge had issued his order
of dismissal
3. Decision of the CA: the orders of dismissal by Judge Muro
were also assailed by the State Prosecutors and the CA
found that the respondent Judge Muro acted in excess of
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said
orders of dismissal because:
a. Aside from the fact that the order was issued motu
proprio without giving the prosecutors a chance to be
heard, thedecision was solely based on the
newspaper reports which is not the publication
required by law in order that the enactment can
become effective and binding.
Issue: Should Judge Muro be held administratively liable?
Controlling issue: Was judge Muro wrong in taking judicial notice of
the newspaper reports and in using the same as basis for the
dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused Marcos?
Ruling: Yes. it was wrong for Judge Muro to take judicial notice of
the newspaper reports about the purported lifting of the Foreign
In the present case: the contents of the reports are not
Exchange Restrictions in dismissing the criminal cases against the
considered as common knowledge. A law not yet in force
accused.
cannot be considered as common knowledge capable of
ready and unquestionable demonstration.
Ratio: the newspaper reports and its contents announcing
the lifting of the restrictions did not pass the requisites of
judicial notice
1. Test of Notoriety: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take
judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care
must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
resolved in the negative.
2. Requisites enumerated:
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
a. the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge
b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain;
c. it must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court.
3. What are things of common knowledge to be considered as
notorious?
a. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take
judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the
ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
which are generally accepted by mankind as true and
are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration.
i. Example: Thus, facts which are universally
known, and which may be found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
publications
b. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not
authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis
of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
those matters which are "commonly" known.
1. Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and
on the basis of a mere newspaper account which is
sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence twice
removed, took judicial notice of the supposed lifting of
foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and
cannot be considered of common knowledge or of general
notoriety.
2. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative regulation
which was not yet in force when the order of dismissal was
6
 issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial notice cannot be
taken of a statute before it becomes effective.
3. The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in force and
hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which
is one of the requirements before a court can take judicial
notice of a fact.
2. People vs. Reanzares 334 S 624
[doctrine] The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko
wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from
the selfserving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary
witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can
only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of
public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of
which the court can take judicial notice.
CASE 2: PEOPLE v. REANZARES (2000)
FACTS:
1. On 10 May 1994 at around 8:10 in the evening, the Tactacan
spouses closed their store and left for home in Barangay San
Roque, Sto. Tomas, Batangas on board their passenger-type
jeepney. As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from
where it was parked two (2) unidentified men suddenly climbed on
board.
-His wife Lilia immediately asked them where they were
going and they answered that they were bound for the town
proper. When Lilia informed them that they were not going
to pass through the town proper, the two (2) said they would
just get off at the nearest intersection.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
2. After negotiating some 500 meters, one of the hitchhikers
pointed a .38 caliber revolver at Gregorio while the other poked a
balisong at Lilia's neck and ordered Gregorio to stop the vehicle.
Two (2) other persons, one of whom was later identified as accused
Armando Reanzares, were seen waiting for them at a distance.
3. As soon as the vehicle stopped, the accused and his companion
approached the vehicle. Gregorio was then pulled from the driver's
seat to the back of the vehicle. They gagged and blindfolded him
and tied his hands and feet. They also took his Seiko wristwatch
worth P2,500.00. The accused then drove the vehicle after being
told by one of them, "Sige i-drive mo na."
4. During the entire trip, his wife kept uttering, "Maawa kayo sa
amin, marami kaming anak, kunin nyo na lahat ng gusto ninyo."
Immediately after the last time she uttered these words a
commotion ensued and Lilia was heard saying, "aray!" Gregorio
heard her but could not do anything. After three (3) minutes the
commotion ceased. Then he heard someone tell him, "Huwag kang
kikilos diyan, ha," and left. Gregorio then untied his hands and feet,
removed his gag and blindfold and jumped out of the vehicle. The
culprits were all gone, including his wife. He ran to San Roque East
shouting for help.
5. When Gregorio returned to the crime scene, the jeepney was still
there. He went to the drivers seat. There he saw his wife lying on
the floor of the jeepney with blood splattered all over her body. Her
bag containing P1,200.00 was missing. He brought her immediately
to the C. P. Reyes Hospital where she was pronounced dead on
arrival.
6. Subsequently, two (2) Informations were filed against accused
Armando Reanzares and three (3) John Does in relation to the
incident.
- The first was for violation of PD 532 otherwise known as
the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 for
allegedly conspiring, with intent to gain and armed with
bladed weapons and a .38 caliber revolver, to rob and carry
away one (1) Seiko wristwatch owned by Gregorio Tactacan
7
 and P1,000.00 cash of Lilia Tactacan, and on the occasion
thereof, killed her.
- The second was for violation of RA 6539, An Act Preventing
and Penalizing Carnapping, for taking away by means of
violence and intimidation of persons one (1) passenger-type
jeepney with Plate No. DBP 235 owned and driven by
Gregorio Tactacan and valued at P110,000.00. Only the
accused Armando Reanzares was arrested. The other three
(3) have remained unidentified and at large.
7. The accused testified in his defense and claimed that he could
not have perpetrated the crimes imputed to him with three (3)
others as he was in Barangay Tagnipa, Garchitorena, Camarines
Sur, for the baptism of his daughter Jessica when the incident
happened.
ISSUE: WON the amount of the amount of P2,500.00 as
reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio
Tactacan must be deleted.
HELD: Yes.
RATIO: The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko
wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence aside from
the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. An ordinary
witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can
only take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of
public knowledge or is capable of unquestionable demonstration.
The value of jewelry therefore does not fall under either category of
which the court can take judicial notice.
Thus the trial court was correct in disregarding the alibi of the
accused not only because he was positively identified by Gregorio
Tactacan but also because it was not shown that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the crime scene on the date and time of
the incident.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was guilty of
Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As
held in a number of cases, conviction for highway robbery requires
proof that several accused were organized for the purpose of
committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case
that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit
highway robbery.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 as the allegations in
the Information are enough to convict him therefor.
3. People vs. Tundag 342 S 704
[doctrine] In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is
improper, despite the defense counsels admission, thereof
acceding to the prosecutions motion. As required by Section 3 of
Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required
before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the
age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal
certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing
that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary
or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
FACTS:
Mary Ann Tundag filed 2 separate complaints for incestuous rape
against her father, Tomas Tundag. She alleged that she was 13
years old at the time of rapes. However, the prosecution failed to
secure the Birth Certificate of the victim. Thus, the Fiscal requested
for judicial notice that the victim was below 18 years old. The
defense counsel admitted the request. After the trial, the trial court
rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for two counts of rape, and sentenced him to death twice.
Thus, the accused appealed.
ISSUE:
8
WON judicial notice of the age of the victim is proper. (WON the
penalty of death imposed on the accused is correct.)
HELD:
NO. Judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper. Failure of the
prosecution to sufficiently establish victims age by independent
proof is a bar to conviction for rape in its qualified form. Hence, the
penalty of death should not have been imposed.
The Court found the appellant guilty for the crime of rape but
modified the judgment sentencing the accused to reclusion
perpetua.
RATIO:
Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11
of R.A. No. 7659, penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her
father as qualified rape and a heinous crime. In proving such
felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the elements of rape:
(1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3) by force or without her
consent and in order to warrant the imposition of capital
punishment, the additional elements that: (4) the victim is under 18
years of age at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is a parent
of the victim.
In this case, it was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender
was the victims father. But the victims age was not properly and
sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she
was thirteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, she
admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born because
her mother did not tell her. She further said that her birth certificate
was likewise with her mother. In her own words, the victim testified.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
properly take and act on without proof because they already know
them. Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may either be
mandatory or discretionary. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court provides when court shall take mandatory judicial notice of
facts -
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall
take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations,
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts
of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.
Section 2 of Rule 129 enumerates the instances when
courts may take discretionary judicial notice of facts
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A
court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
Thus, it can be considered of public knowledge and judicially
noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily
isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. The
offense of rape can and has been committed in places where
people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants,
a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the
same room which the victim is sharing with the accuseds sister.
The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipinas inbred
modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts
which blemish her honor and virtue.
On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable
demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific
knowledge. For example, in People v. Alicante, the trial court took
judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending physicians
concerning the birth of twin baby boys as premature since one of
the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.
As to matters which ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions, an example would be facts which are
ascertainable from the record of court proceedings, e.g. as to when
court notices were received by a party.
9
With respect to other matters not falling within the mandatory or
discretionary judicial notice, the court can take judicial notice of a
fact pursuant to the procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules
of Court which requires that -
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court,
on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper,
despite the defense counsels admission, thereof acceding to the
prosecutions motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as
to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required
before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally,
the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal
certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing
that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary
or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No.
8353, the Court reiterate here what the Court has held in Javier
without any dissent, that the failure to sufficiently establish
victims age by independent proof is a bar to conviction for
rape in its qualified form. For, in the words of Melo, J.,
independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital
and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the case falls
under the qualifying circumstances for the imposition of the death
penalty set by the law.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
RULE 129 SECTION 4 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Section 4. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party
on the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same
case does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made though
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
Definition:
Admission are confessions, concession, or voluntary
acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain
facts
It is not essential that an admission be contrary to the
interest of one of the parties at the time it is made; it is
enough that it be inconsistent with the position which a
party takes wither in pleadings or at trial
General Rule: they do not require proof
o Unless: admissions in the pleading were withdrawn
and amendments were made because they are
considered as extrajudicial admissions and requires
proof
Elements:
1. party: it must be made by one of the parties to the case
(admission by a non- party is not what is contemplated by
this Rule)
2. same case: the admission, to be judicial, must be made in
the course of the proceedings in the same case in which it is
offered.
3. No particular form: it may be done orally or in writing
4. When made: (a)in the pleadings; (b)during the trial by
verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; (c)in other
stages of the judicial proceeding
made in the same case in which it is offered
Admission made in another judicial proceedings will not be
deemed a judicial admission in another case where the
10
 admission was not made. Instead it will be considered as an
extrajudicial admission for purposes of other proceedings
where such admission is offered
Judicial admissions made in one case is admissible at the
trial of another case provided that:
a) They are proved and
b) Are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter
Unless:
a) The said admissions were made only
for purposes of the first case (as in the
rule in implied admissions and their
effects); or
b) The same were withdrawn with the
permission of the court therein; or
c) The court deems it proper to relieve
the party therefrom
Is admission same with confessions?
NO. admissions as applied in criminal cases are avowals of facts
from which guilt may be inferred, tending only to prove the offense
charged but not amounting to the confession of guilt. Admissions
are insufficient itself to authorize conviction
Form
a) Direct or express- admissions made in direct terms
b) Implied admissions- are those made in some other
connection or involved in the admission of some other fact
When made
(a) in pleadings and motions
Acknowledgment or recognition by one party of the truth of
some matter alleged by the opposite party, made in
pleading, the effect of which is to narrow the area of facts of
allegations required to be proved by evidence (statements
in the pleadings uncontroverted is deemed admitted)
Allegation not denied is deemed not controverted, and the
silence of the pleader is deemed as and admission against
him
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
o Exceptions: immaterial allegations, conclusions,
non-ultimate facts, amount of unliquidated damages
Admissions made by a party to his pleading cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission in
conclusive as to him; all other proofs submitted by him
inconsistent with such admission shall be ignored
(remember however, the exceptions, when they may be
allowed to be controverted by the admitter)
Note however that an answer is a mere statement of a fact
which the party filing it expects to prove. And in spite the
presence of judicial admissions in a partys pleading, the
trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence
presented
(b) during trial
(c) other stages of the trial
1. Pretrial
Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into
by the parties at the pre-trial of the case constitute
judicial admissions by them
In criminal cases, an admission made by the accused in
the pre-trial of a criminal case must be reduced in
writing and signed by the accused and counsel to be
admitted. However, this does not apply equally to
stipulation of facts made during trial.
2. Modes of Discovery
Admissions in written interrogatories, depositions, or
requests for admissions are considered as judicial
admissions
3. offer of plea of guilt
How are judicial admission controverted?
General Rule as to the effects of judicial admission:
1. they do not require proof
11
 2. they cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive
upon the party making it
Exceptions; How they may be controverted
1. by showing that the admission made by palpable mistake
one that is clear to the mind or plain to see
readily perceived by the senses or the mind
2. by showing that no such admissions was made
such that when the statement of the person taken
out of the context or that his statement was made
not in the sense it is made to appear by the other
party
not denying the statement but the meaning attached
to his statement as what appears to or made by the
adverse party
1. Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 271 S 1
[doctrine] In the case at bench, we find that the respondent Court
of Appeals committed an error in appreciating the "Answer" filed by
the lawyer of Intertrade as an admission of corporate liability for
the subject loan. A careful study of the responsive pleading filed by
Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that
there was neither express nor implied admission of corporate
liability warranting the application of the general rule. Thus, the
alleged judicial admission may be contradicted and controverted
because it was taken out of context and no admission was made at
all.
CASE 04: Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (1997)
FACTS:
1. The board of directors of Intertrade authorized and empowered
Aguenza (the President thereof) and Arrieta (Executive VP
thereof) to jointly apply for and open credit lines with
Metrobank.
2. Pursuant to such authority, the two executed several trust
receipts with Intertrade as entrustee and Metrobank as
entruster. The two also executed a Continuing Suretyship
Agreement whereby both bound themselves jointly and
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
severally with Intertrade to pay Metrobank whatever obligation
Intertrade incurs.
3. The aforementioned LOC covered by said trust receipts were
settled fully up to this point.
4. Later, Arrieta (the VP) and one Lilia Perez (a bookkeeper of the
same company) obtained a P500k loan from Metrobank. Both
executed a Promissory Note in favor of the bank promising to
pay the said amount plus interest per annum.
5. Arrieta and Perez defaulted which prompted Metrobank to file a
case against Intertrade, Arrieta, Lilia Perez and her husband to
collect the unpaid principal obligation, interests, fees, penalties
and exemplary damages. Later, Metrobank also impleaded
Aguenza as liable on the account of the Continuing Surety
Agreement previously executed by him.
6. The trial court absolved Aguenza and Intertrade from
liability and dismissed Metrobanks complaint as against both
and found Arrieta and the Perez as jointly liable for the amounts
in their personal capacity.
7. Arrieta and Perez appealed the foregoing to the CA.
8. The CA REVERSED the TC decision holding Aguenza and
Intertrade jointly and severally liable to Metrobank and in turn
absolved Arrieta and Perez. The CA found that Intertrade
admitted in its answer that the loan in question was a
corporate liability.
The Decision states: it seems clear from its answer that
the loan evidenced by the note was a corporate
liability. Paragraph 1.3 of the answer admits 'x x x
defendant's obtention of the loan from the plaintiff x x x';
the affirmative defenses admit default, and invoking the
defense of usury, plead adjustment of excessive interest
which Intertrade refused to make.
On the basis of this admission, it is no longer in point
to discuss the question of the capacity in which
Arrieta and Perez signed the promissory note,
Intertrade's admission of its corporate liability being
admission also that the signatories signed the note in a
representative capacity. The Bank itself gave
corroboration with its insistence on Intertrade's liability
under the note. x x x
12
 such ratification or authority, such admission does not bind the
corporation.
DOCTRINE: The general rule that "the allegations, statements, or
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the
pleader is not an absolute and inflexible rule and is subject to
exceptions. Rule 129, Section 4, of the Rules of Evidence, provides:
"Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made." (Underlining supplied)
In other words, an admission in a pleading on which a party
goes to trial may be contradicted by showing that it was
made by improvidence or mistake or that no such admission
was made, i.e., "not in the sense in which the admission was made
to appear or the admission was taken out of context."
ISSUE: WON there was an admission in the answer by Intertrades
counsel as to the corporate liability of the same on the loan
obtained by Arrieta and Perez.
RULING: NO. The Court of Appeals committed an error in
appreciating the "Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as an
admission of corporate liability for the subject loan. A careful study
of the responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Pangilinan,
counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that there was neither express
nor implied admission of corporate liability warranting the
application of the general rule. Thus, the alleged judicial admission
may be contradicted and controverted because it was taken out
of context and no admission was made at all.
Assuming arguendo that there was an admission, the same may
not still be given effect at all. The alleged admission made in the
answer by the counsel for Intertrade was "without any enabling
act or attendant ratification of corporate act, as would
authorize or even ratify such admission. In the absence of
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
o The respondent appellate court likewise adjudged Intertrade
liable because of the two letters emanating from the office
of Mr. Arrieta which the respondent court considered "as
indicating the corporate liability of the corporation.
"Ratification can never be made on the part of the
corporation by the same persons who wrongfully assume
the power to make the contract, but the ratification must
be by the officer as governing body having authority to
make such contract." (Vicente vs. Geraldez)
The unauthorized act of respondent Arrieta can only be
ratified by the action of the Board of Directors and/or
petitioner Aguenza jointly with private respondent
Arrieta (which was the practice of the company).
o The enabling corporate act on this transaction has not been
obtained (VP alone without concurrence from the President).
2. Philamgen vs. Sweet Lines, Inc. 212 S 195
1. A maritime suit was commenced by the herein petitioner
against the respondents. The former is seeking recovery of
the cost of lost or damaged shipment plus exemplary
damages, attorney's fees and costs allegedly due to
defendants' negligence.
2. It would appear that in or about March 1977, the vessel SS
"VISHVA YASH" belonging to or operated by the foreign
common carrier, took on board at Baton Rouge, LA, certain
cargoes which belonged to Tagum Plastics (one of the
petitioners). The cargoes were likewise insured by the
Tagum Plastics Inc. with plaintiff Philippine American General
Insurance Co., Inc.
3. In the course of time, the said vessel arrived at Manila and
discharged its cargoes in the Port of Manila for
transshipment to Davao City. For this purpose, the foreign
carrier awaited and made use of the services of the vessel
13
 called M/V "Sweet Love" owned and operated by defendant
interisland carrier.
4. Subject cargoes were loaded in Holds Nos. 2 and 3 of the
interisland carrier. These were commingled with similar
cargoes belonging to Evergreen Plantation and also
Standfilco.
5. At the time when the shipment was already discharged from
the interisland carrier into the custody of the consignee, it
was discovered that the cargo is incomplete.
6. The Bill of lading of the said shipment states that there
should be a total number of 7,000 bags. What happened
was that, of said shipment totalling 7,000 bags, originally
contained in 175 pallets, only a total of 5,820 bags were
delivered to the consignee in good order condition, leaving a
balance of 1,080 bags.
7. Some bags were either shortlanded or were missing, and
some of the 1,080 bags were torn, the contents thereof
partly spilled or were fully/partially emptied, but, worse, the
contents thereof contaminated with foreign matters and
therefore could no longer serve their intended purpose. The
position taken by the consignee was that even those bags
which still had some contents were considered as total
losses as the remaining contents were contaminated with
foreign matters and therefore did not (sic) longer serve the
intended purpose of the material.
8. PHILAMGENs CONTENTION: SLI (respondent) failed to
adduce any evidence in support f the ground of prescription
and that the bills of lading said to contain the shortened
periods for filing and for instituting a court action against
the carrier were never offered in evidence.
9. SLIs CONTENTION: It is standard practice in its operations
to issue bills of lading for shipment s entrusted to it for
carriage and that it issued bills of lading.
ISSUE/S: WON the bill of lading may be considered as evidence
though not formally offered.
HELD: YES. The bill of lading may be considered as evidence
though not formally offered.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
RATIO: Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence,
the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are
practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are
inevitably involved and their provisions cannot be disregarded in
the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto.
The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents
which under the Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of
action or defenses, and the genuineness and due execution of
which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath
by the adverse party.
Philamgens failure to specifically deny the existence, much less
the genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question
amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written,
made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence
being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted
unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution
and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of
the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial
thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence
for it may be considered an admitted fact.
The Court of Appeals resolved that although the bills of lading were
not offered in evidence, the litigation obviously revolves on such
bills of lading which are practically the documents or contracts sued
upon, hence, they are inevitably involved and their provisions
cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of
the parties thereto.
Petitioners' failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the
genuineness and due execution, of the instruments in question
amounts to an admission. Judicial admissions, verbal or written,
made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or
other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence
being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted
unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that
14
no such admission was made. Moreover, when the due execution
and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of
the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial
thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence
for it may be considered an admitted fact.
Thus, while petitioners objected to the validity of such agreement
for being contrary to public policy, the existence of the bills of
lading and said stipulations were nevertheless impliedly admitted
by them.
Hence, for the reasons already advanced, the noninclusion of the
controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot,
under the facts of this particular case, be considered a fatal
procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising the
defense of prescription. Petitioners' feigned ignorance of the
provisions of the bills of lading, particularly on the time limitations
for filing a claim and for commencing a suit in court, as their excuse
for noncompliance therewith does not deserve serious attention.
3. Arturo Alano vs. CA, Roberto Carlos 283 S 269
1. the criminal case: Alano was charged with estafa in the
RTC of Manila. The information alleged that Alano first sold a
parcel of land to private respondent Carlos which the latter
was able to fulfill payment. In spite of the sale, Alano
subsequently sold the same parcel of land to a certain
Erlinda Dandoy, thereby depriving Carlos of rightful
ownership and possession of the said land.
2. The motion to suspend the criminal proceedings: Alano
then filed a motion with the RTC to suspend proceedings due
to a pending civil action filed 5 years prior to the present
criminal action. the said pending civil action concerns the
nullity of the sale made by Alano to Carlos. It was alleged by
Alano in such case that Carlos forged his signature in the
Deed of sale and never sold the lot to Carlos. According to
Alano, the civil action poses a prejudicial question which shall
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
determine his guilt in the estafa case (if there is no sale to
Carlos, there is no estafa)
3. Decision of the RTC and the CA; denial of the motion: the
RTC rendered a decision denying the motion to suspend
proceedings. This was upheld by the CA upon the filing of
Alano of a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
a. Ratio of the CA (very important): although there
seems to be merit with the contention of Alano
raising the issue of prejudicial question, the same
cannot be upheld for the purpose of suspending the
criminal proceedings because during the pre-trial
conference and as seen in the pre-trial order of the
criminal case, Alano admitted to the validity of his
signature in the first deed of sale between him and
Carlos, as well as his subsequent acknowledgment of
his signature in twentythree (23) cash vouchers
evidencing the payments made by Carlos. Moreover,
it was also noted by the Court of Appeals that
petitioner even wrote to the private respondent
offering to refund whatever sum the latter had paid.
Being a judicial admission, it is binding to Alano.
Issue: Should the criminal proceedings be suspended? No.
Controlling issue: Is Alano bound by his admissions during the pre-
trial conference? Yes.
Ruling: The Criminal proceedings should not be suspended by
reason of the prejudicial question posed by the pending civil
action-- that is the validity of the deed of sale to Carlosbecause
Alano made admissions during the pre-trial conference of the
criminal proceeding and such is binding to him.
Ratio:
In this regard, the pretrial provision on criminal procedure found in
Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. x x x. The pre-
trial conference shall consider the following:
15
 (a) Plea bargaining; (b)Stipulation of facts
1. From the foregoing, there is no question that a stipulation of
facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations
constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties
and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the
introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the
right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statement contained
in the exhibit.
2. Accordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pretrial order
amounts to an admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of
his right to present evidence on his behalf.
3. Accordingly, petitioners admission in the stipulation of facts
during the pretrial of the criminal amounts to a waiver of his
defense of forgery in the civil case.
4. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the pretrial order was
signed by the petitioner himself. As such, the rule that no proof
need be offered as to any facts admitted at a pretrial hearing
applies.
4. People vs. Solayao 262 SCRA 255
[doctrine] In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove
by testimonial evidence that accusedappellant admitted before
Police Officer Nio at the time that he was accosted that he did not
have any authority or license to carry the subject firearm when he
was asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on
accusedappellant's admission to prove the second element.
Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
second element of illegal possession of firearm which is that
accusedappellant does not have the corresponding license?
Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by the
accusedappellant can take the place of any evidentiary means
establishing beyond reasonable doubt the fact averred in the
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
negative in the pleading and which forms an essential ingredient of
the crime charged.
This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its very
nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of
circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his
guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or
facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other
facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,
insufficient to authorize conviction."
From the above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in
criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime charged.
Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it does
not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court
which states:
"An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of
the trial or other proceedings in the same case does not require
proof."
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused appellant
does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of
illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima
facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does
not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that
"while the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the
subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of
appellant, without the latter being able to present any license or
permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof
that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other
words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to
establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by clear
and convincing evidence, like a certification from
the government agency concerned.
16
CASE 7: PEOPLE v. SOLAYAO (1996)
FACTS:
1. The lone prosecution witness, SPO3 Jose Nio, narrated that at
about 9PM of July 9, 1992, with CAFGU members, he went to
Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran. They were to conduct an
intelligence patrol as required of them by their intelligence officer
to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around
the barangays of Caibiran.
2. From Barangay Caulangohan, the team of Police Officer Nio
proceeded to Barangay Onion where they met the group of
accused-appellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The former became
suspicious when they observed that the latter were drunk and that
accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a
jungle suit. Accused-appellant's companions, upon seeing the
government agents, fled.
3.Police Officer Nio told accused-appellant not to run away and
introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut
leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-
inch long homemade firearm locally know as "latong."
-When he asked accused-appellant who issued him a license
to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the
military or any intelligence group, the latter answered that
he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon,
SPO3 Nio confiscated the firearm and turned him over to
the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently
investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of
firearm.
4. Accused-appellant, in his defense, did not contest the
confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was only given to
him by one of his companions, Hermogenes Cenining, when it was
still wrapped in coconut leaves. He claimed that he was not aware
that there was a shotgun concealed inside the coconut leaves since
they were using the coconut leaves as a torch.
5. RTC: found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of
firearm under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
6. This court, in the case of People v. Lualhati ruled that in crimes
involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the
subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or
possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to
possess the same.
7. In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove by
testimonial evidence that accused-appellant admitted before Police
Officer Nio at the time that he was accosted that he did not have
any authority or license to carry the subject firearm when he was
asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on
accused-appellant's admission to prove the second element.
ISSUE/S: Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm which is
that accused-appellant does not have the corresponding license?
Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by the
accused-
appellant can take the place of any evidentiary means establishing
beyond reasonable doubt the fact averred in the negative in the
pleading and which forms an essential ingredient of the crime
charged.
RATIO: This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its
very nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or
of circumstance from which guilt may be inferred, tending to
incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his
guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or
facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other
facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,
insufficient to authorize conviction." From the above principles, this
Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime
charged.
17
Moreover, said admission is extra-judicial in nature. As such, it does
not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court
which states: An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case does
not require proof.
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant
does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of
illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima
facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does
not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that
"while the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the
subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of
appellant, without the latter being able to present any license or
permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof
that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to
establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by clear
and convincing evidence, like a certification from the government
agency concerned."
Putting it differently, "when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a
plaintiff's case depends upon the establishment of a negative, and
the means of proving the fact are equally within the control of each
party, then the burden of proof is upon the party averring the
negative."
In this case, a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of
the Philippine National Police that accused-appellant was not a
licensee of a firearm of any kind or caliber would have sufficed for
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second
element of the crime of illegal possession of firearm.
18