Documentary Evidence: Padayon Lang.:d

MIDTERM EVIDENCE
Christian and Mitch notes

Documentary Evidence
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as 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. (n)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:
 DOCUMENT- is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – furnished by written instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds.
 It applies to anything that containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols and other mode of written expression offered as
proof of its contents.
 If you present a document to prove its execution, condition or existence, it is not documentary evidence but object evidence.
 Republic v Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation:

- Deed of sale and tax declaration/clearances does not constitute the well- nigh incontrovertible evidence. Settled is the rule
that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing
evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by
law. Unfortunately, as petitioner contends, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent do not constitute the well-nigh
incontrovertible proof necessary in cases of this nature. It is settled that a document or writing admitted as part of the
testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein.
- The government official who issued the Certification was not presented before the RTC so that he could have testified
regarding its contents. Hence, the RTC should not have accepted the contents of the Certification as proof of the facts
stated therein. The contents of the Certification are hearsay, because Hanovers President and General Manager was
incompetent to testify on the truth of the contents of such Certification.
 Philippine Hawk Corporation v Lee Re: Tan v OMC Carriers Inc.

- As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By
way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence
when: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case,
judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the
deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
- Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount
of damages. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence
can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
 IBM v NLRC
- Computer generated documents or emails are not admissible for the absence of proper authentication. All the copies of
computer-generated email printouts were never signed by the purported sender, the superior of the employee. Neither are
these signed by the supposed recipient, the employee. So for the absence of signature, proper authentication has not been
complied with.
- There was no sufficient evidence for that matter that these documents were free from the possibility of tampering, especially
so since after the employee was terminated he ceased to have access to company’s computer system.
- the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is subject to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process; this
procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidenciary rules. The evidence
presented before us must be at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. The computer
print-outs, which constitute only evidence of petitioners, afford no assurance of their authenticity since they are unsigned.
- The liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless consistently required
some PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY ORRELIABILITY as condition for the admission of documents. DUE PROCESS MUST NEVER BE
SUBORDINATED TO EXPEDIENCY OR DISPATCH”
 Guadines v Sandigang Bayan

- Well- entrenched is the rule that the actual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court except where: 1)
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; 3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and findings of fact of
the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted of the evidence on record.
Best Evidence Rule

Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE (BER)- applies to documentary evidence, operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot
be introduced as original writing itself must be produces in court, except those mentioned in SECTION 3, RULE 130.
 PURPOSE: to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court.
 The non-production of the original document unless justified under the exceptions mentioned in Section 3 (e) of Rule 131, gives rise
to presumption of suppression of evidence.
 BER applies ONLY when the contents of such document is subject of the inquiry.
o Instances where BER does not apply: (NOT ADMISSIBLE)
 Issue is on whether the document is executed, or exist, or on circumstances relevant to surrounding its
execution, considered as object evidence.
 Purpose is to prove collateral or concomitant fact that took place like conversations while the document was
prepared- it is the conversation and not the contents of the document is on issue. (Collateral Fact Rule)
 Transaction made in writing but the contents are not subject of the inquiry
 Affidavits and depositions are not considered as Best evidence, it is not admissible (governed by hearsay rule,
Sec. 26, Rule 130)
 The dispute involves an actionable document and the adverse party expressly or impliedly admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the actionable document
 If the purpose of presenting the evidence is to prove external matters (matters outside the content) like its
existence, its issuance or delivery.
 If the objection to the admission of an otherwise inadmissible evidence is waived
 BER does not apply if the matter falls under any of the exceptions specifically mentioned in Section 3 of Rule
130.
 If the issue is the existence and/or contents of said documents, then they are considered primary evidence, any other recitation
of facts are considered as secondary evidence.
 The best evidence rule requires the presentation of the original instead of the secondary evidence.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED, EXCEPT: Section 5, 6, 7 and when the records are voluminous.(Please see below)
 MCMP Construction Corporation v Monark Equipment Corporation (Lease covered by Rental Equipment Contract)
- The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of the original document whenever its contents are
the subject of inquiry. Except those exceptions as provided under Section 3 of Rule of the Rules of Court. Before a party is
allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1)
the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-
production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original
can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
- Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of Peregrino that the original Contract in the possession of
Monark has been lost and that diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail. As has been repeatedly
held by this Court, "findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial
court.Hence, the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of Peregrino.
- MCMP’s failure to present the contract they entered into with Monark and even explain its failure, not only justifies the
presentation by Monark of secondary evidence in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, but it also
gives rise to the disputable presumption adverse to MCMP under Section 3 (e) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that
"evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
 Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and Resort v BF Corporation (photocopies of the Billing Progress)
b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
- ”The original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be produced and secondary evidence of its contents is not
admissible except where the original cannot be had.”“When such party has the original of the writing and does not
voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may be admitted.”
- Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document refers to evidence other than the original
instrument or documents itself. A party may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the
original is lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. In either instance,
however, certain explanations must be given before a party can resort to secondary evidence.
- Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception under Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130. In other words, the
conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondary
evidence has been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof
of the cause of the original document's unavailability; and (3) the offeror is in good faith.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- “To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in the custody or control of the
adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that the adverse party must be given reasonable notice, that he fails or
refuses to produce the same in court and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof of its existence.”
- The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time
to produce the same.
 Air France v Carrascoso

- The notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of
the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time
to produce the same.
- The Supreme Court said the best evidence rule applies only if the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document. In
here, while the doc was mentioned by the witness, its existence is merely collateral to the fact in issue. The issue is about
the bumping off and the altercation which resulted in the unlawful removal of the plaintiff from his accommodation. The
mention of the notebook was merely a collateral fact. The issue here is about the incident between the plaintiff and the
crew member. The testimony of the witness was offered to prove the fact of the bumping off and the altercation and
was never offered to prove the contents of the notebook. The best evidence rule does not apply.
- Where the purpose is to prove a collateral or concomitant fact that took place while a document was being prepared,
such as a conversation in relation thereto, the BER does not apply and such fact may be proved testimonially since the
issue is the conversation and not the contents of the document.
 Nissan North EDSA v United Phil Scout Agency
- The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact. However,
the same applies only when the contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry.
- In this case, the contents of the service contract between Nissan and United have not been put in issue. Neither
United nor Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the
same provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best
evidence rule finds no application here.
 People v Tandoy
- Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its
existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.
- The failure to produce the marked money itself would not constitute a fatal omission.
2. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are
equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS
 The documents prepared in several copies through the use of carbon sheets, SC held that each carbon copy is considered an
original provided that the writing of the contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party sought to be
charged thereby, such signature reproduced by the same stroke of pen made in the surface.
 Even if signature on each copy was written through separate acts, or even separate occasions, the said carbon copies are
regarded as originals if each copy is regarded as a repository of the same legal act of the party thereto.
 IMPERFECT carbon copies like those the signatures of the parties are incomplete or which leave something else to be done in
order that a document could evidence a binding obligation are merely secondary evidence.
 In telegrams and cables, the dispatch sent or dispatch received is best evidence, if the issue is the contents of the telegrams as
received by addressee, the original dispatch received is the best evidence. If the telegram sent by the sender, the original is the
message delivered for transmissions. If the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission, both telegrams as sent and received are
originals.
 In libel case, it was held that on the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by the accused for publication, the manuscript was
the best evidence. If the issue is what was actually published, a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence.
 Marquez v Espejo
- The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the best evidence is
the original document itself and no other evidence (such as a reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering with
the document.
- In the instant case, there is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is no dispute
regarding the contents of the documents. It is admitted by the parties that the respondents Deed of Sale referred to
TCT No. T-62096 as its subject; while the petitioners Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer referred to TCT No. T-62836 as its
subject, which is further described as located in Barangay Murong.
 Arceo Jr v People
- The BER applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the
execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
- In this case, the subject of the inquiry is the fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its content. Here, the due
execution and existence of the check were sufficiently established. Thus, petitioner himself admitted that he issued
the check. He never denied that the check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and was dishonored
for having been drawn against insufficient funds.
 People of the Philippines v Neil B. Colorado (rape)

- Settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness deserve great weight, given the
clear advantage of a trial judge in the appreciation of testimonial evidence. We have repeatedly recognized that
the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination.
- a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not
essential to conviction. An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private
complainant and laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of
sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.
 Surgar Regulatory Administration v Encarnacion B. Torman (COA Decisio; Receipt)

- Well settled also is the rule that a receipt of payment is the best evidence of the fact of payment.
- Private respondents, however, could not present any receipt since they alleged that their payments were made
through salary deductions and the payrolls which supposedly contained such deductions were in petitioner's
possession which had not been produced. In order to prove their allegations of refund, private respondents
submitted the affidavits of Messrs.
- The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of evidence. It can accept
documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly observed. It can
choose to give weight or disregard such evidence, depending on its trustworthiness.
- Thus, the factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great
weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous
estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure, should not be disturbed.
- COA we find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the COA in
rendering its assailed decision. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is
not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism,26 which is wanting in this case.
 Estrada v Desierto cited in CITIBANK, N.A and Investor’s Finance Corporation v Modesta R. Sabeniano
- In Estrada v. Desierto, this Court had occasion to rule that — It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but
only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. Thus, P\the
production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion, whenever in the case in hand the
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production.
- In the case of Citibank vs Sabeniano, the best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof
must be produced. Accordingly, for documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the
production of the document itself, to the exclusion of any secondary or substitutionary evidence. In general, the
best evidence rule requires that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. Accordingly, for
documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best proved by the production of the document itself, to
the exclusion of any secondary or substitutionary evidence.
- Thus, when a document is presented to prove its existence or condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real,
evidence. Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is allowed (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath, etc.,
et al., 91 Phil 565)
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- The fire destroyed relevant documents, absence of proof that it is intentionally made, the foregoing would have
been sufficient to allow the presentation of photocopies or microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters by the
petitioners as secondary evidence to establish the existence of respondent's loans, as an exception to the best
evidence rule.
- This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and
microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent's
loans. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar.
 Gaw v Chua
- The BEST EVIDENCE RULE as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court applies only when the content
of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually
executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
- Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original Moreover,
production of the original may be dispensed with in the trial court's discretion, whenever the opponent does not
bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
- Accordingly, we find that the best evidence rule is not applicable to the instant case. Here, there was no dispute as
to the terms of either deed; hence, the RTC correctly admitted in evidence mere copies of the two deeds. The
petitioner never even denied their due execution and admitted that she signed the Deed of Partition.
 Republic v Marcos-Manotoc
- Rule 130, Section 3 of the ROC provides that evidence must ne the original document. However, evidence is
admissible when the public document is in public record when it is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office. Its contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody.
- It is basic rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public document, if they are acknowledged before a
notary public these affidavits are still considered as hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not
generally prepared by the affiant but by one who uses his language in writing down the affiant’s statements, parts
of which may be omitted or misunderstood by one writing them. Also, the party is deprived of the opportunity to
cross-examine the affiants. Thus, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, UNLESS the affiants themselves
are placed on witness stand to testify.
 Gulf Air v NLRC

- A mere photocopy of the manual presented does not make said evidence any less significant. Labor proceedings
are non-litigious in nature; hence, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law do
not strictly apply. Rather, the hearing officer is given much leeway to ascertain for himself the facts of the case.
- Without question, respondent did not comply with this requirement when he ordered the acceptance of the Astro
Airlines ticket of Queroz. However, there is no evidence that respondent violated any company policy when he
issued a MATO to Queroz.
- Thus, the CA and the NLRC correctly observed that the worst that respondent committed was an inadvertent
infraction. For that, the extreme penalty of dismissal imposed on him by petitioners was grossly disproportionate.
Secondary Evidence
Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public
officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same
is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS: EXCEPTIONS
In written document, original document must be presented according to BER.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
o Example: in cases of falsification, copyright infringement, or libel, the original document must be presented as evidence.
1. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNAVAILABLE - has been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court (without bad faith)
To present secondary evidence, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
a. Due execution of the original;

b. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals; and
c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original (not due to offeror’s bad
faith)
Thus, the following are the requisites before secondary evidence may be allowed if original document is lost, destroyed or cannot
be produced in court
a. The offeror must first establish the existence and due execution of the original document.
b. Prove the fact of loss.
c. Prove the contents of the original document
The due execution must be proved through the testimony of either:

a. the persons who executed it;
b. persons before whom execution was acknowledged; or
c. any person who was present and saw it executed.
 When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible.
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE may consist: (IN ORDER)

a. a copy of said document;
b. recital of its content in an authentic document; or
c. recollection of the witnesses
 Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of the document,
or bars the presentation of secondary evidence, such requirement is controlling.
o Example: loss of notarial will - testimony of two credible witnesses, while in probate of holographic will – authentic
photographic or photostatic copies
2. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL
REQUISITES:
1. Prove the existence of the original

-To prove this, you may use the witnesses mentioned in the De Vera case who can prove the fact of existence and due
execution.
2. Prove that it is in the possession of the adverse party
3. Prove that you gave reasonable notice and that despite the reasonable notice, he is unable or failed to produce the
original.
 To prove reasonable notice:

o Avail Rule 27 (Modes of Discovery) by filing a motion for production of the original document believed to be in the
possession of the adverse party
o Ask the court to issue subpoena duces tecum
o Manifest your request in open court in the presence of the adverse party.
 No particular form of notice is required as long as it apprises the other party as to what papers are desired. The notice must be
given to the adverse party, or his attorneys, even if the document is in actual possession of the third person.
 It is held that where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged on a carbon copy thereof, there is no need for a notice to
the other party to produce the original letter.
 The justified refusal or failure of the adverse party to produce the document does not give rise to a presumption of suppression of
evidence. It only authorizes the introduction of secondary evidence.
 Where the documents are produced, it is not necessarily admissible unless requisites for admissibility are present.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
RULE 130, Section 6 RULE 27 of the Rules of Court
Production of documents are procured by mere notice which is The production of such document is in nature of a mode of
a condition precedent for subsequent introduction of discovery and can sought only by proper motion in the trial
secondary evidence court
3. RECORDS ARE VOLUMINOUS

 For the exception to apply:
a. Voluminous character of the records must be established;
b. Such records must be made accessible to the parties so that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 You may present summary of all records. The following are the requisites:
a. The proponent must first establish the numerous nature or voluminous nature of the documents. Case to case basis.
b. You should establish that individual original numerous accounts of records were made accessible to the adverse party to
give the latter opportunity to test accuracy during cross examination. How? Proponent simply has to notify the court that
you are presenting a summary instead of individual voluminous document. And notify the adverse party that such
originals are available at a certain place ready for examination by the adverse party. (Compania Maritima vs Allied Free
Workers Union Case)
4. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS PUBLIC RECORD- contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by
the public officer in custody thereof.
 Example: Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Death Certificate
EXCEPT: there is a court order directed to the custodian
 Standing rule: Legal custodians are prohibited from bringing out of their office the originals of the documents in their custody.
o Remedy: 1. Ask the court for issuance of subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum addressed to the public officer;
2. ask for a certified true copy of the original for purpose of presenting evidence.
 In RULE 132 (PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE), such document may be evidenced by:

a. an official publication; or
b. a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record.
 In case of public record of a private writing, it may also be proved by a copy thereof attested by legal keeper of the record.
PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT – as evidence
 RP v Marcos II cited in RP v Ma. Imelda “Imee” R. Marcos-Monotoc (Stenographic notes)

- Under Sec. 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provide that when the original document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. Exhibit “Q” (a mere photocopy of the transcript of stenographic notes) was not a
certified copy and it was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the proceedings. Thus,
absent any convincing evidence to hold otherwise, petitioner fails to it follows that petitioner failed to prove that
the Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos
and participated in the first couple’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth
 Citibank, N.A Mastercard v Teodoro citing De Vera v Aguilar

- In Citibank vs. Teodoro, The original copies of the sales invoices are the best evidence to prove the
alleged obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary evidence.
- Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales
invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss
and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the
offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
- Here, the loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the search for them were conditions that were
not met, because the sales invoices might have been found by Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he
had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had subsequently followed up the
request.
- When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may
not be used without accounting for the other originals. Triplicates were produced, although the cardholder
signed the sales invoice only once. During the trial, Hernandez explained that an original copy had gone
to respondent, another to the merchant, and still another to petitioner.
- Each of these three copies is regarded as an original in accordance with Section 4 (b) of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to show that all three original copies were unavailable, and that due
diligence had been exercised in the search for them.
- In the case De Vera vs. Aguilar, the photocopy of the deed of sale under Exhibit “A” is inadmissible as
evidence for failure of De Vera to prove the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale and all of its
duplicate original copies.
- Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior
to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the
instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents – although this order
may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. The sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate
for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court under all the
circumstances of the particular case.
- In the case at bar, the existence of an alleged sale of a parcel of land was proved by the presentation of
a xeroxed copy of the alleged deed of absolute sale.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- In establishing the execution of a document the same may be established by the person or persons who
executed it, by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, or by any person who was
present and saw it executed or who, after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures; or by a
person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the execution thereof.
- After the due execution of the document has been established, it must next be proved that said
document has been lost or destroyed.
- In the case at bar, Atty. Emiliano Ibasco, Jr., notary public who notarized the document testified that the
alleged deed of sale has about four or five original copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. Records show that petitioners merely accounted for
three out of four or five original copies.
- Original copies of the document of sale still exists, since they were submitted to the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Malolos for registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in
court and if it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the Register of Deeds
or his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original of the
document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, secondary evidence of it is
inadmissible.
 Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v Antonio Lagman
- Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the
subject of inquiry. A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that
the original is unavailable.
- Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror
must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of
the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of
bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as
follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
- In the case at bar, Lagman mentioned during the direct examination that there are actually four (4)
duplicate originals of the 1990 Bond and the fourth was in his possession. When more than one original
copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting
for the other originals.
- Despite knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of these duplicate originals, Lagman merely
presented a photocopy. Neither did Lagman explain why he failed to secure the original from any of the
three other custodians he mentioned in his testimony. Clearly, Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to
produce the original.
 Baguio Trinity Developers INc v The Heirs of Jose Ramos

- Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides that when the original document has been lost and its
unavailability has been established, a party may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents
in some authentic document or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
- Baguio Trinity failed to attach to its petition for annulment of judgment a certified copy of the judgment or
final order, which requirement is mandatory. Without it, the court would have no bases to form a decision. .
Here, however, the 1990 earthquake resulted in the loss or destruction of the RTC records of the case. The
administration of justice cannot stop to grind because of such loss and no one should suffer or benefit from
it. That the record custodian could no longer issue a certified copy should not of course prevent an
aggrieved party from pursuing his petition. Consequently, the CA had no valid reason denying its petition
for failure to attach a copy of the assailed reconstitution orders.
-
 Gabatan v CA (Photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale)
- Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document itself. Although the best evidence rule admits of
exceptions and there are instances where the presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed,
such as when the original is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of
secondary evidence must still be established.
- Thus, in Department of Education Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, we held that a party must first
satisfactorily explain the loss of the best or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence.
A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory explanation for non-production of
the original instrument.
- It is the notary public who is mandated by law to keep an original of the Deed of Absolute Sale in his
notarial register and to forward the same to the proper court. It is the notary public or the proper court that
has custody of his notarial register that could have produced the original or a certified true copy thereof.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Republic v Mups
- Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the theory that the original cannot be
produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable
diligence.
- In concrete terms, the source documents must be shown to be original, and not secondary. Furthermore,
the source documents must likewise be accessible to the opposing party so that the correctness of the
summary of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination and/or may be refuted in
pleadings. In ordinary trial-type proceedings, a proper foundation for the introduction of a summary may
be established through the “testimony of the person who is responsible for the summary's preparation, or
the person who supervised the preparation of the summary.”
- The primary reason for these procedural foundations is that the summary of numerous documents is, in
strict terms, hearsay evidence. The trial court should not haphazardly allow a party to present a summary
of numerous documents and immediately admit and give probative value to such summary without
sufficiently laying these foundations. If the source documents of the summary are non-original, the trial
court would commit a grave error in admitting and/or giving probative value to the summary of non-
original documents; the evidence admitted would be double hearsay.
- Furthermore, when a party invokes Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, he does not similarly invoke
Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. He does not likewise claim that the original
documents have been lost or destroyed. The party merely asserts that the numerous documents cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time and that the fact sought to be established from these
documents is only the general result of the whole.
- Whenever a party seeks an exemption under the best evidence rule pursuant to Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court, he asks permission from the trial court to produce a summary of numerous documents,
whose originals are available to the adverse party for inspection. He does not ask permission from the trial
court to present in evidence the numerous non-original documents. Otherwise, the very purpose of Section
3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court would be defeated. In that case, every exhibit of non-original
documents would be identified, authenticated, and cross-examined, leading to a tedious and protracted
litigation.
- Thus, if a party desires to present photocopies of the original documents, he must first establish that the
presentation of photocopies is justified under Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. He must establish the presence of all the elements under these provisions.
- In the case of lost or destroyed documents, the offeror of non-original documents must first prove the
following elements before secondary evidence is admitted before the court: (a) the existence or due
execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in
court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original
can be attributed. To conclude otherwise is to allow the party to circumvent the best evidence rule and
the requirements under Section 3 (a), (b), and (d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court by merely invoking
Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
- In the present case, PIATCO attached to its Compliance dated December 14, 2010, the photocopies of
numerous documents, and the validation of PIATCO’s computation of attendant costs prepared by Reyes
Tacandong & Co., among others. PIATCO justifies the non-presentment of original documents pursuant
to Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 Vda. De Avenido v Avenido (Declaration of nullity of marriage)
- The execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves, by the swearing officer, by
witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties; or even by those to whom the parties
have previously narrated the execution thereof. The Court has also held that "[t]he loss may be shown by
any person who [knows] the fact of its loss, or by anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a
sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar character are
usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who
has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument [has] indeed
[been] lost.
- In the present case, due execution was established by the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, who was present
during the marriage ceremony, and of petitioner herself as a party to the event. The subsequent loss was
shown by the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest, Monsignor Yllana, as relevant, competent
and admissible evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly
shown by the evidence presented, secondary evidence–testimonial and documentary–may be admitted
to prove the fact of marriage.
- Hence, the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is affirmed and the marriage between petitioner
Peregrina Macua Avenido and the deceased Eustaquio Avenido is hereby declared NULL and VOID.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO 01-7-01-SC)
1. MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE; ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE

 ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE - refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means
 ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT- refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished, or by which
a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION - refers to telephone conversations, text messages and other electronic forms of
communications, which cannot be retained or can be deleted. This must be proved by the testimony of the person who was a
party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof.
2. PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT; METHOD OF PROOF

 In any legal proceeding, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data
message or electronic document in evidence:
a. in the sole basis that is in electronic form;
b. it is not in standard written form, if it meets the requirements for recognition to its legal effect, shall be the BEST EVIDENCE
of the agreement or transaction contained therein. (RA 8792. Section 12)
 In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document, the reliability of the manner in which ot
was generated, stored r communicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified, and other relevant
factors shall be given due regard.
3. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE

 Electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures shall be authenticated by demonstrating,
substantiating and validating a claimed identity of the user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system
by:
a. the electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that the letter, character, number or other symbol in electronic
form representing the person named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message,
electronic document or that appropriate methodology is employed (digitally signed by the person signing the
document);
b. the electronic data message or electronic document shall be authenticated by proof than an appropriate security
procedure was employed in verifying the originator of an electronic data message or electronic document (appropriate
procedure provided by law/SC)
c. SC- adopt other procedure , usage of electronic notarization system as necessary and advisable, as well as certificate of
authentication on printed or hard copies of the electronic documents or electronic data messages. (additional
evidence to prove the authenticity of the electronic document to satisfy the court)
4. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND THE HEARSAY RULE

 An electronic document shall be functional equivalent of the written document under existing laws.
 Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document if said electronic
document maintains integrity and reliability and be authenticated.
 For purposes of the Best Evidence rule, to consider a document as electronic document, ALL the PROCESSES must be
ELECTRONIC.
 The processes mentioned here must be free from any manual intervention. The moment manual intervention supervenes,
it cannot be considered as an electronic document. This is the ruling in the case of NPC vs Codilla.
5. AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
 If presented as an object evidence, The purpose is not to prove its contents but you want that recording TO BE HEARD BY THE
COURT. Not as documentary, but object because it’s subjected to the senses of the court.
1. Someone who caused the recording
2. Someone who can testify as to the accuracy of the recording
 MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v Ssangyong Corporation (print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions)
- Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, showing to reflect the
data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as
the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost
be an “electronic data message” or an “electronic document.
- The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8792 defines the “Electronic Data Message” refers
to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means, but not limited
to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy.
- Moreover, when Congress formulated the term “electronic data message,” it intended the same meaning
as the term “electronic record” in the Canada law. This construction of the term “electronic data
message,” which excludes telexes or faxes, except computer-generated faxes, is in harmony with the
Electronic Commerce Law’s focus on “paperless” communications and the “functional equivalent
approach” that it espouses. Facsimile transmissions are not, in this sense, “paperless,” but verily are paper-
based.
- Thus, the Electronic data messages and electronic document as defined in the Electronic Commerce Act
of 2000 do not include facsimile. Facsimile cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It’s not the
functional equivalent of an original under the BER and is not admissible as electronic evidence. Facsimile
transmissions are not, in this sense “paperless”, but verily “paper based”.
 Rustan Ang Y. Pascua v CA and Irish Sagud (before)
- An electronic document should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided

under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC do not apply to the present
criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings,
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
and administrative proceedings.
- Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic
document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under
Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC). The objection is too late since he
should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.
NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 Before, it is applicable to all civil actions, quasi and administrative proceedings except criminal proceedings where there is a
requirement for attachment of an electronic signature.
 Now, under the case of Enojas , it is also applicable in criminal cases, therefor it can be applied to all proceedings.
 In the case NPC vs. Codilla, the letter was electronically produced but the signature was not electronically affixed, it is not
considered as electronic document. The SC held that by its definition, the contents must be processed electronically. In this case,
the document in question appears to have been manually signed. By no stretch of the imagination can a person’s signature
affixed manually in the photocopies be considered as information ELECTRONICALLY received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced. The presence of the MANUAL signature as PART of the CONTENTS of these documents
disqualifies the document from being electronic. Not being electronic, it should be treated as an ordinary paper-based
document, and under the BER, a photocopy can only be allowed as secondary if the original is accounted for, which NPC failed
to do in this case.” If it is manually signed, cannot be considered electronic document.
 In People vs. Enojas, it involves a criminal case where a text message was used as evidence and presented by a police officer.
SC correctly ruled this time, pursuant to amendment in 2002, Rules on Electronic Evidence applies to criminal cases as well. This is a
murder case resulting to a death of a policeman.Here, it is admitted as evidence as:
a. the policeman identified and presented the text messages
b. he is the same person who acted on the incident and pretended to be the taxi driver as testified by him and has the
personal knowledge of the incident.
c. AM 01-07-01 is the expansion of the Rule on Electronic evidence which is now applicable to any kinds of proceedings.
 Requisites for electronic evidence to be admissible, it must be:
a. Relevant; and
b. Competent
 The following are the SPECIFIC EPHEMERAL COMMUNICATIONS MENTIONED IN THE RULES:
a. Telephone conversation;
b. Text messages;
- In People vs Enojas, a text message maybe authenticated by the party to the communication or anyone who is
aware of the communication. In this case, the witness who authenticated the exchange of text messages between
the policeman who posted as Mr. Enojas and the other party in the other line, was a party to the exchange of the
text messages. SC said, that witness was competent to authenticate the transcript of text messages between the
police and the other suspect.
c. Streaming video/streaming audio;
d. Chat sessions; and
e. Other similar electronic communications evidence of which is not retained or recorded
- As the term suggests, it is not permanently recorded. It is not retained in some form of saving device.
PAROL EVIDENCE
Parol Evidence Rule
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 PAROL EVIDENCE - any evidence aliunde (extrinsic), which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable
agreement embodied in a document.
 It can be made by oral or verbal testimony, applies only to written contacts or agreements.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 It is based on the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, all their previous
contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein.
 The Parol Evidence Rule (PER) did not apply to or to bar evidence of a collateral agreement between the same parties on the
same or related subject matter, in the following:
a. The collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract;
b. The collateral agreement has not been integrated in and is independent of the written contract, as it were suppletory to
the original contract;
c. The collateral agreement is subsequent to novatory of the written contract; and
d. The collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may
become operative or effective, but this exception does not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the
agreement.
ALSO, The concepts of PER and its workings can be best understood by understanding instances where this principle does not apply.
a. When the document does NOT constitute a contract or agreement, like a mere receipt, since the rule presupposes a written
agreement
b. If at least 1 of the parties to the suit is not a party to the written agreement, neither party can invoke PER, since the rule applies only
to suits between PARTIES to the written contract and their SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
c. When the prior or contemporaneous agreement is independent from or not inconsistent with a written agreement otherwise known
as the “Collateral Agreement Rule”
d. Where any of the exception to the parol evidence rule applies, in which case a party may present parol evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement, if he puts in issue in his pleadings the following:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
 Exception to the Exception: If the true and intended agreement is covered under Statute of Fraud (Art. 1403
CC) - no oral testimony/evidence is allowed
 EXCEPTION to the exception to the exception: when it is partially or fully executed – oral testimony
may be allowed
3. The validity of the written agreement
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written
agreement
e. Where the adverse party fails to object on time, parol evidence may be admitted by the court to vary, alter or modify the terms of
a written agreement
 The purpose of PER is to give certainty to written documents, preserve reliability and protect its integrity, also, to avoid the pitfalls
of human memory
 It cannot be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy to
the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the relation
established thereby.
PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Presupposes that the original document is available in court Contemplates the situation wherein the original writing is not
available and/or there is a dispute as to whether said writing is the
original.
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence I lieu of the
original document regardless of whether or not it varies the contents
of the original
Applies only to the documents which are contractual in nature Applies to all kinds of writings
“written agreements”
Invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the Invoked by any party to an action regardless of whether or not such
written agreement, their privies, or any party directly affected party has participated in the writing
thereby like cestui que trust
 If you testify in courts, you cannot present additional oral evidence which is not included or contrary to the written agreement, or
those which could alter or modify the agreements.
 Prohibition applies to parties or successors-in-interest. But the outside parties can produce evidence. However, for such party to be
allowed to present evidence to modify, explain or add the terms of the agreement, he must put it in the pleadings.
o If the agreement was made prior to execution, as a general rule, no oral evidence is allowed.
o If the agreement was made during the execution, it may be allowed provided that it will not modify the agreements
o Id the agreement was made after the execution, it is allowed.
 Parol evidence does not apply to receipts.
 RULE ON EXCLUSION – Section 9 of Rule 130 provides that when the terms of an agreement are reduced into writing, there can be
as between the successors-in-interest no evidence of its terms other than the contents of the agreements.
1. EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
 Lechugas v CA
- The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation
against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument
or the relation established thereby.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- PER does not apply in this case because it is Leoncia Lasangue who is one of the parties to the subject DOS and
because the defendants in the case were not parties to the DOS executed between Leoncia Lasangue and
Lechugas. SC said when at least one of the parties to the case is not a party to the written agreement sued
upon, PER may not be invoked. Because obviously these third parties, not parties to the agreement, are not
bound to the terms of the written agreement. They can always introduce extraneous evidence to vary the
terms of the written agreement without violating the PER because PER does not apply to them.
- PER applies only to the PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT OR THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST. This also includes persons
who may not be the parties but persons who based their claims under the written agreement or assert their
right originating in the written agreement. They are also deemed to be parties to the contract.
 Inciong v CA (promissory note)
- Parol evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. For the parol evidence
rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. 12 As a
general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted
by parol or extrinsic evidence.
- When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
- What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on "long experience that
written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it
would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence
to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed
in the writing signed by them.
- By alleging fraud in his answer, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere
preponderance of evidence, not even being adequate. However, he failed as it was evidenced only by his
own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving testimony.
 Ortanez v CA (lost tiltle and in the custody of another)

- Parol evidence to establish the alleged oral conditions-precedent to a contract of sale are INADMISSIBLE when
the deeds of sale are silent on such conditions.
- Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language.
Under the general rule in Rule 130, Section 9, when the terms of an agreement were reduced to writing, it is
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the
contents thereof.
- The parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
instrument, hence, contrary to the rule that “The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to x x x the terms of a
written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or
different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.”
- Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions that are not mentioned at all in the
writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. No such fraud or mistake exists in this case.
- there are exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility of parol evidence, one of which the alleged failure of
the agreement to express the true intent of the parties.
- Such exception obtains only where the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the
contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a
case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and
of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received to
enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument.
- HOWEVER, in this case, there is no ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms
of the deeds of sale.
- The Inocentes merely alleged that the sale was subject to four conditions which they tried to prove during trial
by parol evidence. Record shows that the Inocentes did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were
incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of the parties. Such issue must be squarely presented; the
Inocentes did not plead any of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Their case is covered by the general
rule that the contents of the writing are the only repository of the terms of the agreement.
-
 Financial Building Corporation v Bloomfield Educational Foundation, Inc., et. AL

- Parol Evidence: Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an
agreement were reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no
evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Evidence of a prior or
contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of
a valid contract
- Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such
terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Rudlin argues that under Section 9, Rule 130, a party
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if it is put in issue in the
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
pleading, "[t]he failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and the agreement of the parties
thereto."
- Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or
defeat the operation of a valid contract. Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
- However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading:
 (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
 (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
 (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
 (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
- The term "agreement" includes wills.
- We hold that Rudlin failed to substantiate its claim that the contract price stated in the Construction Agreement
(₱6,933,268.00) was not the true contract price because it had an understanding with FBC’s Jaime B. Lo that
they would decrease said amount to a mutually acceptable amount.
 Modesto Leovera v Casimero Valdez
- “When the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to contain all the
terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other than what is contained in the
written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.”
- SC:We rule that the respondent adequately proved his ownership of the disputed property by virtue of the (i)
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Josefa in favor of the parties; (ii) the parties’ Affidavit of Adverse Claim; and
(iii) the parties Agreement, which cover the subject property.
- The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these documents, particularly the
Agreement. However, he claims that since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the
Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to reflect the parties’ true intention.
- To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence
modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, as in this
case, the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of
the written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
 Sps. Agbaba v Inter-Urban Developers Inc

- Under Parole Evidence rule, no additional or contradictory terms to the written agreement can be admitted to
show that at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the
parties. So the prevailing terms of the agreement and not the oral or side agreement.
 Dulce Pamintuan v People of the Philippines

- Under the circumstances, the best evidence to ascertain the nature of the parties diamond ring transaction is
the Katibayan which is the written evidence of their agreement that should be deemed to contain all the terms
they agreed upon. Under the parol evidence rule, no additional or contradictory terms to this
written agreement can be admitted to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different
terms were orally agreed upon by the parties. Thus, the terms of the Katibayan should be the prevailing terms
of the transaction between the parties, not any oral or side agreement the petitioner alleged.
 Permanent Savings Corporation v Velarde (Promissory Note)
- The mere presentation of supposed documents regarding the loan, but absent the testimony of a competent
witness to the transaction and the documentary evidence, coupled with the denial of liability by the
defendant does not suffice to meet the requisite preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
- The documents, standing alone, unsupported by independent evidence of their existence, have no legal basis
to stand on. They are not competent evidence.
- Here, such failure leaves this Court without ample basis to sustain the plaintiff’s cause of action and other reliefs
prayed for. The loan document being challenged. Plaintiff did not exert additional effort to strengthen its case
by the required preponderance of evidence. On this score, the suit must be dismissed.
- Under Rule 132, Section 21 or ROC, this falls short of the requirement that before any private writing may be
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the
writing executed; (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or (c) By a subscribing
witness.
 Pacres v Heirs of Ygona
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- The Parol Evidence Rule applies to "the parties and their successors in interest." Conversely, it has no application
to a stranger to a contract. For purposes of the Parol Evidence Rule, a person who claims to be the beneficiary
of an alleged stipulation pour autrui in a contract (such as petitioners) may be considered a party to that
contract. It has been held that a third party who avails himself of a stipulation pour autrui under a contract
becomes a party to that contract. This is why under Article 1311, a beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui is
required to communicate his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation.
- Moreover, to preclude the application of Parol Evidence Rule, it must be shown that "at least one of the parties
to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on
the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby."49 A beneficiary
of a stipulation pour autrui obviously bases his claim on the contract. He therefore cannot claim to be a
stranger to the contract and resist the application of the Parol Evidence Rule.
- Thus, even assuming that the alleged oral undertakings invoked by petitioners may be deemed stipulations
pour autrui, still petitioners’ claim cannot prosper, because they are barred from proving them by oral evidence
under the Parol Evidence Rule.
2. EXCEPTION
a. Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake or Imperfection of the written agreement
b. Failure of Written agreement to express the true intention of the parties
c. Validity of written agreement
d. Existence of a written agreement entered into by parties or successors in interest SUBSEQUENT to the written agreement
 GR: No oral evidence may be presented which are not included in the pleadings.
1st Exception
 In order that parole evidence to be admissible, the MISTAKE or IMPERFECTION of the document or its FAILURE to express the true
intent of the parties, the validity of the agreement must be put in issue by the pleadings.
 The defenses not raised in the pleadings, but the parole evidence is not objected to, such objection is deemed waived. In any
event, such mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
 The intrinsic ambiguity in the written agreement is now required to be put in issue in the pleading in order that parole evidence
therein may be admitted.
 MISTAKE- mistake of fact where the innocent party was imposed upon by unfair dealing of the other
 IMPERFECTION- includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness in the writing, or the presence of
inconsistent provisions therein.
 When one party was mistaken and the other knew that the instrument did not state their real agreement but concealed that the
fact from the former, the instrument may be reformed. Parole evidence of such fact would be admissible if same is put on issue.
Kinds of ambiguity and effects:
 There is INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY when the writing in its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or
circumstances which make the meaning uncertain, or where the writing admits of two constructions both of which are in harmony
with the language used.
 EXTRINSIC AMBIGUITY – ambiguity which is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order
to ascertain the meaning of the word used. In such, parole evidence is not admissible; otherwise the court would not thereby
construing the contract but would create a contract between parties.
 INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY – partake both intrinsic and extrinsic ambiguity, the words in writing, though seemingly clear and with
settled meaning, is actually equivocal and admits two interpretations. Parole evidence in this case is admissible to clarify the
ambiguity, it must be put in issue by the pleader. Example: Dollar- used in Hong Kong, US or Australia
2nd Exception
 The purpose is to determine the true intention of the parties or the true nature of the transaction between parties.
3rd Exception
 In effect authorizes an inquiry into the validity of the agreement, parole evidence may be admitted to show the true
consideration of a contract, or incapacity of the parties, or the fact that the contract was fictitious or absolutely simulated, or
there was fraud in the inducement.
4th Exception
 Not all collateral agreements are prohibited by the rule, only those prior or contemporaneous collateral agreement.
 STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ARTICLE 1403 CIVIL CODE)

Parol Evidence Rule is provided for under the Rules of Court, but there is another Parol Evidence Rule which is also found in the
Civil Code, Statute of Frauds (1403) is it the same with the Parol Evidence Rule in ROC?
Under Statute of frauds, there are certain contracts which cannot be proved by oral testimony for purposes of enforceability,
meaning it cannot be proved by oral testimony.
The SPECIFIC CONTRACTS are:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer
accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time
some part of the purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at
the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose
account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;
(e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.
 Any of the contracts found under 1403 prohibits the introduction of oral evidence to prove its existence. The Parol Evidence
contemplated in 1403 refers only to oral because 1403 allows a written memorandum.
 Under the Parol Evidence Rule in the ROC, there are exceptions, provided that these issues are raised in the pleadings.
 The only exception under 1403 is when the contract is partially executed or fully executed. So the rule is when the contract is
alleged to have failed to express the true intention of the parties, parol evidence may be allowed except when the contract is
covered by the statute of frauds. This is the opinion of Justice Paras in his book citing a case.
 Sps. Lequin v Sps. Vizconde
- A contract, as defined in the Civil Code, is a meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give something or
to render some service.12 For a contract to be valid, it must have three essential elements: (1) consent of the
contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the
obligation which is established.
- The requisites of consent are (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers;
(2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. In De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 13 it was
explained that intelligence in consent is vitiated by error, freedom by violence, intimidation or undue influence,
and spontaneity by fraud and when consent is given through fraud, the contract is voidable.
- Tolentino defines kind of deception whether in the form of insidious machinations, manipulations, concealments
or fraud as "every misrepresentations, for the purpose of leading another party into error and thus execute a
particular act.
- Thus, (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
Lack of consideration was proved by petitioners’ evidence aliunde showing that the Kasulatan did not express
the true intent and agreement of the parties. As explained above, said sale contract was fraudulently entered
into through the misrepresentations of respondents causing petitioners’ vitiated consent.
 Financial Building Corp v Rudlin International Corp
- Under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
reduced in writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such
terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Rudlin argues that under Section 9, Rule 130, a party
may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if it is put in issue in the
pleading, "[t]he failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and the agreement of the parties
thereto." Assuming as true Rudlin’s claim that Exhibit "7" failed to accurately reflect an intent of the parties to fix
the total contract price at ₱6,006,965.00, Rudlin failed to avail of its right to seek the reformation of the
instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed.
- Rudlin cannot invoke the exception under (a) or (b) of the above provision. Such exception obtains only where
"the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of
the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding
them when they entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper
interpretation of the instrument.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
1. INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. — The language of a writing is to be interpreted according
to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.
2. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISION
Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, where there are
several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
3. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISION
Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to
the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
4. INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCE
Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under
which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be
placed in the position of those who language he is to interpret.
5. PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so
used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.
6. WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED
Section 15. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and
the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
7. EXPERT AND INTERPERETERS TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING CERTAINT WRITINGS
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. — When the characters in which an instrument is
written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in
deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.
8. OF TWO CONSTRUCTION, WHICH PREFERRED
Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. — When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense
by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when
different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in
whose favor the provision was made.
9. CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL RIGHT
Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of
natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
10. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO USAGE
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its
true character.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
 People v Rodel Singson
- Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must not only come from credible lips but must be credible in substance. A story
that defies reason and logic and above all runs against the grain of common experience cannot persuade. Here, the
prosecutions account failed to pass these tests.
- With the inconsistencies and incompatibilities of the statement, the court unable to see the unfiltered truth and
concluded that the evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused, hence
the court ordered the immediate release of Singson.
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS
 AFP-RSBS v Republic
- However, there is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present some form of
authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. No law or jurisprudence would support the
conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such
witness. All that the Rules require of a witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided therein. . Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides: Section 20, Except as provided in the
next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others,
may be witnesses.
- The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those
mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the construction of statutes that an express
exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes other exceptions.
- Ms. Aban is qualified to testify as a witness for the petitioner since she possesses the qualifications of being able to
perceive and being able to make her perceptions known to others. Furthermore, she possesses none of the
disqualifications described above.
 PP v Aleman
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and
appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate
their ideas through a qualified interpreter. Thus, the accused was convicted on the basis of the testimony of a deaf-
mute.
- The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with others but he/she may still
communicate with others in writing or through signs and symbols and, as in this case, sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute is
competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those
observations known to others.
- When a deaf-mute testifies in court, “the manner in which the examination of a deaf-mute should be conducted is a
matter to be regulated and controlled by the trial court in its discretion, and the method adopted will not be reviewed
by the appellate court in the absence of a showing that the complaining party was in some way injured by reason of the
particular method adopted.”
- In this case, both the trial and the appellate courts found that Mark understood and appreciated the sanctity of an oath
and that he comprehended the facts he testified on. This Court sees no reason in ruling otherwise.
 People v Conrado Laog y Ramin

- It must be underscored that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the
findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for
rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
- Thus we have ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative
in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private
complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.
 People if the Philippines v Julieto Sanchez

- Even if there had been no lacerations of the hymen, it does not necessarily mean that there was no rape. A broken
hymen is not an essential element of rape. The merest introduction of the male organ into the labia of pudendum is
sufficient. The mere penetration of the penis by the entry thereof into the labis majora of the female organ, even without
rupture of the hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction of rape.
- With regards to the degree of alibi of the accused, the court ruled that alibi is inherently a weak defense because it is to
fabricate and difficult to disprove it. For alibi to be believed, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the
accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable
- What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.
 Rolito Rabanal v People and CA

- Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than corroborative testimonies.
- In the instant case, the autopsy report negates the lone witness’s account of the participation of petitioner in the
stabbing of the victim. The inconsistency between the positive testimony of Javier and the physical evidence,
particularly the autopsy report, further diminishes the credibility of the lone eyewitness.
- The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we cannot sustain
petitioner’s conviction.
 PP v Renandang Mamaruncas et., Al
- Credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies.

- The perceived inconsistency on whether Gepayo knows Ampuan even before the incident is inconsequential as to
discredit the credibility of Gepayo’s testimony. The inconsistency pointed out by appellants pertains only to collateral or
trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. In fact, it even signifies that the witness was
neither coached nor was lying on the witness stand.
- What matters is that there is no inconsistency in Gepayo’s complete and vivid narration as far as the principal
occurrence and the positive identification of Ampuan as one of the principal assailants are concerned
- The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do
not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the
assailant."
- Discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused.
Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not
purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Thus, our rulings
generally consider sworn statements taken out of court to be inferior to in court testimony
- The evidence at hand, moreover, clearly points out that it was the police officers who supplied the names of the
suspects in Gepayo’s affidavit
a. Wintesses; their qualifications
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can
perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification.
 People v Pardua
- As long as a person is qualified to become a witness, he may be presented as one regardless of whether
his name was included in the information or not.
- It is well settled that the findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given
the clear advantage of a trial judge over an appellate magistrate in the appreciation of testimonial
evidence. It is well-entrenched that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. These are the most significant factors in
evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing the truth. In the absence of any showing that the
trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, we are bound by its assessment.
- Mere relationship of Orlando and Juanito to the victim does not automatically impair their credibility as to
render their testimonies less worthy of credence where no improper motive may be ascribed to them for
testifying. In fact, a witness' relationship to a victim, far from rendering his testimony biased, would even
render it more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to
accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
 People v Hayag
- The general rule is that the evidence of a deaf mute who can be communicated with the signs may
be taken by an interpreter who understands such.
- Deaf mute is not incompetent as witness. All persons who can perceive and perceiving can make
known their perception to others may be witness. Deaf mutes are competent witnesses where they:
 Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath

 Can comprehend the facts they are going to testify on.
 Can communicate their ideas through a qualied interpreter
- The case for the prosecution was irreparably impaired by the inconsistencies committed by the
complainant’s mother, Mrs. Ranga. She first swore that according to her interpretation of Ezperanza’s
language, five rapes were admitted on different dates.
- Hence, such inconsistencies in interpretation and testimonies acquitted Hayag.
 People v Sasota
- Aside from the inherent weakness of alibi as a defense, the appellants were clearly identified by no less
than four witnesses as the persons who took away the victim from his home and liquidated him.
- In a case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to recover the body or to show where it can be found.
There are cases like death at sea, where the finding or recovery of the body is impossible. It is enough that
the death and the criminal agency causing it be proven. There are even cases where said death and the
intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be presumed or established by circumstantial
evidence.
- To establish the corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence, facts are admissible, to show the impossibility of
rescue, as at sea; to show the existence and extent of wounds, and deceased’s condition of health; and
to show that the wound was sufficient to cause death, and that the party was reported dead. Death is
sufficiently shown by the testimony of a witness that he saw the flash and heard the report, and that the
deceased fell to the ground, declaring he was shot, and that accused did the shooting."
 People v Cabanilla
- The sweetheart defense is much abused defense that rashly decides the intelligence of the Court. Being
an affirmative defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof. In case,
apart form his self- serving asserions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient and ocnvincing evidence to
substantiate his claim that they were lovers and to overcome AAA's spontaneous and credible testimony
buttressed by the medico legal findings.
- Bilag's lack of knowledge of Englisd is not an excuse for he could have easily relayed such important piece
of information in Ilocano. (Bilag's testimony was he saw AAA and Cabanilla copulated with each other in
the middle of the rice fileds and thereafter went on their way walking side-by-side and laughing)
- The Court found the story of Cabanillas witnesses wanting of convincing and credible corroboration,
b. Disqualification of Witness by reason of Mental Incapacity
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others;
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.
 People v Golimlim
- That Evelyn is a mental retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor render her testimony bereft of
truth. Sections 20 and 21 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the qualifications and
disqualifications of a witness, respectively.
- the Court held that a mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a
witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that
intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a
witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified
to. If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.
- A mental retardation or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental
condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness,
no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the
latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
 People v Ben Rubio

- When it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence.[14] The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses deportment
and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate
testimonial evidence properly
- In deciding rape cases, the court are guided by these three well-entrenched principles:
 (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to
disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the
prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.
- As a result of these guiding principles, the credibility of the victim becomes the single most
important issue
- Furthermore, it bears stressing that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for youth
and immaturity are badges of truth. The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict. The
complainant’s testimony if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things may suffice to support a conviction of rape.
- This Court finds that the testimony of AAA is straightforward and convincing with no inconsistency with
regard to the material elements of the crime of rape.
-
 The qualifications and disqualifications of the witnesses are determined as of the time said witnesses are produced for
examination in the court or the taking of their depositions.
 A witness who has interest in the subject of the litigation does not disqualify him from testifying except those covered under the
Dead Man Statute or Survivorship Disqualification.
 A defendant who was declared in default does not disqualify him from testifying for his non-defaulting co-defendant although he
has interest in the outcome of the case.
 Unless otherwise provided under the law, a person convicted of a crime is not disqualified but he must answer to the fact of a
previous final conviction as taken into consideration in affecting his credibility, except in cases of falsification of document, perjury
or false testimony.
 The phrase “unsound mind” which affects the competency of the witness includes any mental aberration, whether organic or
functional, or induced by drugs or hypnosis.
 Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time the fact to be testified to occurred affects only his credibility. As long as the witness
can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficient intelligent answers to questions, she is competent witness even if she is
feeble-minded or schizophrenic.
 Deaf-mute are competent witnesses when they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of oath, can comprehend the facts
they are going to testify and can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
 A child witness, to be competent, the following must ne satisfied:
a. At the time the fact to be testified to occurred such that he could receive correct impressions;
b. Comprehend the obligation of an oath; and
c. Relate those facts truly at the time he is offered as a witness.
 Unless he child’s testimony is punctured with serious inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that he is coached, if he perceive
and make known his perception, he is considered a competent witness. Once it is established that they truly understand the
nature and character of an oath, full faith and credit should be given to their testimony.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 A child who witnessed a crime when he was 7 years old and testified when he is 15 years old is considered as a competent
witness.
c. Disqualification by reason of Marriage
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
 People v Roberto Pansensoy

- We reiterate the time tested doctrine that a trial courts assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled
to great weight even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence.[14] The alleged flaws in the testimony of Analie do not serve to
impair her credibility or diminish the truthfulness of her remarks as to who initiated the aggression and fired
the shot.
- As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analies testimony would have been disregarded had appellant timely
objected to her competency to testify under the marital disqualification rule. Under this rule, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants.[19] However, objections to the competency of
a husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in the case of
other witnesses generally.
- The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a
witness.[21] In this case, the incompetency was waived by appellants failure to make a timely objection to
the admission of Analies testimony.
- Rogelio was presented to corroborate Analies testimony, but he gave a rather confusing account of what
he allegedly saw or heard on the night of the shooting. During his direct examination, he claimed that he
heard a gunshot, but on cross-examination he claimed that he opened the door of his house and actually
saw appellant shoot Hilario. Thus, it is well-settled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and
positive, is sufficient to convict an accused.[22] On the other hand, a plea of self-defense cannot be
justifiably appreciated, if it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also
extremely doubtful by itself[23] as in the instant case.
-
 Lezama v Rodriguez
- Because of the unexpensive wording of the rule which provides merely that the wife cannot be examined
"for or against her husband without his consent," it is further argued that "when husband and wife are
parties to an action, there is no reason why either may not be examined as a witness for or against himself
or herself alone," and his or her testimony could operate only against himself or herself.
- Even if such view were generally acceptable as an exception to the rule, or even as a separate doctrine,
it would be inapplicable in this case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a
third person, and the evident purpose of examination of the wife is to prove that charge
- It was argued that she may be compelled to testify but her testimony would be receivable only against
her. It is even suggested that "each may testify in his or her own behalf, although the testimony may inure
to the benefit of the other spouse, or against his or her own interest, although the testimony may also
militate against the other spouse." On the other hand, it is insisted that compelling Paquita Lezama to
testify will transgress section 20(b) of Rule 130, especially if her testimony will support the plaintiff's charge.
- What was alleged was fraudulent conspiracy, the wife is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness
on the bases of her participation in the alleged fraudulent scheme (as secretary, who made the entry in
the books of the corporation.
- She will be asked to testify on what actually transpired during the meeting. Whether her testimony will turn
out to be adverse or beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her
husband. The interests of the 2 are necessarily interrelated. A testimony against her own interest would
show the existence of collusive fraud and she may unwittingly testify against the interests of her husband.
- as an exception to the rule (based on the wording of the rule) was that there was no reason why either of
them may not be examined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone. Even if this was acceptable,
it would be inapplicable in this case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a
third person, and the evident purpose of examination was to prove the charge.
- Finally it was alleged that to prevent the wife from testifying would encourage alliance of husband and wife
as an instrument of fraud (best way of preventing discovery since co-conspirator is made immune to the
most convenient mode of discovery available to the opposite party). Thus, Sec. 6 of rule 132 is a mere
concession, that rule of discovery should not be expanded in meaning or scope as to allow examination
of one's spouse in a situation where this natural repugnance obtains.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Alvarez v Ramirez
- Even if the spouses are still legally married but their relationship is already strained, the marital disqualification
rule or spousal immunity does not apply, and therefore, the wife may testify against his husband. The reason
for this rule is that, when the spouses are already estranged, there is no more domestic peace to preserve.
- the marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil actions between the spouses and in
criminal cases for offenses committed by one against the other. Where the marital and domestic relations
are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.
- the offense of arson attributed to petitioner, directly impairs the conjugal relation between him and his wife
Esperanza. His act, as embodied in the Information for arson filed against him, eradicates all the major
aspects of marital life such as trust, confidence, respect and love by which virtues the conjugal relationship
survives and flourishes.
 MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE or SPOUSAL IMMUNITY, for this to be applied, it is necessary that the marriage is valid and existing
at the time of offer of testimony, and that the other spouse is a party to the action, the objections to the competency can be
waived. Hence, where the accused husband in his testimony imputed the commission of the crime to his wife, is deemed to have
waived his objection to the latter’s testimony in rebuttal.
 In prosecution of the husband for rape of their daughter, the wife is not disqualified to testify for the prosecution since the crime is
considered having been committed against the wife and conjugal harmony sought to be protected by this rule no longer exist.
Now, it is also applied to crimes committed against the direct ascendants and descendants of the other.
 EXCEPTION to the Marital Disqualification rule is where the wife was a complainant against her husband for falsification of her
signature in the deed involving their conjugal property.
 Where a wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her and her husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as an adverse
party witness under Section 10 of Rule 132, as this will violate the marital disqualification rule.
 In Alvares vs. Ramirez, the wife, without the consent of the husband, testified against him in prosecution for arson committed by
him on the property of his sister-in-law or sister of the wife. The court noted that Section 22 of Rule 130 is limited to crimes
committed against the other or the latter’s direct ascendant or descendant.
o The rationale for this marital disqualification is the identity of the interests between spouses, the consequent danger of
perjury, the legal policy on guarding marital confidence and preventing domestic disunion. However, where marital and
domestic relations are so strained, the rule does no longer apply.
o When the offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to
the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in criminal prosecution for the crime committed by
one against the other.
d. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind.
 Known as DEAD MAN STATUTE or SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION (DMS). This is a partial disqualification as the witness is not
completely disqualified but is prohibited to testify matters specified. This applies to civil case or special proceeding over the estate
of the deceased.
 For DMS to be applied:
a. The witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff, or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted;
 EXCEPTIONS: (DMS cannot be applied)
 The plaintiff is not a real party in interest;
 There is a counterclaim interposed by defendant as plaintiff
b. The case is AGAINST the executor or administrator or other representative of a person deceased or of unsound mind;
 Defendant is sued and defends in such representative capacity.
 Even if the property has already been judicially adjudicated to the heirs, it is still protected by this rule against
such prohibited testimony as they are considered as representative of the deceased.
 The rule still applies regardless of whether the deceased died before or after the suit against him is filed,
provided he is already dead at the time the testimony is sought to be given.
 The protection extends to the heirs of the deceased defendant who are substituted under Section 16 or Rule 3,
and the guardians of persons of unsound mind in representative capacity.
c. Case is upon a claim or demand against the ESTATE of such person who is deceased or of unsound mind; and
 The rule does not apply where it is the administrator who brings an action to recover property allegedly
belonging to the estate, or the action is by the heirs of a deceased plaintiff who were substituted for the latter.
d. The testimony to be given is on the matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceased person or before such
person became of unsound mind.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 It includes any matter of fact which bears a transaction or communication between the witness and the
decedent, even though without the presence or participation of the latter.
 Negative testimony, a testimony that the fact did not occur during the lifetime of the deceased, are not
covered by prohibition.
 The testimony on the present possession by witness of a written instrument signed by the deceased is also not
covered by the prohibition.
 In land registration cases instituted by deceased representative, prohibition does not apply, as the oppositors
are considered defendants and may testify against the petitioner.
 This prohibition does not also apply to cadastral cases since there is no defendant or plaintiff.
 The purpose of this rule is to discourage perjury and protect the estate from fictitious claims, the prohibition does not apply, even if
all four requisites are present, where the testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written
document, or is intended to prove a fraudulent transaction of the deceased, provided that such fraud is established by evidence
aluinde.
 The disqualification under this rule is waived if the defendant:
a. does not timely object to the admission of such evidence;
b. testifies on the prohibited matters; or
c. cross examine thereof.
 Sunga-Chan v. Chua
- The “Dead Man’s Statute” provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own contradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.
- Lilibeth filed a compulsory counterclaim against Lamberto in their answer before the RTC, and with
the filing of their counterclaim, Lilibeth herself effectively removed this case from the ambit of the
“Dead Man’s Statute”.
- Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estate
that sets up the counterclaim, Lamberto, may testify to occurrences before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, Lamberto is not
disqualified from testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the death of the deceased, said
action not having been bought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased.
- The testimony of Josephine is not covered by the “Dead Man’s Statute” for the simple reason that she
is not “a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted”.
- Lilibeth’s reliance alone on the “Dead Man’s Statue” to defeat Lamberto’s claim cannot prevail over
the factual findings that a partnership was established between Lamberto and Jacinto. Based not
only on the testimonial evidence, but the documentary evidence as well, they considered the
evidence for Lamberto as sufficient to prove the formation of a partnership, albeit an informal one.
 Tongco vs Vianzon
- The Code of Civil Procedure in section 383 (7) provides that "Parties or assignors of parties to an
action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or proceeding is prosecuted against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person . . . upon claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person . . ., cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death and purpose of this stature is to guard against the temptation to give
false testimony in regard to the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party. The law
designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not designed to suppress the truth.
- The law does not apply and a witness is competent to testify when the actions were not brought
"against" the estate, nor were they brought upon claims "against" the estate. The authorities ate
cited and distinguished.
 Ong-Chua vs. Edward Carr

- “It is well settled that the condition upon which a deed is delivered in escrow may be proved by
parol evidence and that ordinarily the statute of frauds has no application to such an
agreement, nor is it affected by the rule of evidence, which prohibits a written contract from
being contradicted or varied by parol evidence”
- It is also well established that an escrow delivered without authority or obtained fraudulently
passes no title
- section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars parties to an action or proceeding against
an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person upon a claim ore
demand against the estate of such deceased person from testifying as to any matter of fact
occuring before the death of such deceased person.
- In this case a number of credible witnesses testified to facts which conclusively showed that Carr's
conduct was tainted with fraud. The plaintiff did not take the witness stand until after the
existence of fraud on the part of Carr and been established beyond a doubt and not by a mere
preponderance of evidence. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that the trial court erred in
not excluding the plaintiff's testimony.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
e. Disqualification by reason of Privileged communication
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him,
or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient,
be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending
such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession
made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which
the minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
 Emma K Lee v CA
- The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to “direct” ascendants and descendants, a family tie
connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother
NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:
 Objections under this rule can be invoked only the persons protected thereunder and may be waived by the same person either
expressly or impliedly.
a. Husband and Wife
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
 Requisites:
1. There was a VALID marital relation;
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to confidential communication between the spouses
DURING marriage; and
3. The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has NOT GIVEN his or her CONSENT
 Privilege cannot be claimed with respect to communications made prior to the marriage of the
spouses.
 It cannot also be invoked where it was not intended to be kept in confidence by the spouse who
received the same (like dying declaration of husband to his wife as to who is the assailant) which
communication is intended to be reported to the authorities.
 The privilege is lost if the communication is overheard or comes into the hands of a third party, such 3 rd
party cannot testify thereon.
 It is necessary however that there be no collusion with voluntary disclosure by either spouse to 3rd
person, otherwise the latter be considered as agent of the spouse and would be thereby covered by
the prohibition.
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION (Sec. 22, Rule 130) MARITAL PRIVILEGE (Sec. 25, par. a, Rule 130)
Can be invoked only if one of the spouses is a Can be invoked whether or not a spouse is a
party to the action party to a case
Applies only if the marriage is existing at the time Can be claimed even after the marriage has
the testimony is offered been dissolved
Constitutes a total prohibition against testimony Applies only to the confidential communication
for or against the spouse of the witness between spouses
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Even if the communication between spouses is not confidential, hence not privileged, the spouse who is a party to the action can
prevent the other spouse from testifying against him under the marital disqualification rule.
b. Attorney and Client
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can
an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
 Gregorio R. Castillo v SandigangBayan and the RP
- The attorney-client privileged communication does not apply if the confidence received by an attorney is
for the purpose of advancing a criminal or fraudulent purpose.
- the rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a valid ground to dismiss a complaint
against a party. It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (Section 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
and may only be invoked at the appropriate time, such as, when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer
as witness, as when, having taken the witness stand, he is questioned on such confidential communication
or advice, or is being otherwise judicially coerced to produce, through subpoena duces tecum to
otherwise, letters or other documents containing the same privileged matter. What is clear from the
complaint is that defendant is being sued as principal defendant for being in conspiracy with the other
defendants in the commission of the acts complained of.
 Regala v Sandigangbayan
- The GENERAL RULE in our jurisdiction (as well as in the US) is that a lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
- EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: (1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing
the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s
advice. (2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. (3) Where the
government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name,
the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual of a crime, the client’s name is privileged.
- Other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule: (a) Content of any client
communication to a lawyer relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client
seeks legal assistance. (b) Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, since such revelation would
otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction.
- Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the ambit of
the privilege when the client’s name itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would
then reveal client confidences. In the case at bar, the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to
the general rule. (KP: Exception 1 & 3 above)
 People v Sandigangbayan
- It is well settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and a client may be privileged, it
must be for lawful purposes. Every communication between an attorney and client for criminal purposes is
conspiracy or an attempt at a conspiracy which is not only unlawful to divulge but must promptly be
disclosed.
- There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. The privileg e applies only if the
information was relayed by the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime. There reconing point is when
the communication was given, not when the lawyer was made to testify
- The privilege is not concerned to verbal or written communications made by the client to his attorney
but extends as well to information communicated by other means including physical acts.
- The acts and words of the parties, therefore, during the period when the documents were being falsified
were necessarily confidential since Paredes would not have i nvi ted Sansaet to hi s
h o u s e a n d a l l o w e d h i m t o w i t n e s s t h e s a m e e x c e p t u n d e r conditions of secrecy and confidence.
 Upjohn v US
- Work product prepared by lower and middle managers in preparation of litigation is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, even in instances of tax summonses.
- There is no exception for tax summonses, the work is still protected. Further, the work was performed under
the general counsel’s direction for the purpose of potential litigation.
 Requisites:
a. There is an attorney-client relationship;
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
b. Privilege is invoked with respect to the confidential communication between then in the course or professional
employment; and
c. The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony (extends to attorney’s secretary, clerk or stenographer
sought to be examined, both lawyer and client did not give consent)
 For the privilege to be applied, the attorney must have been consulted in his professional capacity, even if no fee has been paid
therefor.
 The preliminary communications made for the purpose of creating an attorney-client relationship are within the privilege. Thus, if
the communication were not made for such purpose it is nor covered in the privilege.
 The communications included in the privilege include verbal statements and documents or papers entrusted to the attorney, and
of facts learned by the attorney through the act or agency of his client.
 The privilege does not apply to communications:
a. intended to be made in public;
b. intended be communicated to others;
c. intended for unlawful purpose;
d. received from third persons acting in behalf or ad agents of client; or
e. made in the presence of third parties who are strangers to the attorney-client relationship.
 The period to be considered foe the application of the privilege is that date when the privilege communication was made by the
client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in
the future.
 A crime committee din the past or already committed by the offender and attorney is consulted is part of the
privilege.
 Those having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal act or furtherance thereof are not covered by the
privilege.
c. Physician and Patient
A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of
the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him
to act in capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
 Lim v Ca
- This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe full and
confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and
symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and
publication on the witness stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion,
and be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for
the general interest of the community.
- In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held
by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination,
interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the
hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings the
doctor obtained while attending to the patient.
- her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the
petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing
between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be
excluded. Also, Dr. Acampado never disclosed any information obtained from the petitioner
regarding the latter’s ailment and the treatment recommended therefore.
 Krohn v CA
- In failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make
such objection and, consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted.
- Thus, in Lim v. Court of Appeals clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be
successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (b) the person against whom the
privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person
acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the
information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e) the information was
confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation(formerly character) of the patient.
- In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify on a
document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed
prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the prohibition because his
testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the
patient and executed the report.
 Chan v Chan
- “The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the
patient’s consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation.”
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.— The following persons cannot testify as
to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
 (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without
the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient
- This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician, relate to him the history of
his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of
that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the
future to come to court and narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient might
prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk.
 Requisites:
a. The physician is AUTHORIZED to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
b. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by him in his professional capacity for purpose of
treating and curing the patient;
c. The information or advice or treatment, if revealed would blacken the reputation of the patient; and
d. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the patient is a party or not.
 The privilege extends to all forms of communication, advise or treatment and includes information acquired by the physician from
his professional observations and examination of the patient.
 It does not apply where:
a. Communication was not given in confidence;
b. Communication is irrelevant to the professional employment;
c. Communication was made for unlawful purpose, as when in is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime;
d. Intended to be made in public; or
 Under RULE 28 of ROC, the results of the physical and mental examination of a person, when ordered by the
court, are intended to be made in public, hence they can be divulged I that proceeding and cannot be
objected to on the ground of privilege.
 Results of autopsies or postmortem examinations are intended to be divulged in court, aside from the fact that
the doctor’s services are not for purpose of medical treatment.
e. There was waiver of the privilege either by provisions of the contract or law.
 Under Section 4 of Rule 28 of the ROC, if the party examined obtains a report on said examination or takes the
deposition of the examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other examination of said physical
or mental condition conducted or to be conducted on him by any other physician.
 Waiver of privilege by contract may be found in the life insurance policies.
d. Priest and Penitent
A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
 The disqualification requires:
a. The communication was made pursuant to a religious duty;
b. Must be confidential in character (under the seal of confession)
e. Public officers
A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to
him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
 The requisites are:
a. Communication was made to the public officer in official confidence; and
b. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such communication (like State secrets)
1. Executive Privilege
 Neri v Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
- The communications are covered by executive privilege

- The revocation of EO 464 (advised executive officials and employees to follow and
abide by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the
case of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of
legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of executive privilege. This is
because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings.
- The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of
inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such
as the area of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the President is the
repository of the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers.
Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the information relating to these
powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.
- Several jurisprudence cited provide the elements of presidential communications

privilege:
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-
delegable presidential power.
 2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a
close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an
advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
 3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that
may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information
sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
- In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege
on the ground that the communications elicited by the three (3) questions “fall under
conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials”
necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process” and, that “the
information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic
relations with the People’s Republic of China.” Simply put, the bases are presidential
communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or
foreign relations.
- The right to public information, like any other right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of
Article III provides:
 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
 Sereno v Committee on Tariff and Related Matters

- But the people’s right to information is not absolute. It is limited to matters of public
concern, and is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
- Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ
of mandamus. Firstly, the information sought must be in relation to matters of public
concern or public interest. And, secondly, it must not be exempt by law from the
operation of the constitutional guarantee.
- Court has already declared that the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to
information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information,
trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters. Equally excluded from
coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence, closed-
door Cabinet meeting and executive sessions of either house of Congress, matters
acknowledged as "privileged information under the separation of powers," which
include "Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-
door Cabinet meetings."
- Thus, executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of

information, not to categories of persons. What should determine whether or not
information was within the ambit of the exception from the people’s right to access to
information was not the composition of the body, but the nature of the information
sought to be accessed.
- The respondents are correct. It is always necessary, given the highly important and
complex powers to fix tariff rates vested in the President, that the recommendations
submitted for the President’s consideration be well-thought out and well- deliberated.
- CTRM was different from the Cabinet inasmuch as two of its members, namely, the
Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Chairman of the Tariff Commission,
were not members of the President’s Cabinet; and that the deliberations of the CTRM as
a body merely akin to the Cabinet could not be given the privilege and confidentiality
not expressly provided for by law or jurisprudence, most especially considering that only
by legislative enactment could the constitutional guarantee to the right to information
be restricted.
- the committee were not part of the President’s Cabinet was of no moment. What
should determine whether or not information was within the ambit of the exception
from the people’s right to access to information was not the composition of the body,
but the nature of the information sought to be accessed. A different holding would
only result to the unwanted situation wherein any concerned citizen, like the petitioner,
invoking the right to information on a matter of public concern and the State's policy
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
of full public disclosure, could demand information from any government agency
under all conditions whenever he felt aggrieved by the decision or recommendation
of the latter.
- In case of conflict, there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the
people and the interest of the Government to be protected. Here, the need to
ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the
free exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the
well-considered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive public
 DFA v BCA International

- A mere general allegation that the Court of Appeals has committed serious and
substantial error or that it has acted with grave abuse of discretion resulting in substantial
prejudice to the petitioner without indicating with specificity the nature of such error or
abuse of discretion and the serious prejudice suffered by the petitioner on account
thereof, shall constitute sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to dismiss outright the
petition.
2. Newsman’s Privilege (Editorial Privilege-RA No. 53)

- As amended by RA 1477, the publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which
was related in confidence to him, UNLESS the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.
- RULE 19.37. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal
by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals issued
pursuant to these Special ADR Rules may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition
for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth.
- There have been instances when we overlooked the rule on hierarchy of courts and
took cognizance of a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the
Regional Trial Court when it granted interim relief to a party and issued an Order
assailed by the petitioner, considering the transcendental importance of the issue
involved therein[35] or to better serve the ends of justice when the case is
determined on the merits rather on technicality
- However, in this case, the appeal by certiorari is not from a final Order of the Court
of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court, but from an interlocutory order of the Arbitral
Tribunal; hence, the petition must be dismissed.
3. Police Informers Privilege

4. Public Interest
 Banco Filipino v Monetary Board
- The Monetary Board may order the cessation of operations of a bank in the
Philippine and place it under receivership upon a finding of insolvency or
when its continuance in business would involve probable loss its depositors
or creditors. If the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm within 60
days that the bank is insolvent or can no longer resume business with safety
to its depositors, creditors and the general public, it shall, if public interest
will be served, order its liquidation.
- Under Section 29 of the Central Bank Act, the following are the mandatory
requirements to be complied with before a bank found to be insolvent is
ordered closed and forbidden to do business in the Philippines:
 (1)an examination shall be conducted by the head of the
appropriate supervising or examining department or his examiners
or agents into the condition of the bank; (
 2) it shall be disclosed in the examination that the condition of the
bank is one of insolvency, or that its continuance in business would
involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors;
 (3) the department head concerned shall inform the Monetary
Board in writing, of the facts; and (4) the Monetary Board shall find
the statements of the department head to be true.
 The examination contemplated in Sec. 29 of the CB Act as a
mandatory requirement was not completely and fully complied
with. The closure and receivership of Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, which was ordered by the Monetary Board on is
null and void.
-
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Where no public interest would be prejudiced, this rule does not apply.
 Under the Labor Code (PD 442), as amended, provides that all information and statements made at the conciliation proceedings
shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the NLRC, and conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding the matter taken up in the conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
TESTIMONIAL PREVILEGE
Testimonial Privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants,
children or other direct descendants.
 This is referred to as filial privilege in which it is not correctly as a rule of disqualification, as the descendant was not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against his ascendant but was actually a privilege not to testify.
 Under the NCC the descendants may be compelled to testify against his parents or grandparents if such testimony is
indispensable in the prosecution of a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (215)
a. Parental and Filial Privilege

 Emma K Lee v CA
- The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to “direct”
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A
stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother
 PRIVILEGE v SELF-INCRIMINATION
-The privilege against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person
to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him or her during a subsequent
criminal case. This right enables a defendant to refuse to testify at a criminal trial and,
according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "privileges him not to answer official questions put to
him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might
incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
-Confessions, admissions, and other statements taken from defendants in violation of this
right are inadmissible against them during a criminal prosecution. Convictions based on
statements taken in violation of the right against Self-Incrimination normally are overturned
on appeal, unless sufficient admissible evidence is available to support the verdict. The right
against self-incrimination may only be asserted by persons and does not protect artificial
entities such as corporations.
-A witness may refuse to answer questions or give documentary evidence only if the answer
or document would incriminate the witness. An answer is considered self-incriminating if it
would lead to criminal liability in any jurisdiction. The answer need only furnish a link in the
chain of Circumstantial Evidence necessary for a conviction
 IMMUNITY STATUTES
 USE IMMUNITY
-The use immunity statute allows the government to prosecute the witness using
evidence obtained independently of the witness's immunized testimony.
-Prohibits the use of the witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in any
manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness
-The witness can still be prosecuted but his compelled testimony may not be
used against him
 TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY
-Immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates
-The witness cannot be prosecuted at all
1. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Admissions and Confessions
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him.
 ADMISSION- is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavourable to the conclusion fir which he contends
or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
 Admission vs. Confession
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
Admission Confession
Is a statement of fact which does not involve an Is a statement of fact which involve an acknowledgement of
acknowledgement of guilt or liability guilt or liability
May be express or tacit Must be express
May be made by 3rd persons and, in certain cases, are Can be made only by the party himself and in some instance,
admissible against a party are admissible against his co-accused.
 In order for admission to be admissible the following must be concur:
a. Involve matters of fact and not of law
b. Be categorized and definite
c. Be knowingly and voluntarily made
d. Be adverse to the admitter’s interest, otherwise it would be self-serving
 Admissions may be verbal or written, express or tacit, or judicial or extra-judicial.
 A judicial admission is made in connection to a judicial proceeding whole extra-judicial admission is any other admission.
 A testimony by the accused in a case of parricide alleging that he was married to the victim is and admission against his penal
interest and can sustain his conviction eve in the absence of independent evidence to prove such marriage.
 Admission vs. Declaration
Admission Declaration
Need not be made against the proprietary or pecuniary Made against the proprietary or pecuniary interest of the party
interest of the party, although it will greatly enhance its
probative value.
Is made by the party himself and is a primary evidence and Made by a person who is either deceased or unable to testify
competent though he be present in court and ready to testify
Can be made any time Made ante litem motam
 A self-serving declaration is one which has been made extra judicially by the party to favour his interest and is NOT admissible as
evidence.
 Self-serving testimonies refers to the extrajudicial statements if a party which is being urged for admission in court.
 Where the statement was not made in anticipation of a future litigation, the same cannot be considered self-serving
 Flight form justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial evidence of guilt.
 Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence by means of destruction of documentary evidence or eloigment of witness are
admissible.
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an
offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
 As a rule an offeror of compromise in civil cases is not a tacit admission of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the
offeror, unless such offer amounts to an admission of liability, the offered compromise being directed only to the amount paid.
 In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is an implied admission of guilt.
 In violation of the internal revenue laws, offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence as the law provides that the
payment of any internal revenue tax may be compromised, and all criminal violations may be compromised except those
already filed in court and those involving fraud.
 Rape cases can be compromised by and offer to marry the victim, and in effect extinguishes the criminal liability
 An offer to compromise for a monetary consideration in rape cases is an implied admission of guilt.
 An offer of marriage during investigation is also an admission of guilt
 Criminal cases involving criminal negligence are allowed to be compromised and such offer of settlements is not an implied
admission of guilt.
 An offer to pay or the actual payment of the medical, hospital and other expenses by reason of the victims injury is not admissible
to prove civil or criminal liability.

Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided.
NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSION:
 This section is refers to the doctring of res inter alios acta rule
 Exceptions to this rule are as follows:
1. A 3rd person is a partner, agent, joint owner, joint debtor or has joint interest with the
party(SEC 29)
2. A co-conspirator (SEC 30)
3. Privy of a party (SEC 31)
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his
authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
NOTES BASE ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:
 For this exception to apply the following must be present:

1. That the partnership, agency of joint interest is established by evidence other than the acts
or declaration
2. That the act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership, agency or declaration;
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership,
agency or joint interest
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
declaration. (27)
 This rule applies to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party
adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to cross examine the declarant
 Admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator if:
a. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
b. The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy
c. The admission relates to the conspiracy itself
These however are not required in admissions during trial for the co-accused can cross examine the declarant.
 EJC made by a conspirator after the conspiracy had terminated and even before trial are no admissible against the conspirator
except:
a. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly agreed
b. The facts in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual EJC made by the co-conspirator after apprehension
c. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness
d. Circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s participation in the offense
 In order for EJ statements of a co-accused may be taken into consideration, it is necessary that the statements are made by
several accused, the same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been no collusion among said co-accused
in making such statements
Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter,
while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
 To be admissible the following requisites must concur:

a. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the declarant
b. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor-in-interest, while holding the title to the property
c. The admission in in relation to the said property
 The privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts mortis causa or by acts inter vivos
Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party
who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
 To be admissible the following requisites must concur:

a. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person
b. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
c. He must have understood the statement
d. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so if the statement was not true
e. The facts were within his knowledge
f. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material to the issue
 This rule applies where a person was surprised in the act or even if he is already in the custody of the police
 The rule does not apply if the statements adverse to the party were made in the course of an official investigation.
 Not applicable where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent, as where he was advised to remain silent by his counsel
Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Confession is a categorical acknowledgement of guilt made by an accused in a criminal case, without any exculpatory
statement or explanation.
 There can also be confession of judgement in civil case where the party expressly admits his liability
 Confession may be made in oral or in writing, and if in writing, it need not be under oath.
 EJC made and admitted prior to 1973 constitution are not rendered inadmissible
 A Confession may be made judicial or extrajudicial
 Judicial confession is one made before a court in which the case is pending
 Extrajudicial confession is one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.
 Confession to be admissible, it is necessary that:
a. It involve an express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt
b. Facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense
c. Must have been voluntarily given
d. There must be no violation of the right against sefl-incirmination
 Confessions are presumed to be voluntary and the burden in on the defence to prove that it was involuntary for having obtained
by violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or lenience
 Some circumstances thaw was held to be indications of the voluntariness of confession:
a. The confession contains details which the police could not supply
b. The confession contains details which could have been known only to the accused
c. The confession contains statements which are exculpatory in nature
d. The confession contains corrections made by the accused in his handwriting or with his initials and which corrected facts
are best known to the accused
e. The accused is sufficiently educated and aware of the consequences of his act
f. It was made in the presence of impartial witnesses with the accused acting normally on that occasion
g. There is lack of motive on the part of the investigators to extract a confession, with improbabilities and inconsistencies in
the attempt if the accused to repudiate his confession
h. The accused questioned the voluntariness of the confession only for the first time at the trial of the case
i. The contents of the confession were affirmed by the accused in his voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the
crime, as shown by his silent acquiescence thereto
j. The facts contained in the confession were confirmed by other facts
k. After his confession, the accused was subjected to physical examination and there were no signs of maltreatment or the
accused never complained to such.
 The inadmissibility if involuntary confessions has been justified on the ground that they are unreliable, or on the grounds of
humanitarian conditions
 The effect that an involuntary confession is nevertheless admissible if it contains the truth
 An involuntary confession is not admissible in evidence unless found true
 Confession made under the influence of threat or promise of reward is not admissible
 Involuntary or coerced confessions obtained by force or intimidation is null and void
 Where verbal EJC was made without counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault, the
same is admissible not under the confession rule but as part of res gstae
 When the accused was merely told of his constitutional right and asked if he understood what he was told, but never asked
whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights, his EJC is inadmissible
 EJC of the accused under custodial investigation and was merely prefaced by the investigator with a statement of his
constitutional rights, to which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, the same is inadmissible as his answer does not
constitute a waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by on when he signed the confession
 The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
 Where the confession was illegally obtained from two of the accused such are not admissible against them and to the third
accused which had no participation therein
 Any form of coercion renders EJC inadmissible
 If the accused made a second EJC after he was maltreated in order to extort the first confession, such second confession is only
admissible when it can be proved that he was already relieved of the fear generated by the maltreatment
 The EJC of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not acceptable against his co-accused except:
a. If the latter impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not questioning its truthfulness
b. If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without conclusions,
commonly known as interlocking confessions
c. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised of such confession
d. If they are charge as co-conspirator of the crime which was confessed by one of the accused and said confession
is used only as a corroborating evidence
e. Where the confession Is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-
conspirator
f. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant
g. Where the con-conspirators EJC is corroborated by other evidence of record
 Illegal confessions and admissions are inadmissible against the confessant or the admitter
 The doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree is not applicable to testimony or a confession obtained by an illegal arrest for such it
refers only to objects and not testimonial evidence.
 People v Bascugin
- When confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high
order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted
to do so by truth and conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the following
provisions of the Rules of Court:
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
SEC. 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. [Rule 129]
SEC. 26. Admissions of a party.The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him. [Rule 130]
SEC. 33. Confession.The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. [Rule 130]
 Cayetano Capangpangan v PP
- 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.” Clearly, petitioner cannot take a contrary or different position considering that he has made an
express admission of the Certification, which does not require proof and cannot be contradicted because there is no
previous evidence that the admission was made through palpable mistake. After admitting it, he cannot now assail that
said certification has not been properly identified. Besides, he has had several occasions to present proof that he was
licensed to possess firearms. Yet, even in this late stage he has not.
 Pp v Espanol
-appellant's act of pleading for his sister-in-law's forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to
compromise, which in turn can be received as an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130:
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
 Phil First Ins. Co. v Wallem Phils

- A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does
not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts [stated therein]. He
no more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. Therefore a failure
to answer such adverse assertions in the absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no
effect as an admission.
 Eduarte v People
- Basic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses credibility, are entitled to
great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the findings.
This rule, however, admits of several exceptions, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
e. Admission by Party
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
 Betty B. Laybayan v Bayani S. Samoy Jr

- An admission is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him. Admission against interest is governed by
Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
To be admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite;
(c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be
self-serving and inadmissible.
 Limos v Odones
- A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting
partys pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose
purpose is to establish said partys cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless, useless,
and a mere redundancy.
Verily then, if the trial court finds that the matters in a Request for Admission were already admitted or denied in
previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In
turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response to the request and thereafter, assume or even
demand the application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
-A party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall be deemed to have impliedly admitted all the
matters contained therein. It must be emphasized, however, that the application of the rules on modes of
discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. As such, it is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly
the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the modes of discovery, bearing always
in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice.
 The Learning Child Inc v Ayala Alabang Village Association

-As an exception to the Res inter alios acta rule, the act of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of
his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such
party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rules
apples to the act or declaration of other person jointly interested within the party. Here, Ayala Corporation is
jointly interested with AACA in an action to enforce the deed of restrictions.
 Narra Nickel Mining Corp v Redmont Consolidated Munes Corp

- As a rule, corporations are prohibited from entering into partnership agreements; consequently, corporations
enter into joint venture agreements with other corporations or partnerships for certain transactions in order to
form "pseudo partnerships."
The relations of the parties to a joint venture and the nature of their association are so similar and closely akin to
a partnership that it is ordinarily held that their rights, duties, and liabilities are to be tested by rules which are
closely analogous to and substantially the same, if not exactly the same, as those which govern partnership.
Thus, a joint venture agreement between and among corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since
the elements of partnership are present.
-By entering into a JVA, it makes sec.29 of Rule 130 applicable to the said corporation. Under such rule, by
entering into a JVA it makes a corporation to have joint interest to its partner.
f. Offer of Compromise not admissible
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence
against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in
evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible
in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
 People v Guada
-Appellants charge that the offers of compromise allegedly made by the parents of the appellant to Amalia,
and by the appellant himself to Amalias husband should not have been taken against him by the trial court,
even if sustained, will not exculpate him. To be sure, the offer of compromise allegedly made by appellant to
Amalia Loyolas husband is hearsay evidence, and of no probative value. It was only Amalia who testified as to
the alleged offer, and she was not a party to the conversation which allegedly transpired at the Hagonoy
Municipal Jail. A witness can only testify on facts which are based on his personal knowledge or perception.
The offer of compromise allegedly made by the appellants parents to Amalia may have been the subject of
testimony of Amalia. However, following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions
of his parents cannot prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it
shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the mother of the victim. They cannot be
considered as evidence against appellant but we reiterate that these errors are not enough to reverse the
conviction of the appellant
 San Miguel Corp v Kalalo

- In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence
against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
 People v Yparragurre
-“An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the accused or his
representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved.”
g. Admission by third party
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter
provided.
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
 Harold v Tamargo v Romulo Awinga, et. Al.,
- The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them The reason for this rule is
that :on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are
evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party
ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against
him. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court: Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy
is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the
conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against co-
conspirators provided that the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
confession Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators,
it is necessary that (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself (b) the
admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy. Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating
their constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.
h. Admission by co-partner or agent
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner,
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
 Narra Nickel Mining Corp v Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp

- Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and MBMI are considered to be partnerships,
then the CA is justified in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint venture,
MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur
i. Admission by conspirator
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
 People v Khadaffy Janjalani

- It is true that under the rule, statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only
when made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, if the declarant repeats the statement in court,
his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
conspirators.
j. Admission by privies
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding
the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
k. Admission by silence
An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and
possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
 Office of the Administrator v Bernadino

- Silence is admission if there was chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges
against her.
 Taghoy v Tigol
- An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute,
based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.
It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.
l. Confession
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in evidence against him. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
 People v Reyes
- an extra-judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as
corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accusedwe ruled that where the
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator,
that confession is receivable as evidence against a co-accused.
It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS extrajudicial confessions were independently made without collusion, are
identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They are, therefore, also
admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of
the latters actual participation in the commission of the crime. They are also admissible as corroborative
evidence against the others, it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other
than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. They are
what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that
extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof.
 People v Khadaffy Janjalani

- We must make a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial confession may
be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co-accused since
the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected
has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes admission implicating his co-accused was given
on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused
are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is
competent evidence against the latter.
 People v Hipona
- Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
voluntary and are admissible in evidence
 Tamargo v Awingan
-an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused
and is considered as hearsay against them
The reason for this rule is that: On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are
binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only
be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts
or conduct be used as evidence against him
 People v Sace
- a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay
rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
2. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Previous Conduct as Evidence
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge;
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
 This section is the second branch of the res inter alios act rule and applies to both civil and criminal cases. This is enforced in all
cases where it is applicable.
 The exceptions to the rule where the evidence of similar acts may prove:
d. A specific intent or knowledge
e. Identity
f. A plan, system or scheme
g. A specific habit
h. Established custom, usage and the like
 Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show knowledge or intent
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific
personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or
property.
 This section is merely an evidentiary complement to the rule of tender of payment by providing that said offer of payment must be
made in writing.
 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v Custodio
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- The fact that a person has committed the same or similar acts at some prior time affords, as a general rule, no logical
guaranty that he committed the act in question. This is so because, subjectively, a man's mind and even his modes of life
may change; and, objectively, the conditions under which he may find himself at a given time may likewise change and
thus induce him to act in a different way. Besides, if evidence of similar acts is to be invariably admitted, they will give rise
to a multiplicity of collateral issues and will subject the defendant to surprise as well as confuse the court and prolong the
trial.
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially to actions based on fraud and deceit, because it
sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person; it provides insight into such person's motive or intent; it
uncovers a scheme, design or plan, or it reveals a mistake.
- The general evidentiary rule is that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that one did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. However, evidence of similar acts may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.
 Boston Bank v Manalo

- Under Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, although such evidence may be received to
prove habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties.
Similar acts as evidence. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like any other facts. Courts must contend with the caveat
that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree
of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but
rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering party must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct
that might constitute evidence of habit. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must
be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind
of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion. In determining whether the
examples are numerous enough, and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of
response. After all, habit means a course of behavior of a person regularly represented in like circumstances. It is only
when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an inference of systematic
conduct that examples are admissible. The key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response or ratio of
reaction to situations.
o Similar acts as evidence

o Unaccepted offer
-Rape shield rule S6 of RA 8505 (Rape Victim Protection & Assistance Act)
“Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion
thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case.”
5. Testimonial Evidence
 Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded

 Melanio Mallari Y Liberata v People
-The Rule of Court provides (S36 R130)that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal
knowledge; otherwise their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay. Jurisprudence provides that
testimonial or documentary evidence are hearsay if it is not based on personal knowledge of the witness, but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence whether objected or
not has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence fall within any of the exceptions of the
hearsay rule.
- An unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because
the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the person to whom the statements
or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as witness to provide the other party to
litigation the opportunity to question its contents.
-Failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and no probative value. For it being an
hearsay evidence.
 People v Rex T. Canlas

- A deaf-mute gestured to him that someone had embraced the victim. However, Silva was not able to check the
veracity of the deaf-mutes claim because the deaf-mutes mother prevented him from further communicating with
Silva. The deaf-mute was not presented in court. Failure to present the deaf-mute results within the auspices of the
court renders such statement as having no probative value for it being hearsay evidence.
 Independent Relevant Statement

 People v Malibiran
Padayon lang. :D
MIDTERM EVIDENCE
- The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he
was told, or he read or heard the same. This is derived from Section 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, which
requires that a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of or comes from his personal knowledge, that is,
that are derived from his perception. Hearsay testimony may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has
learned.
The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof
is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to
the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. The witness who testifies thereto is competent
because he heard the same, as this is a matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove
either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof.
 Doctrine of Adoptive Admission

 Estrada v Desierto
- AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION IS A PARTY’S REACTION TO A STATEMENT OR ACTION BY ANOTHER PERSON WHEN IT IS
REASONABLE TO TREAT THE PARTY’S REACTION AS AN ADMISSION OF SOMETHING STATED OR IMPLIED BY THE OTHER
PERSON. Jones explains that the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made.” To use the blunt
language of Mueller and Kirkpatrick, “this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common sense.” In the
Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him
as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to
advise petitioner to consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner did not object to the suggested
option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related suggestions
can be taken as an admission by him.
 RP v Kenrick Dev’t Corp

-A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify another’s statement. Where it appears that a
party clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another, evidence of those statements
is admissible against him. This is the essence of the principle of adoptive admission.
An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to
treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. By adoptive
admission, a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive
admission may occur when a party:
(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another;

(b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;
(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;
(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or she
has heard the other make or
(e) Reads and signs a written statement made by another.
Padayon lang. :D

Documentary Evidence: Padayon Lang.:d

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Documentary Evidence: Padayon Lang.:d

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MIDTERM EVIDENCE

Christian and Mitch notes

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSION:

 Republic v Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation:

 Philippine Hawk Corporation v Lee Re: Tan v OMC Carriers Inc.

 Guadines v Sandigang Bayan

Best Evidence Rule

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

 Air France v Carrascoso

 Nissan North EDSA v United Phil Scout Agency

Section 4. Original of document. —

NOTES BASED ON BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS

 People of the Philippines v Neil B. Colorado (rape)

 Surgar Regulatory Administration v Encarnacion B. Torman (COA Decisio; Receipt)

 Gulf Air v NLRC

NOTES BASED ON BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS: EXCEPTIONS

In written document, original document must be presented according to BER.

To present secondary evidence, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:

a. Due execution of the original;

The due execution must be proved through the testimony of either:

 SECONDARY EVIDENCE may consist: (IN ORDER)

2. WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL

1. Prove the existence of the original

 To prove reasonable notice:

3. RECORDS ARE VOLUMINOUS

 In RULE 132 (PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE), such document may be evidenced by:

PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT BOUND TO OFFER IT – as evidence

 RP v Marcos II cited in RP v Ma. Imelda “Imee” R. Marcos-Monotoc (Stenographic notes)

 Citibank, N.A Mastercard v Teodoro citing De Vera v Aguilar

 Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v Antonio Lagman

 Baguio Trinity Developers INc v The Heirs of Jose Ramos

 Vda. De Avenido v Avenido (Declaration of nullity of marriage)

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO 01-7-01-SC)

1. MEANING OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE; ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE

2. PROBATIVE VALUE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT; METHOD OF PROOF

3. AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE

4. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND THE HEARSAY RULE

5. AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE

- An electronic document should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided

NOTES FROM THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

The term "agreement" includes wills.

NOTES BASED ON THE BOOK AND DISCUSSIONS:

PAROL EVIDENCE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

1. EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS

 Inciong v CA (promissory note)

 Ortanez v CA (lost tiltle and in the custody of another)

 Financial Building Corporation v Bloomfield Educational Foundation, Inc., et. AL

 Modesto Leovera v Casimero Valdez

 Sps. Agbaba v Inter-Urban Developers Inc

 Dulce Pamintuan v People of the Philippines

 Permanent Savings Corporation v Velarde (Promissory Note)

 Pacres v Heirs of Ygona

Kinds of ambiguity and effects:

 STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ARTICLE 1403 CIVIL CODE)

 Sps. Lequin v Sps. Vizconde

 Financial Building Corp v Rudlin International Corp

1. INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING

2. INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO ALL PROVISION

3. INTERPRETAION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISION

5. PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS

6. WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED