Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Page 1 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
B. Admissibility • Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact did
or did not occur. This is entitled to greater weight since
Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility witness relates matters within his personal knowledge.
• Conditional admissibility - where the evidence at the time Sec. 1. Object as evidence
it is offered appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, • Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of
such evidence may be received on the condition that the the court.
other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence • Object evidence includes any article or object which may
will be stricken out. be known or perceived by the use of any of the senses –
sight (visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile), taste
• (gustatory), or smell (olfactory).
Curative admissibility - when a party offers an
inadmissible fact which is received because there is no • Documents may be considered object evidence if the same
objection by the other party. The other party does not are presented for the following purposes: (a) to prove their
acquire the right to introduce in reply to the same kind of existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings
evidence, except whenever it is needed for removing an thereon; and (b) to determine the age of the paper used or
unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the blemishes or alterations thereon.
the original evidence.
• Requisites for admissibility:
• ➢ When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
Direct evidence - refers to evidence that directly proves a
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
fact without need to make inference from another fact.
➢ Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and
rely on testimonial evidence alone if:
• (a) Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,
Circumstantial evidence - refers to proof of the fact or
morals or decency;
facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the
▪ But if viewing is necessary in the interest
existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
of justice, the evidence may still be exhibited but
necessary or probable consequence.
the court may exclude the public from such view.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 2 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
▪ Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
immoral object constitutes the very basis for the received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
criminal or civil action. witness' possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
(b) To require that it be viewed in court or in an ocular precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
inspection would result in delays, inconvenience and in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of not in the chain to have possession of the same (People of
such object; the Philippines v. Dalawis, G.R. No. 179128, 9 November
(c) Such object evidence would be confusing or 2015; People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November
misleading; and 2015).
➢ The rule on chain of custody under the Section 21, R.A.
(d) Testimonial or documentary evidence already No. 9165 and its implementing rules expressly demands
presented clearly portrays the object in question as the identification of the persons who handle the
to render viewing unnecessary. confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug
• Demonstrative evidence - is evidence in the form of a paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the
representation of an object. This is, as opposed to, real accused until the time they are presented in
evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at trial. court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating
Demonstrative evidence is useful in assisting a finder of fact evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
(fact-finder) in establishing context among the facts admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
presented in a case. sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
• Autoptic preference - in legal parlance, simply means a testimony about every link in the chain, from the
tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. moment the item was picked up to the time it is
(Balingit v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170300, 9 February 2007). offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision- who touched the exhibit would describe how and
makers will perceive using their five senses (Anderson, from whom it was received, where it was and what
Schum, and Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Ed.). happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition
in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
• Chain of Custody Rule – a method of authenticating These witnesses would then describe the precautions
evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This in the chain to have possession of the same.
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of
in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the seized drugs or other related items immediately
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 3 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
after they are seized from the accused. In this case, whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time
however, the records are bereft of any evidence, which these were seized from the accused by the arresting
would clearly show that the said plastic sachets were officers; turned-over to the investigating officer;
indeed marked in the presence of the accused. Nor forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their
was there any evidence as to the identity of the composition; and up to the time these are offered in
individual who brought the seized plastic sachets from evidence. For as long as the chain of custody
the police station to the PNP (Carlito Valencia v. remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the
People, G.R. No. 198804, 22 January 2014). procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of
➢ It would include testimony about every link in the chain, the accused will not be affected (People v. Ortega,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is G.R. No. 207392, 2 July 2014).
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from ➢ Although the Court has recognized that minor
whom it was received, where it was and what happened deviations from the procedures under R.A. No. 9165
to it while in the witnesses' possession, the condition in would not automatically exonerate an accused, we
which it was received and the condition in which it was have also declared that when there is gross
delivered to the next link in the chain. disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in
➢ In warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the the substantive law (R.A. No. 9165), serious
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at uncertainty is generated about the identity of the
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending seized items that the prosecution presented in
officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with the evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by simply
"chain of custody" rule (People v. Joselito Beran, G.R. invoking the presumption of regularity in the
No. 203028, 15 January 2014). performance of official duties, for a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural
➢ Although ideally the prosecution should offer a safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the
perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, performance of official duties (People v. Edaño, G.R.
"substantial compliance with the legal requirements No. 188133, 7 July 2014).
on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. This
Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting
officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements ➢ The failure of the prosecution to show that the police
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural officers conducted the required physical inventory in
lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized the place where the subject shabu was seized does
inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same was added in the implementing rules that "non-
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or compliance with these requirements under
innocence of the accused. In other words, to be justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
admissible in evidence, the prosecution must be able the evidentiary value of the seized items are
to present through records or testimony, the properly preserved by the apprehending officer/
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 4 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
team, shall not render void and invalid such (c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
seizures of and custody over said items." drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and examination; and
evidentiary value of the seized items which must be (d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
proven to establish the corpus delicti. drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No.
and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The 179344, 3 August 2011).
concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of
shabu was proven by the prosecution. The chain of ➢ As provided by the implementing rules and
custody does not appear to have been broken. The jurisprudence, strict compliance of the requisites under
recovery and handling of the seized drugs were Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded
satisfactorily established. As correctly found by the as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the
appellate court, "no ‘break’ whatsoever in the chain illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation
of custody of the prohibited drugs occurred. The can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence drug was unbroken. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr.,
presented by the prosecution established every link G.R. No. 179344, 3 August 2011).
in the custody of the prohibited drugs. This leads to
no other conclusion than that the specimen ➢ Testimony on perfect chain not required -- The
examined by the forensic chemist, which tested Supreme Court held that, “undeniably, a testimony about
positive for shabu, and which were presented as a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost
evidence during the trial, were the ones taken from always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is
accused-appellant during the buy-bust of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
operation." (People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, 23 and the evidentiary value of the seized items.” An astute
July 2014). perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 readily
reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be
➢ A buy bust operation is not invalidated by mere non- rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and
coordination with the PDEA (People v. Lafaran, G.R. No. evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
208015, 14 October 2015). preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Thus,
the supposed procedural infirmities alleged by
➢ Essential links in the chain of custody of seized Quiamanlon with regard to the custody, photographing,
illegal drugs: inventory, and marking of the seized items do not, in any
(a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal manner, affect the prosecution of the instant case and do
drug recovered from the accused by the not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her
apprehending officer; inadmissible (People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198,
(b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the 26 January 2011).
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 5 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
➢ Presentation of confidential informant not justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
indispensable -- The non-presentation of the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution’s preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
case. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
in the prosecution of drug cases. The failure to present over said items." The same provision also states that it
the informant does not vitiate the prosecution’s cause as must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
his testimony is not indispensable to a successful and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
prosecution for drug-pushing since it would be merely evidence have been preserved.
corroborative of, and cumulative with, that of the poseur-
buyer who was presented in court and testified on the ➢ Failure to sign the receipt- The fact that the Receipt/
facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty.
prohibited drug. (People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7 Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary
February 2011). value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-
appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs
➢ Failure to immediately mark seized drugs -- The does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the
failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
seized items have been preserved, as these would be same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of or innocence of the accused (People v. Punzalan, G.R.
the accused. What is essential is that the police officers No. 199087, 11 November 2015).
account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of
seized illegal drugs. (People v. Morales, G.R. No.
188608, 9 February 2011). ➢ Presumption of regularity, standing alone, cannot
defeat the presumption of innocence -- The
presumption that the police officers regularly performed
➢ Failure to take photographs and inventory the same is their duty cannot, standing alone, defeat the
not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of presumption of innocence of the accused. Generally, law
seized illegal drugs were preserved. In People v. Presas enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed
(G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the Supreme Court their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption
noted that the failure of the prosecution to show that the which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized
police officers conducted the required physical inventory presumption of innocence of the accused where lapses
and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect of this
said guidelines, does not automatically render accused’s lapse, as held in Lopez v. People, is to negate the
arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. presumption that official duties have been regularly
Notably, the implementing rules of the IRR provide that performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity
"non-compliance with these requirements under affects the whole performance and should make the
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 6 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No. ➢ a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless
193234, 19 October 2011). the same is an essential part of the cause of action or
defense.
➢ However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is
• Burden of proof and burden of evidence an essential part of the defense, such does not have to
➢ Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present be proven if it is only for the purpose of denying the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his existence of a document which would properly be in the
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by custody of the adverse party.
law. (Rule 131, Sec. 1). ➢ If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative
➢ Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by allegation or that a negative averment is an essential
means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie case. element of the crime - the prosecution has the burden of
➢ Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence is proving the charge.
transferred from one litigant to another depending on the ➢ Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct
progress of trial. proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the
knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests on
him.
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
• Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine
Civil cases – The burden is Both civil and criminal
on the party who would be cases – The burden lies ➢ Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or
defeated if no evidence were with the party who asserts there is doubt on which side the evidence
given on either side. an affirmative allegation. preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails
Criminal cases – The burden upon that issue. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
is always on the No. 115625, January 23, 1998).
prosecution. ➢ Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case,
neither side could establish its cause of action and
The burden of proof does The burden of evidence prevail with the evidence it had. They are thus no better
not shift as it remains shifts from party to party off than before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a
throughout the trial with the depending on the consequence thereof, the courts can only leave them as
party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the they are (Rivera, supra citing Municipality of Candijay,
imposed. course of the trial. Bohol v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530).
➢ The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory
The burden of proof is The burden of evidence is facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
generally determined by the generally determined by the explanations, one of which is consistent with the
pleading filed by the party. developments of the trial or innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
by provisions of law. his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfil the test of
moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
• Negative allegations
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 7 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
conviction. (Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and ➢ The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the
170518, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25). contents of a document (Rule 130, Sec. 3).
➢ The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of
a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be
B. Documentary Evidence introduced concerns external facts, such as the
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
• Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other invoked (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and Clave,
modes of written expression offered as proof of their G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).
contents (Rule 130, Sec.2).
• A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized
paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
(U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil 596) ➢ does NOT apply when:
• Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written (a) to prove facts collateral to the issues, such as the
instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds. (32 nature, appearance or condition of physical objects
CJS 475) or to evidence relating to a matter which does not
come from the foundation of the cause of action
• Requisites for admissibility: or defense; or
(a) the document must be relevant; (b) when a party uses a document to prove the
existence of an independent fact, as to which the
(b) the evidence must be authenticated; writing is merely collateral or incidental (Lee v.
People G.R. No. 159288, 19 October 1 2004).
(c) the document must be authenticated by a competent
witness; and
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced;
(d) the document must be formally offered in evidence. exceptions
• Meaning of original
Sec. 2. Documentary Evidence The following are considered originals of a document:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of
1. Best Evidence Rule which are the subject of inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at
• Best evidence rule, defined or about the same time, with identical contents, all
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, such copies are equally regarded as originals (Rule
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original 130, Sec. 4);
document itself (Rule 130, Sec. 3). (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the
• When applicable
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 8 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise • Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
equally regarded as originals (Rule 130, Sec. 4); Secondary evidence is allowed in the following instances:
(d) An electronic document shall be regarded as the (1) When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5) – there
equivalent of an original document under the Best must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by a. due execution of the original;
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data ➢ how to prove due execution:
accurately. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 1); i. testimony of person/s who executed
(e) Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document;
document is in two or more copies executed at or ii. testimony of the person before whom its
about the same time with identical contents, or is a execution was acknowledged; or
counterpart produced by the same impression as the iii. any person who was present and saw it
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or executed and delivered or who thereafter
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or saw it and recognized the signatures, or
by other equivalent techniques which accurately one to whom the parties thereto had
reproduces the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, previously confessed the execution thereof
Sec. 2) b. loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals;
and
• Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, copies or c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search
duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the for or attempt to produce the original.
original if:
➢ a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
➢ in the circumstance it would be unjust or inequitable to ✓ Secondary evidence which could be introduced after
admit the copy in lieu of the original. (Rules on Electronic proving unavailability of the original (in the order
Evidence, Sec. 2) stated):
i. Copy of said document;
ii. Recital of its contents in an authentic
Sec. 4. Original of document document; or
2. Secondary Evidence iii. Recollection of witnesses.
Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable ✓ Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for
the class and quantum of secondary evidence to
Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party’s establish the contents of a document, or bars
custody or control secondary evidence of a lost document, such
requirement is controlling.
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer
it.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 9 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
(2) When original is in adverse party’s custody or
control – requisites: 3. Parol Evidence Rule
a. Document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party; Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is
b. He must have reasonable notice to produce it; a public record
c. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he fails to produce the document, Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements
secondary evidence may be presented as in the
case of its loss. • The written agreement is already considered to contain all
the things agreed upon. Being a final agreement any
✓ Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as extraneous evidence or parol evidence is inadmissible for
where it is for the recovery or annulment of any of the following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or
documents wrongfully obtained or withheld by the (c) to add to the terms of the written agreement.
other party, no notice to produce said documents is
required. (Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor, • Parol Evidence refers to any evidence aliunde, whether
36 OG 3290) oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or
✓ A party who calls for the production of a document contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied
and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as in a document.
evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).
(3) When the original consists of numerous accounts or • Requisites for the application of Parol Evidence Rule
other documents which cannot be examined in court a. There is a valid contract;
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be b. The terms of agreement reduced to writing;
established from them is only the general result of c. There is an issue as to the terms of agreement;
the whole. (Rule 130, Sec. 3[c]). – requisites: d. The dispute is between parties and their successors in
a. the voluminous character of the records must be interest (Rule 130, Sec. 9).
established; and
b. such records must be made accessible to the • When parol evidence can be introduced:
adverse party so that their correctness may be tested A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
on cross-examination the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
• An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
(4) When the original is a public record written agreement;
➢ When the original of document is in the custody of • The failure of the written agreement to express the true
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued • The validity of the written agreement; or
by the public officer in custody thereof.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 10 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or agreements on the matter are merged therein. (De Guzman
their successors in interest after the execution of the v. Calma, 100 Phil 1008).
written agreement. (Rule 130, Sec. 9)
Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications • Minority, alone, is not a sufficient ground for disqualification.
Leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors,
• All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse
their known perception to others, may be witnesses (Rule (People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, 13 June 2011).
130, Sec. 20). Thus, a child may still be a witness as long as the
• Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the following are shown:
case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by (a) capacity of observation;
law, shall not be ground for disqualification (Rule 130, Sec. (b) capacity of recollection; and
20). (c) capacity of communication (People v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 113791, 22 February 1996, 254 SCRA 18).
• Competency vs. credibility of a witness
➢ A competent witness is one who is not excluded by law • Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility (People
or the Rules of Court from being a witness. v. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, 24 July 2013).
Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence. • Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event
➢ A credible witness is one who being competent to give testified to affects only his or her credibility. As long as
evidence, is worthy of belief (Black’s Law Dictionary). the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and gives
sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded,
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 12 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate
(People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 138805, 28 February 2001, • Estranged spouses
353 SCRA 228). The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged
spouses. Where the marital and domestic relations are so
strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason
based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a
• General Rule: During their marriage, spouses may not case, identity of interests disappears and the consequent
testify for or against the other without the consent of the danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec. 22). Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of
private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing
• Exceptions: but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void
➢ In a civil case by one against the other; or in the unhappy home (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439,
➢ In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against 14 October 2005).
the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity
of adverse party
• Requisites for spousal immunity • Dead man’s statute or survivor’s disqualification rule,
(a) Valid marriage; and where applicable
(b) Other spouse is a party to the action. ➢ cases against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person upon a claim or
• Waiver of spousal immunity demand against the estate of a deceased person; or
The objection to the competency of the spouse must be ➢ against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
made when he or she is first offered as a witness. Failure demand against the estate of such person of unsound
to make a timely objection is tantamount to waiver of mind (Rule 130, Sec. 23).
spousal immunity (People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634.
12 September 2002). • When not applicable
➢ Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, assignor
• Spousal immunity in cases where a spouse is jointly of plaintiff, or person in whose behalf the case is
charged with other accused: prosecuted. (Bajenting v. Bañez, G.R. No. 166190, 20
The testimony of a wife of an accused, when timely objected September 2006).
to, is inadmissible against the latter. However, the same may ➢ Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not
be admitted as against other persons jointly charged in said disqualified from testifying, for or against a corporation
case. (People v. Quidato, Jr. G.R. No. 140634, 12 which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand
September 2002). against the estate of a deceased person, as to any
matter of fact occurring before the death of such
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 13 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
deceased person. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No.
L-2016, 23 August 1949). • Dead man’s statute vs. marital disqualification rule
➢ When there is an imputation of fraud against the
Marital Disqualification
deceased which had been established beyond all doubt, Dead Man’s Statute
Rule
the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud.
The Dead Man’s Statute is not designed to shield Not completely disqualified Complete and absolute
wrongdoers and to render a plaintiff incompetent to but is only prohibited from disqualification.
testify to fraudulent transactions of the deceased (Ong testifying on the matters
Chua v. Carr, 53 Phil. 975; Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 therein specified.
Phil. 622).
➢ When the plaintiff is the executor, administrator or legal Applies only to a civil case or Applies to a civil or criminal
representative of the deceased, or the person of special proceeding over the case, subject to the two
unsound mind, the defendant or defendants are estate of the deceased or exceptions provided.
free to testify against the plaintiff (Tongco v. Vianzon, insane person.
50 Phil. 698).
➢ When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact.
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
(Mendezona v. Vda. de Goitia, 54 Phil. 557).
communication
➢ When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the
deceased (Icard v. Marasigan, 71 Phil. 419).
(a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)
➢ Testimony on transactions with agent of deceased or • The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage,
incompetent party (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et
cannot be examined without the consent of the other as
al., 144 SCRA 231).
to any communication received in confidence by one
• from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
How waived
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
➢ By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
matters (Marella v. Reyes, 12 Phil. 1).
descendants or ascendants.
➢ By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters.
(Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698). • Applicability:
➢ By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters.
➢ Scope of protection extends during or after the
(Arroyo v. Azur, 76 Phil. 493).
marriage. (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [a]).
➢ When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the
➢ Since the confidential nature of the communication is
representative of the estate or when counsel for the
the basis of the privilege, the same cannot be
representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to matters
invoked where it was not intended to be kept in
occurring during the deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v.
confidence by the spouse who received the same, as
Court of Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).
in the case of a dying declaration of the husband to
his wife as to who was his assailant.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 14 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Waiver of protection: • Requisites:
(a) Failure to object to presentation; or (i) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(b) Through any conduct that may be construed as (ii) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
implied consent (Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, communication between them in the course of, or
10 March 2006). with the view of professional employment;
(iii) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication. (Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v.
• Spousal immunity rule vs. marital privilege rule Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June 2010).
Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule • Persons covered:
Can be invoked only if Can be claimed whether or (i) The attorney;
one of the spouses is a not the spouse is a party to the (ii) The attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
party to the action. action. examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
Applies only if marriage is Can be claimed even after the which has been acquired in such capacity (Rule 130,
existing at the time the marriage had been dissolved. Sec. 24[b]).
testimony is offered.
• Waiver of protection
Constitutes a total Applies only to confidential ➢ The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-
prohibition against any communications between the Client Privilege Rule. If the client waives the
testimony for or against spouses. privilege, even his attorney cannot invoke it.
the spouse of the witness. • The Regala Doctrine
➢ General Rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his
(b) Attorney-client privilege rule client.
➢ Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that
• An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be revealing the name would implicate that person in
examined as to any communication made by the client to the very same activity for which he sought the
him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with lawyer’s advice; (2) When disclosure would open the
a view to, professional employment, nor can an client to liability; (3) When the name would furnish
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, the only link that would form the chain of testimony
without the consent of the client and his employer, necessary to convict (Regala v. Sandiganbayan,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996).
acquired in such capacity.
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 15 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege ➢ The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to
wit:
3. Admissions and confessions i. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be
(a) Res inter alios acta rule prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission
➢ The maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non of another, except as hereinafter provided
debet literally means “things done between (Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
strangers ought not to injure those who are not ii. The rule that the evidence that one did or did
parties to them” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., not do a certain thing at one time is not
1178). admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
same or similar thing at another time (Rule 132,
➢ Though some claim that partnerships and joint Sec. 34).
ventures are totally different animals, there are very
few rules that differentiate one from the other; thus,
joint ventures are deemed "akin" or similar to a
partnership. In fact, in joint venture agreements,
RULE 130, Evidence FEB 27 QUIZ CONCEPTS
Page 18 of 28
Source: RSE’s Esguerra Notes
• Exceptions: (a.k.a. “vicarious admissions”)
(b) Admission by a party (a) Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
(b) Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with
➢ Admission and confession, distinguished the party (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
(c) Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
(d) Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).
Admission Confession
Sec. 37. Dying Declaration • Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of
recovery -- It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to
• Dying declaration is an ante mortem statement or inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the
statement in articulo mortis. declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to
• Requisites: survive the injury from which he actually died. The degree
(a) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death
that fact; supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
(b) That the declaration refers to the cause and the victim's consciousness of his impending death (People v.
surrounding circumstances of such death; Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, 28 July 1987).
(c) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is
competent to testify to; • Mere gesture of a dying woman inconclusive -- The
(d) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a direction, when
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry (People v. asked for the identity of her assailant, is too vague to be
Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, 29 June 2010). given such probative value in determining the culpability of
the accused (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, 3 July 1987).
• It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid
succession of death that renders the dying declaration
admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5
September 1997).
8. Character evidence