Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
2. The very tenor of the definition clearly indicates that not every circumstance
which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is
considered evidence. To be considered evidence, the same must be
"sanctioned" or allowed by the Rules of Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by
law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in
issue. a hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused
and an evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights even if ultimately
shown to correspond to the truth, do not fall within the definition of Sec. 1 of Rule
128.
3. The definition provided for under Sec. 1 of Rule 128, significantly considers
"evidence" not as an end in itself but merely as a "means" of ascertaining the truth
of a matter of fact. Equally significant is the observation that "evidence" as defined
in the Rules of Court is a means of ascertainment of the truth not in all types of
proceedings but specifically in a "judicial proceeding."
4. Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware
of the veracity of the facts in a case. It is there• fore incumbent upon the parties
to prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence.
5. While the purpose of evidence is to know the truth, the truth referred to in the
definition is not necessarily the ac• tual truth but one aptly referred to as
the judicial or the legal truth. The limitations of human judicial systems cannot
al• ways guarantee knowledge of the actual or real truth. Actual truth may not
always be achieved in judicial proceedings be• cause the findings of the court
would depend on the evidence presented before it.
Under Sec. 34 of Rule 132, courts, as a rule, are not even authorized to
consider evidence which has not been for• mally offered. Thus, a supposed
evidence that would undoubt• edly show the innocence of the accused will not be
considered in the decision of the court if not formally offered in evidence. If it is
evidence to the contrary that has been formally offered, it is the latter which the
court is bound to consider or appreci• ate. For instance, while it may be the
actual truth that it was Mr. X who shot Mr . Y, if the available evidence presented
and admitted in court points to Mr . Z as the culprit, then the judi• cial or legal
truth is that it was Mr . Z, not Mr . X, who shot Mr . Y.
2. The rules on evidence, being components of the Rules of Court, applu only
to judicial proceedings9Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court). In relation to this, Sec. 4,
of Rule 1 Provides for the non-applicability of the Rules of Court, including
necessarily the rules on evidence, to certain specified prcoeedings. The Provision
declares
SEC. 4. In what cases not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registra• tion, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceed• ings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a character and
whenever practicable and convenient."
4. The Civil Service Commission for example, conducts its investigations for the
purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules of
procedure applicable in judicial proceedings. It was therefore, sustained by the
Supreme Court when it validly appreciated certain documents in resolving the
formal charge against respondent inspite of the fact that they wer e not duly
authenticated but the contents of which were not disputed by respondent and
whose only objection was that they were not duly authenticat• ed (Civil Service
Commission v. Colanggo, G.R. No. 174935, April 30, 2008).
5. Earlier, in In Ong Chia v. Republic (328 SCRA 749), the Court once again
emphasized that the rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case
involving a petition for naturaliza• tion. In Ong Chia, the Regional Trial Court
rendered judg• ment in favor of the petitioner's application for naturalization. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court and denied the
application for naturalization on the basis of documents not earlier
formally offered in the trial court, raised for the first time on appeal
and merely attached to the appellant's brief for the State. Petitioner
contends that under Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, only
evidence that has been formally offered shall be considered by the
court. Brush• ing aside petitioner's contention, the Court held that
the rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case
involving a petition for naturalization unless applied by analogy
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and conve•
nient.
6. A more recent case, Sasan Sr. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 176240, October 17, 2008),
further illustrates the rule on the non-applicability of the Rules of Court including the
rules of evidence, to non-judicial proceedings.
In the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised as one of the issues the
acceptance and consideration by the NLR C of the evidence presented for the first
time on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue is not a novel procedural
issue, and that Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases allowing the NLR C to
admit evidence, not presented before the Labor Arbiter, and submitted to the NLR C
for the first time on ap• peal.
7. In the Sasan case, the petitioners likewise inter• posed a protest against
the documentary evidence submitted by the adverse party because they were
mere photocopies
The Court, in dismissing the objection, stressed once again that even
assuming that petitioners were given mere photocopies, the proceedings before the
NLR C are not covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure as
observed in the regular courts. Technical rules of evidence do not ap• ply if the
decision to grant the petition proceeds from an ex• amination of its sufficiency as
well as a careful look into the arguments contained in position papers and other
documents (Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC, supra).
Here, the Court re• iterated previous rulings that the rules of evidence are
not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies where decisions
may be reached on the basis of position pa• pers only. The Court disregarded the
findings of the Court of Appeals which among others, considered the affidavits of
the petitioners as mere hearsay and thus could not be admitted in evidence
against their employers. The Court unequivocally ruled that in a labor case, it is not
necessary for an affiant to appear and testify and be cross-examined by counsel for
the adverse party on his affidavit.
1. The basic rule is that, a mere alleaation is not eevidence and is not equivalent to
proof. For example, a charge based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be
given credence( Agdeppa v. Office of the Obudsman, G.R. No. 146376, April 23,
2014).
e. not required when the rules presumes the truth of the fact. Rule
131 of ROC
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at
the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. This presumption is conclusive against the
tenant. (2b,Rule 131 ROC). Disputable presumption is offi cial
regularly performance of duty. (Sec. 3(m) Rule 131 ROC).
Section 2 of Rule 128 declares that the rules of evi• dence shall be
the same in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law
or these rules. To declare that the rules of evidence shall be the same in
all courts and in all tri• als and hearings, is not to say however, that
there are abso• lutely no distinctions between a civil and a criminal
proceed• ing. Indeed, there are certain evidentiary differences between
these proceedings.
B. Admissibilit y o f Evidence
2. ) In a prosecution for robbery, the wife of the accused testified that the
husband admitted to her in confidence that it was he who their neighbor. If the
testimony is offered as evidence against the husband and is objected to by the
latter, the testimonial evidence will be inadmissible virtue of a particular
provision of the Rules of Court which excludes it as specie of evidence
notwithstanding its obvious relevance to the issue of guilt (Sec. 24[a], Rule 130,
Rules of Court). Here the testimony is also relevant but incompetent.
3.) In a civil case for collection of a sum of money, the tes• timony of an eyewitness
to the transaction between the credi• tor and the debtor is competent evidence
because the witness would be testifying on the basis of his personal knowledge.
However, if the subject of the testimony includes the alleged frequent bouts
of dizziness of the debtor, that portion of the testimony is made inadmissible by the
fact that the matters testified to are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a debt
exists. In this case the testimony becomes irrelevant.
4. A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at
the accused without the provocation. The testimony of the eyewitness is
competent and the matters testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. The
testimony is thus, admissible. It is not only relevant but competent as well
5.) Upon a timely objection, oral evidence will be ex• cluded to prove a contract
of a sale of a parcel of land which does not conform to the statute of
frauds (Art. 1403[2], Civil Code of the Philippines). Even if the evidence is relevant
to the issue of existence or non-existence of the contract, it is inad• missible
because it is excluded by law hence, incompetent.
6.) Documents obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees although
containing relevant matters are inad• missible because they are illegally obtained
as when evidence is illegally seized (Sec. 3[2], Art. Constitution the Philip•
pines).
Relevant Evidence
The matter of relevance under the Rules of Court requires the existence of a
fact in issue. Necessarily, this fact in issue must be a disputed fact. Since
relevant evidence nec• essarily relates to a disputed fact, it is obvious that
evidence offered to prove an undisputed fact is irrelevant, and, as such, is
inadmissible. Where there is no issue as to a matter of fact, there exists no
purpose for an item of evidence.
It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes evidence either relevant or
irrelevant. If the evidence induces belief as to the existence or the non-existence of
the fact in is• sue, the evidence is relevant. If it does not induce such belief, it is
irrelevant.
Tak e the standard car accident as example. Counsel for the plaintiff
presents the testimony of another car driver to testify to the following: that the
defendant was driving at a speed of one hundred twenty (120) kilometers per hour
in a sixty (60) kilometer limit zone at the time plaintiff was side- swiped and injured
by the defendant. The witness claims he knows whereof he speaks because he saw
everything that transpired. Whether or not such testimony meets the test of
relevance will depend upon what counsel wants to prove by the testimony. Initially
of course, counsel would want to prove that at the time of the accident, the
defendant was driving way beyond the speed limit. This is the immediate fact
sought to be established. Since there is a traceable connection between the
substance of the testimony and the fact to be proven, the testimony is relevant. On
the other hand, if the testimony is offered to prove that the defendant is a thief,
the testimony has no logical connection at all to the fact sought to be proven.
Certainly, there is no connection between driving at a very fast pace and the
defendant's being a thief. The testimony is hence, irrelevant.
Relevance further requires that the immediate fact prov• en must have a
connection to the ultimate issue. In the car accident case just illustrated, assume
that counsel has estab• lished through the witness that the defendant was
driving way beyond the speed limit at the time of the accident. Estab• lishing such a
fact is not however, sufficient. This fact must be shown to be related to the
ultimate issue in the case. Now, the usual ultimate issue in every automobile
accident case is whether or not the damage caused to the plaintiff arose out of
the defendant's negligent operation of his car. The ques• tion that should
necessarily be asked is: Is the immediate fact proven, i.e., defendant's driving
beyond the speed limit, re• lated to the issue of negligence? If it is, then the fact
proven is relevant evidence. If it is not related to the issue of negligence, it is
irrelevant.
2. The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the offered
evidence is one that is perceived only by the mind without reference to a statute or
a rule. It is there• fore, a matter of reasoning. It is a matter of reasoning because
relevance is a matter of logic. Th e matter of relevance is a matter that is addressed
to the court. Th e case of People v. Galleno, 291 SCR A 761, is enlightening:
"There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the
determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discre
tion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and
everyday experience."
Collateral Matters
A matter is collateral when it is on a "parallel or di• verging line," merely
"additional" or "auxiliary" (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th 237). This term connotes
an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in
dispute.
2. For instance, the motive of a person and in some in• stances, his
reputation are matters that may be considered collateral to the subject of a
controversy. A very strong motive to kill the victim does not ipso facto make
motive relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with abso•
lutely no motive to kill could be the culprit. Evidence of the bad reputation of
the accused for being troublesome and ag• gressive does not make the
evidence admissible to prove his guilt. After all, the culprit could have been the
person with the most endearing reputation.
As a rule, evidence on a collateral matter is not al• lowed (Sec. 4, Rule 128,
Rules of Court). It is not allowed cause it does not have direct relevance to the
issue of the case. This rule however, is not an absolute rule. Ther e exists an
occasion when evidence on a collateral matter maybe allowed. Under the Rules of
Court, a collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Rules of Court). In other words, while the evidence may not bear directly
on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the tendency to induce belief as to the
probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have the
effect of corrobo• rating or supplementing facts previously established by direct
evidence.
Competent Evidence
If the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence
is the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is
incompetent. Com• petence is primarily therefore, a matter of law or a matter of
rule. Th e question as to competence is: Is the evidence allowed by the law or by
the rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is com• petent. If it is not allowed, it is
incompetent.
Imagine and assume for the sake of illustration that a rule of evidences has
just been adopted mandating that only documentary evidences to which have been
attached a yellow ribbon on the bottom right corner may be marked and admit• ted
in evidence. If the adverse counsel presents for identifica• tion and marking a
document to which had been attached a red ribbon, the document is to be
excluded because it is not competent. It is incompetent because the rule says
so regard• less of its demonstrable logical relation to the fact in issue.
Multiple Admissibility
1. There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more
purposes. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying
person may be ad• missible for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying
declaration (Sec. 37, Rule 130, Rules of Court), as part of the res gestae (Sec.
42, Rule 130, Rules of Court) or as a declara• tion against interest (Sec. 38, Rule
130, Rules of Court). Th e statement by a bus driver immediately after the collision
that he dozed off in the wheel while driving may be admissible as an admission
under Sec. 26 of Rule 130 or as part of the res gestae pursuant to Sec. 42 of Rule
130.
Sometimes it inadmissible for one purpose but ad• missible for another or
vice versa. For instance, evidence of a person's bad general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is objectionable if offered to prove that he committed the
crime charged but it may be admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness
under the authority of Sec. of Rule 132.
Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another.
An extrajudicial statement of a rob• bery suspect is not admissible against his co-
accused under the res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the
declarant himself as an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.
ARALIN/BASAHIN
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
2.) The facts from which the inferences are derived are and
3.) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a beyond
reasonable doubt .
2. Al l the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, and they
are to be taken together as proved. Being consistent with each other, and, taken
together, they must point unerringly to the direction of guilt and mere sus• picions,
probabilities, or suppositions do not warrant a con• viction (Underhill, Criminal
Evidence, 4th §18; People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009).
Cumulative Evidence and Corroborative Evidence
4. In People u. Rama (350 SCRA 266), the defense faults the trial
court for relying on a single eyewitness account in convicting the
accused Rama. The Court dismissed the argu• ment declaring that
it has long been held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is
suffi cient to support a conviction so long as it is clear,
straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.
Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are
reasons to suspect that the witness falsifi ed the truth or that his
observations are inaccurate (Mangangey u. Sandiganbay- an,
G.R. Nos. 147773-74, February 18, 2008).
The conclusion of the trial court that the warrantless ar• rest
was illegal and that ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental to
the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful was sustained by the
Supreme Court.
c. MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
The maxim falsus in unus, falsus in omnibus does not lay down
a categorical test of credibility. While the witnesses may differ in
their recollections of an inci• dent, it does not necessarily follow
from their disagree• ments that all of them should be disbelieved
as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless."
In People v. Pacapac (248 SCRA 77), the Court added that the
maxim
be applied to portions of the testi• mony corroborated by
other evidence, particularly where the false portions could be
innocent mistakes. Moreover, the rule is not mandatory but merely
sanctions a disre• gard of the testimony of a witness if the
circumstances so warrant. To completely disregard all the
testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have
been false as to a material point, and the witness must have
a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point."
****
Burden of Proof
Burden of Evidence
Presumptions
Concept of Presumptions
Kinds of Presumptions
Presumptions are classified into presumptions of law and
presumptions of fact. Presumptions of law are, in turn, either
conclusive or disputable (In the Matter of the Intestate Estates
and Rustia, G.R. No. 175733, January 27, 2006).
p.448
This mus be the reason for the trend to discard the distinction
between a presumption of fact and a presumption of law.
Effect of Presumption
The following are the conclusive presumptions un• der Sec. 2, Rule
131 of the Rules of Court:
Estoppel
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)
also establishes a presumption of negligence against the defendant
and furnishes a substitute for a specific proof of negligence. Th
e doctrine can be invoked only when under the circumstances,
direct evidence is absent and not readily available. For the doctrine
to apply, the following must be sat• isfactorily shown:
1. Th e accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
the absence of someone's negligence;
2.It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of
the defendant or defendants; and
3. Th e possibility of contributing conduct which would make the
plaintiff responsible is eliminated (Ra• mos v. Court Appeals, 321
SCRA 584; Macalino v. Ong, G.R. No. 146635, December 14,
2005).
Proponderance of Evidence
Substantial Evidence
. Judicial Notice
It was however, held that where the foreign law is within the
actual knowledge of the court,such as when the law is generally
weel-kown, had bee ruled upon in previous cases before it, and
none of the parties claim otherwise, the court may take judicial
notice of the foreign law. (PCIB vs ESCOLIN)
While courts may take judicial notice of its own acts and
records in the same case, as a rule, courts are not autho• rized
to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pend• ing in
the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge
(Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650;
8. The trial court properly took judicial notice that Cebu City
is an urban area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts
which judges may properly take and act on without proof because
they already know them. A municipal jurisdiction, whether
designated as chartered city or provincial capital, is considered as
urban in its entirety if it has a population density of at least 1,000
persons per square kilometer. The City of Cebu was created on
October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Ac t No . 58. It is a highly
urbanized city classified as entirely urban. Thus, all its barangays,
including Talamban, are considered urban Chiongbian v.
Repub• lic, G.R. No. 163118, April 27, 2007).
B. Judicial Admissions
Admissions by Counsel
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a
client (De Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129). Even the
negligence of counsel binds the client (Sarraga v. Banco Filipino
Savings & Mortgage Bank, 393 SCRA 566).
Chapter IV
A. Object evidence
Demonstrative Evidence
Demonstrative evidence is not the actual thing but it is
referred to as "demonstrative" because it represents or
demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly "real" evidence
because it is not the very thing involved in the case. A map,
a diagram, a photograph and a model, fall under this catego•
ry. This category of evidence is not separately defined in the
Rules of Court and appears to have been incorporated under the
general term "object"
The admissibility of this type of evidence largely de• pends on
laying the proper foundation for the evidence. Th e rule boils down
to one basic question: Does the evidence suf• ficiently and
accurately represent the object it seeks to dem• onstrate or
represent? If it does, the evidence would be admis• sible.
Photographs — Photographs of persons, things and places when
instructive to the understanding of the case, will be admitted in
evidence. For a still photograph to be admit• ted, the same must
be relevant and competent. It is competent when it is properly
authenticated by a witness who is familiar with the scene or
person portrayed and who testifi es that the photograph faithfully
represents what it depicts.
Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to tes• tify but
this view has been eroded by the tendency of modern courts to
admit as a witness one who has familiarity with the scene
portrayed (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 75).
Under the electronic evidence rules, photographic evi• dence of
events, acts or transactions shall be admissible in evidence
provided:
) It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the court;
and
) It shall be identifi ed, explained or authenticat• ed by either
) Th e person who made the recording, or by
) Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Electronic Rules of Evidence).
Th e admissibility of photographs is within the discre• tion of the
trial court, and its ruling in this respect will not be interfered
with except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. In
determining whether photographs should be admitted, a trial judge
must determine whether they are rel• evant, and whether a proper
foundation has been laid Am Jur Evidence, 2d §960; U.S v.
Analla, CA4 SC 975 F2d 119, cert den, U.S. 123 L Ed 2d
476 113 S Ct 1853; State v.
Ruebke, 240 Kan 493, 731 P2d 842, cert den 483 U.S. 1024, 97
L Ed S Ct 3272).
EXAMPLE :
Where do you work Mr. Witness?
I work in National Bank of the Philippines. Where is the bank
where you work located?
A: It is located in the corner of Guess and Rado Sts. in St.
Jude Village.
How long have you worked in that bank?
For the past ten years, Sir.
I am showing you a photograph. Could you identify this
photograph? Of course, Sir. This is a picture of the corner of Guess
and Rado Sts. in St. Jude Village.
How do you recognize it?
I've worked in this area for the past ten years and I have seen this
corner almost everyday.
Q: How accurate is this photograph?
A: It is an exact depiction of the place.
Chain of Custody
1. Th e third category refers to those objects which are not
readily identifi able, were not made identifiable or cannot be
made identifiable like drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form,
fiber, grains of sand and similar objects. Under this situ• ation,
the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of
custody.
Th e purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to guaranty
the integrity of the physical evidence and to prevent the
introduction of evidence which is not authentic (Lester v. State, 82
Md App 391, 571 A2d 897 cited in 29A Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §946)
Illustrations:
Q . Offi cer, you said you found a gun on the bed of the victim in
the morning of September 15, 2008 at around 9:00 A.M.?
A .I did, Sir.
Q. Would you please describe the weapon you saw?
A: It was a Colt Gold Cup Series, a five inch barrel, blue
finish, a black handle with wrap around grooves, and with the
initials, on the lower left hand side of its
Q; (After other questions) Would you be able to recog• nize the
gun if shown to you right now?
A: I would be able to recognize it, Sir.
Q: I would like to show you this gun. Will you please examine
it? (Witness examines the gun). What rela• tionship does this gun
have to the gun you said you found on the victim's bed?
A It is the very same gun, Sir.
Q How are you able to recognize this as the very same gun?
A It has the same characteristics as the gun I found in the
crime scene. The initials "P.M." are still here. Besides, it has the
same serial number in the barrel as the one I recorded in my
notebook and as I wrote in my offi cial report.
(Counsel now proceeds to have the exhibit appropriately marked)
If the object found by the police investigator was a knife
that has no distinguishing features, the examination would go
something like the following:
Q: Offi cer, you said you saw a knife in the victim's room?
A: I did, Sir.
Q: Would you please describe the knife you saw?
A: It was of the kind you normally buy in a wet market. It had a
brown wooden handle and a four-inch non- stainless blade.
Q: What did you do with the knife you found?
A: With my own Swiss knife I scratched my initials on the handle
of the knife then placed it inside the evidence plastic bag I always
carry with me.
Q Offi cer, after finding the substance you said you saw in the
closet of the accused, what did you do?
A :I placed the substance inside a plastic evidence bag then
sealed it with a sealer which our offi ce provides for the purpose.
The evidence bag has in its opening a special non-detachable
paper where you can write on after sealing the bag. I wrote my
name on it, the date, the name of the accused, his address and the
time I found it.
Q What did you do with it after that?
A: Following our internal procedures, I logged the evi• dence in
our evidence log book and handed it to the chemist in our crime
laboratory. He gave me a re• ceipt for it.
Q In what condition was the evidence bag when you handed it to
the chemist?
A It was sealed, Sir.
After the filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within 72
hours proceed with the inspection of the confi scated drug, and
through the PDEA shall wihin 24hrs proceed with the destruction of
the same in the presence of the accused the destruction of the
same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such
drugs were confi scated, his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and
any elected public offi cial.
DNA EVIDENCE
Paraffi n Tests
Paraffi n tests, in general, have been considered as inconclusive by
the Court because scientific experts concur in the vie w that
paraffi n tests have proved extremely unreliable in use. Th e
tests can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or
nitrites on the hand but the tests alone cannot determine
whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the
discharge of a firearm. Th e presence of nitrates should be
taken only as an indication of a possibility or even a prob•
ability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun,
since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other
than gunpowder. A person who tests positive may have hand• ed
one or more substances with the same positive reaction for
nitrates such as explosives, fi reworks, fertilizers, pharma•
ceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants. The argument that
the negative result of gunpowder nitrates from the paraffi n
test conducted shows an absence of physical evidence that one
fired a gun, is untenable as it is possible for one to fire a
gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when
the hands are washed before the test (People v. 430 SCRA
311; People v. Baconguis, 417 SCRA 66).
A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or ni• trite
deposits on his hands since these substances are pres• ent in
the products of combustion of tobacco (Revita v. People, G.R. No.
177564, October 31, 2008).
Th e negative findings of a paraffi n test do not con• clusively show
that a person did not discharge a gun if he fired a gun with a
glove on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter. Besides,
a paraffi n test is not conclusive owing to several factors like
wind direction, firing at a hard object, us• ing a long barrel or a low
caliber gun and profuse perspiration (People v. Baltazar, 352
SCRA 678; People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, March 30, 2007).
Illustrative applications
"Sec. 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."
Meaning of Original
Section 4, of Rule 130 elucidates on the concept of the term
thus:
Illustration
Mr. Seller and Mr. Buyer entered into a written contract for the sale
of a house and lot. The deed of sale mentions a pur• chase price of
P25 million, a down payment of seventy percent and the balance
payable within one (1) year from the tender of the downpayment
although the actual period agreed upon orally was two (2) years.
The oral agreement between them also considered the air
conditioners inside each room of the house as part of the purchase
price, but this fact was inad• vertently not mentioned in the written
agreement. Under the parol evidence rule, Mr. Buyer would not be
allowed to show that the purchase price included the air
conditioners and that the payment period for the balance was two
(2) years. He would not be allowed to do so because of the rule that
the only evi• dence of the terms of the agreement between the
parties shall be the contents of the written agreement itself. Any
extrinsic evidence therefore, that would modify, explain or add to
the writing would be deemed evidence and hence, barred. Parol
evidence is inadmissible to establish stipulations other than those
contained in the writing. Thus, all other evidences of the contents
of the writing are to be ignored.
To reiterate, the parol evidence rule does not per se bar the
introduction of parol evidence as long as the pleader puts in
issue in the pleading any of the matters set forth in the
rule such as the mistake or imperfection of the writing, its
failure to express the true agreement of the parties or the ex•
istence of subsequent agreements. Th e key words are "putting in
in the pleading. Unless duly pleaded, a party will be barred
from offering extrinsic evidence over the objection of the adverse
party.
In an action to recover from an insurance policy, the plaintiff
wanted to put forth a witness who would testify as to the actual
terms of the contract of insurance as allegedly agreed upon despite
contrary provisions in said policy. The testimony was not allowed.
The Supreme Court sustained both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals on the basis of Sec. Rule 130.
The Court ruled that Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Court expressly requires that for parol evidence to be
admissible to vary the terms of the written agreement, the mistake
or imperfection thereof or its failure to express the true
agreement of the parties should be put in issue by the pleadings. As
correctly noted by the appellate court, the plain• tiff failed to raise
the issue of an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
terms of the insurance policy, or of the failure of said contract to
express the true intent and agree• ment of the parties thereto in
its complaint. There was there• fore no error on the part of the
appellate court when it affi rmed the RTC's order disallowing the
witness to testify as to the al• leged terms of the contract. Whe n
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 par• ties and their successors-in-interest, no
evidence of such other
terms other than the contents of the written agreement pinas
Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141060, September 29,
2000).
Examples:
) The parties have agreed on the size of the land subject of the
sale. By an act of fraud of the seller who prepared the deed of
sale, a smaller area is indicated in the deed. There is nothing
defective in the contract which is the meeting of the minds. Th e
defect is in the deed of sale, which is the instrument. If an
action for reformation is brought, the action must be for the
purpose of reform• ing the instrument, not for reforming the
contract.
An instrument may be reformed if the instru• ment does not
express the true intention of the parties because of lack of skill of
the person drafting the instru• ment (Art. 1364, Civil Code the
Philippines).
If the parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of property, but
the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a
right of repurchase, reforma• tion of the instrument is proper (Art.
Civil Code of the Philippines).
Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform
any of the following:
Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condi• tion is imposed;
Wills; or
When the agreement is void (Art. 1366,
Waiver of the Parol Evidence Rule
Th e parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke the
benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made by failure to
object to the introduction of evidence aliunde. Inadmissible
evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object
(Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 98;
Policarpio v. Court Appeals, 194 SCRA 729). Failure to object to
the parol evidence presented by the adverse party operates as a
waiver of the protection of the parol evidence rule (Willex Plastic
Industries Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478).
Probative Value
Even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would not mean
that the court would give probative value to the parol
Admissibility is not the equivalent of pro• bative value or credibility.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND THE PAROL
EVIDENCE RULE.
The best evidence rule establishes a preference for the
original document over a secondary evidence thereof. The parol
evidence rule is not concerned with the primacy of evidene but
presupposes that the original is available.
The best evidence rule precludes the admission of the
secondary evidence if the original document is available. The paril
evidence rule precludes the admission of the other evidence to
prove the terms of a docment other tha the contents of the
documents itself for the purpose of varying the terms of the writing.
The best evidence rule can be invoked by any litigant to an
action wheter or not said litigant is a party to the document
involved. The parol evidence rule can be invoked only by the parties
to the document and their successor in interest.
The best evidence rule applies to all forms of writing. The
parol evidemce rules applies to written agreements and wills.
The written offi cial acts and records of the offi cial acts of the
sovereign authority, do not refer only to those of the Philippines.
The y also refer to those of a foreign country. Documents
acknowledged before a notary public are public documents except
last wills and testaments which are private documents even if
notarized (Sec. 19[b], Rule 132, Rules of Court). Assumed to be
included in this class of public docu• ment are those acknowledged
before an offi cer, other than a notary public authorized to
administer oaths. In the case of a public record of a private
document required by law to be entered in a public record, the
public document does not refer to the private document itself but
the public record of that private document.
4. The rule does not give a specific definition of a pri• vate
document except by providing that All other writings are (Sec.
19, Rule 132, Rules of Court).
Proof of a Private Document
1. Sec. 20 of Rule 132 provides:
"Sec. 20. Proof of private document. — Before
any private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
Also the picture of seat plan, prepared by offi cers of the CSC in
implementing a government a government examination, is a public
document. The presentation of the room examiners is not necessary
to establish the authenticity and due execution of the said set plan.
(a) that the alteration was made by another with our his
concurrence; or
(b) that the alteration was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it;
(c) that the alteration was otherwise properly or innocently
made; or
(d) that the alteration did not in anyway change the meaning
or language of the instrument.
Registration of Contracts
Church registries