EVIDENCE CASE DOCRINES
incident and the deceased had no sufficient time to concoct a charge
XI. HEARSAY RULE
A. Testimonial Knowledge (Rule 130, Sec. 36)
People v. Brioso
GR: Affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as hearsay,
EXC: unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to
testify
REASON: affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves
but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants’
statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one
writing them. For this reason, and for the further reason that the adverse
party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants.
People v. Cusi
The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person
is hearsay and is inadmissible if offered to prove the truth of the facts
stated therein. However, such may be admitted if intended only to
establish the fact that such statement was made or the tenor of such
statement.
People v. Gaddi
A statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the purpose of proving that
the fact or assertion was made by the declarant, and not to prove the truth
of the matter asserted therein.
Leake v. Hagert
The statement of a person contained in the field notes of an investigator
will not be admitted into evidence if the person who gave the statement
does not testify in open court, pursuant to the Hearsay Rule.
B. Exceptions
1. Dying Declaration (Rule 130, Sec. 37)
People v. Laquinon
The declaration of the deceased is not admissible as an ante-mortem
declaration since the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or
not. The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed himself in
extremist, "at the point of death when every hope of recovery is extinct,
which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an
exception to the hearsay rule." It may be admitted, however, as part of
the res gestae since the statement was made immediately after the
against the accused.
People v. Sabio
The admission of dying declarations has always been strictly limited to
criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of death.
That death did not ensue till three days after the declaration was made will
not alter its probative force since it is not indispensable that a declarant
expires immediately thereafter. It is the belief in impending death and not
the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that renders the dying
declaration admissible.
People v. Salison
In all events, assuming that declaration is not admissible as a dying
declaration, it is still admissible as part of the res gestae, if it was made
shortly after the startling incident and, under the circumstances, the victim
had no opportunity to contrive.
2. Declaration Against Interest (Rule 130, Sec.38)
People v. Majuri
It was a confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and
the presumption "that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage".
People v. Toledo
Where, however, the declarant is dead or has disappeared, his previous
statements, out of court, if not inadmissible on other grounds, are the best
evidence. But they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact that the
declarant is unavailable, - something else is necessary. One fact which will
satisfy this necessity is that the declaration is or was against the
declarant's interest, and this is because no sane person will be presumed
to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
 Fuentes v. CA
To admit declarations against interest as exceptions to the hearsay rule:
(a) the declarant must not be able to testify due to death, mental
incapacity or physical incompetence rather than mere absence from
the courts;
(b) the declaration must concern a matter of fact cognizable by the
declarant;
(c) the circumstances render it improbable that a motive to falsify exists
3. Pedigree (Rule 130, Sec. 39)
Gravador v. Mamigo
While a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he
may nevertheless testify as to his age which he learned from his parents
and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of a family
tradition.
People v. Alegado
Rule 130, Sec. 39 contains three requisites for its admissibility, namely:
(1) that there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the
members of a family;
(2) that the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person
concerned existed previous to the controversy; and
(3) that the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the
pedigree of the person must be a member of the family of said person.
Tison v. CA
Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is subject
to inquiry;
(3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the
declaration; and
(4) that the declaration be made ante litem moam, that is, not only
before the commencement of the suit involving the subject matter of
the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon.
As to the third, where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative
common to both claimant and declarant not from the declarant himself or
the declarant’s estate - the relationship of the declarant to the common
relative may not be proved by the declaration itself, but this requirement
does not apply where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
property of some other member of the family.
4. Family Tradition (Rule 130, Sec. 40)
Ferrer v. De Ynchausti
Requisites for admissibility of acts or declarations about pedigree, family
reputation or tradition:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(2) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is subject
to inquiry;
(3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than the
declaration; and
(4) that the declaration be made ante litem moam
5. Common Reputation (Rule 130, Sec. 41)
City of Manila v. Del Rosario
Testimony does not constitute common reputation unless such is
equivalent to universal reputation.
6. Res Gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 42)
People v. Lungayan
For a statement to be part of the res gestae, it must not only be
spontaneous but also be made at a time when there was no opportunity to
concoct or develop a story.
People v. Putian
Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the
declarant under the expectation of a certain and impending death, and for
this reason, is not admissible as a dying declaration, such declaration can
fall squarely in the rule on res gestae.
People v. Tolentin
For the res gestae rule to apply, the following must be present:
(1) That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;
(2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise; and
(3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question
and their immediately attending circumstances.
7. Entries in the Course of Business (Rule 130, Sec. 44)
Palmer v. Hoffman
The act which allows the admission of business entries refers only to
records kept in the regular course of business and not those kept in the
regular course of conduct related to business.
Philamlife v. Capital Assurance Corp
Sec. 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court may not be invoked in order to
justify the admission of a statement of account identified by a witness
whose office made the entries thereof but who has no personal knowledge
about how the account had arisen or of the transactions to which the
entries refer.
8. Official Records (Rule 130, Sec. 45)
Caltex v. Africa
The report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties,
on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported, may
properly be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule.
People v. Leones
A medical certificate prepared by a government hospital doctor, even if
he/she was not presented as witness, is admissible as prima facie of the
facts therein stated and is an exception to the hearsay rule.
Manalo v. Robles Trans. Co., Inc.
A sheriff’s return is an official statement by a public official in the
performance of his duty specially enjoined by law and forming part of
official records and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The
sheriff making the return need not testify in court as to the facts stated in
his entry.
People v. Cabuang
Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of
performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such
entries. They are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated since
they would be incomplete or inaccurate.
People v. Gabriel
For entries in official record to be admissible in evidence three (3)
requisites must concur:
(a) The entry was made by a police officer or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
(b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or by
such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law; and,
(c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or
through official information.
9. Commercial Lists (Rule 130, Sec. 45)
State v. Lungsford
To satisfy the threshold the judge must be convinced that the compilation
is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
considered useful and reliable. If these conditions are met, statements
from the compilation are admissible to prove the truth of the relevant
matter stated.
The business record exception is predicated not only on the circumstance
that the record itself is kept in the usual course of the business but also on
the circumstance that the recorded information is obtained by the recorder
from a declarant having a "business" duty to communicate it truthfully.
PNOC Shipping v. CA
A document is a commercial list if:
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other
published compilation;
(3) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation, and
(4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.
Estrada vs. Noble
Courts of justice could take judicial cognizance on an official document
whose publication constituted a leading event of general interest and
whose provisions are widely known and have played an important part in
the contemporary political history of the country.
10. Learned Treatises (Rule 130, Sec. 46) State v. Garver

11. Prior Testimony (Rule 130, Sec. 47)
Tan v. CA
Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second trial or hostility since
testifying at the first trial does not amount to inability to testify, but such
inability proceeding from a grave cause, almost amounting to death, as
when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech.
Ohio v. Roberts
Generally, a lay witness may testify only to facts and not to opinions or
conclusions, but may be permitted to use so--called short hand
descriptions, in reality opinions, in presenting to court their impressions of
the general physical condition of a person.
U.S. v. Stifel 433 F.wd 431 (6th Cir. 1970)
On questions of science, skill, or trade, or others of like kind, persons of
skill, sometimes called experts, may not only testify to facts, but are
permitted to give their opinions in evidence.

When a hearsay declarant is not present for cross--examination at trial, the
Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. A
witness is not “unavailable” for purposes of the exception to the
confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a
good--faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge must ensure that any
and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but
reliable.

United States v. Bonds

XII. OPINION (Rule 130, Secs. 48-50) Standard for admission of expert scientific testimony requires
determination of whether it is relevant and reliable, with “relevance”
Dilag & Co. v. Merced 45 O.G 5536 (1949) requirement stemming from applicable rule’s requirement that testimony
assist trier of fact to understand evidence or determine a fact at issue, and
Generally speaking, any person who by study or experience has acquired with reliability requirement being based on rule’s requirement that subject
particular knowledge or experience may be allowed to give in evidence his of expert’s testimony be “scientific knowledge,” and this entails preliminary
opinion upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating to such assessment of whether reasoning or methodology underlying testimony is
business or employment. scientifically valid and whether the reasoning and methodology can
properly be applied to facts at issue.
U.S. v. Trono

Expert testimony constitutes evidence worthy of meriting consideration,

although not exclusive, on questions of a professional character. Courts,
however, are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such
testimony; they are free to weigh them, and they can give or refuse to give
them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such evidence
with the other elements of conviction which may have been adduced during
the trial.

People v. Adoviso

As with other jurisdictions, the Philippines also rejects the results of

polygraph tests as evidence of establish the guilty or innocence of a person
for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific acceptance
as a reliable and ascertaining truth or deception.
XIII. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS (Rule 131,Secs. 1-4)
A. Civil Cases
C. Presumptions
Pornellosa v. LTA
A party claiming a right granted or created by law must prove his claim by
competent evidence. A plaintiff is duty bound to prove his allegations in the
complaint. He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the
weakness of that of his opponent.
IFC v. Tobias
Where negative allegation not an essential part of the statement of the
right on which cause of action founded, no evidence necessary to support
said negative allegation.
B. Criminal Cases
People v. Pajenado
In criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the
prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be
proven if "it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged", the burden
of proof was with the prosecution in this case to prove that the firearm
used by appellant in committing the offense charged was not properly
licensed.
U.S. v. Dube
Every man is presumed sane. To rebut this presumption, evidence bearing
equal weight of that establishing sanity must be introduced to prove
insanity. In the Philippines, the quantum of proof required to overcome this
presumption is proof beyond reasonable doubt (more stringent).
People v. Verzola
There can be no question that once an accused has admitted the killing of
a human being, the burden is on him to establish the existence of any
circumstance which may justify the killing or at least attenuate the offense
committed.
Patterson v. New York
It is incumbent upon defendant to show that his actions were caused by a
mental infirmity not arising to the level of insanity, and that he is less
culpable for having committed said crime, does not serve to negative any
facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict of murder.
It constitutes a separate issue on which the defendant is required to carry
the burden of persuasion.
Pascual v. Angeles 4. Phil. 604 (1905)
The lessee, evidenced by a contract of lease, cannot acquire the land of the
lessor by means of prescriptive acquisition based on uninterrupted
possession for any number of years.
Ormachea v. Trillana 13 Phil. 194 (1909)
A debt can only be presumed to have been paid and an obligation fulfilled
when the proof of their existence has been delivered to the debtor, and not
when the documents showing the existence of the debt are still in the
hands of the creditor.
People v. Padiernos 69 SCRA 484 (1976)
Presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply where
the evidence was at disposal of both defense and prosecution.
One who admits the infliction of injuries which caused the death of another
has the burden of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing
evidence
Yee Hem v. United States 268 U.S. 178 (1925)
In order that a legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another
may not constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal
protection of the law, it is only essential that there shall be some rational
connection between the fact provided and the ultimate fact presumed, and
that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so
unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.
County Court of Ulster City v. Allen
For a statutory presumption to be constitutional, the presumption must
pass the “rational connection” test as to the basic facts proved and the
ultimate facts presumed. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing
guilt, and it may rest entirely on a presumption unless the facts proved are
sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Sandstorm vs. Montana
In a case in which intent is an element of the crime charged, a jury
instruction, that "the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary acts," violates the due process requirement.
XIV. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE that reason be sacrificed. The court knows of no rule of law by which the
truth is on such an occasion to be shut out and justice to be perverted. A
A. Examination of Witness (Rule 132, Secs. 1-18) party must not be obliged to receive everything which a witness called by
him may swear to, If his witness has been false or mistaken in his
B. Rules on Examination of a Child Witness testimony, he may prove the truth by the testimony of others.

C. Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 10) 4. Cross-Examination

A.-C.
Dela Paz v. IAC

1. Examination in Open Court

The right of a party to confront and cross--examine opposing witnesses in
a judicial litigation, is fundamental right which is part of due process. Until
People v. Estenzo
such cross--examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness
cannot be considered as complete and may not be allowed to form part of
The reasons for requiring a witness to appear and testify orally at a trial
the evidence to be considered by the court in deciding the case. But the
are:
right to cross--examine is a personal one which may be waived expressly
or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the said right.
a) to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of cross-examination;
b) it is only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may have a
Salgado v. CA
true idea of his countenance, manner and expression, which may
confirm or detract from the weight of his testimony;
The right to cross-examine is a personal right which may be forfeited by
c) the Rules governing the examination of witnesses are intended to
failure of a party to avail of the ample opportunity given him. Where the
protect the rights of litigants and to secure orderly dispatch of the
failure to obtain cross-examination was imputable to the cross-examiner’s
business of the courts.
fault, the lack of cross-examination is no longer a ground for exclusion
according to the general principle that an opportunity, though waived, will
Galman v. Pamara
suffice.

The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself has

Capita Subdivision v. Negros Occidental
consistently been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law and
to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness,
The adverse party may, on cross-­examination, elicit from the plaintiff’s
whether a party or not. it is not the character of the suit involved but the
witness all important facts bearing on the issue and which were not taken
nature of the proceedings that controls.
up in the witness’ direct examination.

2. Leading Questions
U.S. v. Mercado

State v. Scott
While you cannot impeach the credibility of a witness, except by showing
that he has made contradictory statements or that his general reputation
Even though the question may call for a yes or no answer, it is not leading
for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, yet, nevertheless, you may show by
for that reason unless it is so worded that by permitting the witness to
an examination of the witness himself or from the record of the judgment,
answer the yes or no, he would be testifying in the language of the
that he has been convicted of a high crime.
interrogator rather than his own.

3. Impeaching One’s Own Witness

Becker v. Eisenstodt

If a witness is called on the part of the plaintiff who swears what is

palpably false, it would be extremely hard if the plaintiff’s case should for
 U.S. v. Marshall
The cross--examination of a witness as to the inadmissible evidence, or the
introduction by the ruling's opponent of rebutting evidence, does not waive
the vitality of his continuing objection, for the party is entitled to rely upon
the trial judge's ruling as the law of the case, without waiving his rights
under the continuing objection to question subsequently on appeal the
admission of any evidence of the nature specifically objected to by him
initially.
5. Impeachment By Bias
7.
U.S. v. Abel
Bias is a term used in the “common law of evidence” to describe the
relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to
slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a
party. Bias may be induced by a witness' like, dislike, or fear of a party, or
by the witness' self-- interest.
Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact
and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all
evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness'
testimony.
U.S. v. Harvey
Bias of a witness is not collateral issue and extrinsic evidence is admissible
to prove that witness has motive to testify falsely.
6. Impeachment By Prior Inconsistent Statement
Villalon v. IAC
The defense tool sanctioned by Sections 15 and 16 of Rule 132 is that
witnesses have given conflicting testimonies, which are inconsistent with
their present testimony and which would accordingly cast a doubt on their
credibility.
People v. Resabal
The apparent contradictions which may be noted in the declarations made
during preliminary investigation and the testimony before the court may
not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness because the witness
was not given ample opportunity, by reading to him of his declarations
during the preliminary investigation, to explain the discrepancies. The mere
presentation of the transcript showing the prior testimony, without said
declaration having been read to the witness while he testified in court, is
no ground for impeaching his testimony.
U.S. v. Webster
When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court. In this case, the object need not have
been presented before the court because it was irrelevant to the fact in
issue, because it could not be connected in any way to the defendant, and
the jury in the case was already informed of such fact.
Impeachment by Other Means
U.S. v. Mercado
A witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been
called, except by showing
a) that he has made contradictory statements or
b) that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad.
Mosley v. Commonwealth
Proffered testimony of clinical psychologist as to mental condition of
prosecuting witness at time of alleged rape was relevant and competent in
rape prosecution and should have been received, not in extenuation of
rape, but for its bearing upon question of weight to be accorded to
prosecuting witness' testimony, and exclusion of the psychologist's
testimony constituted prejudicial error.
Although, generally, a witness may be impeached only as specified by the
rules of civil procedure, the modern trend is to permit the jury to consider
expert testimony in the field of mental disorders and relax the rule in sex
offense cases.
Coles v. Harsh
When questioning a witness about a prior inconsistent statement, the
statement must be shared with the witness so he may deny or explain it.
Medical Therapy Services
A witness may always be impeached by proof of a prior conviction if the
crime involved “dishonesty or false statement” i.e. crimes such as perjury ,
false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, or false pretense, or any
other offense in the nature of crimenfalsi, the commission of which involves
some element of deceit, untruthfulness or falsification bearing on the
accused's propensity to testify truthfully.
 There is a vast difference between putting that witness' veracity in issue by
eliciting the impeaching facts and merely revealing the witness'
background. Indeed, even in jurisdictions where a party may not discredit
his own witness, it has been held that the fact of prior convictions may be
brought out on direct examination for non--impeachment purposes.
When such convictions are used for impeachment purposes, as they were
on cross--examination here, we think that the door is opened to evidence
in support of truthfulness.
Newton v. State
In impeachment of witness by showing previous conviction of crime,
counsel should ask witness the question directly, and not by indirect
question, as to whether he had not given same testimony during previous
trial at which he had been convicted.
State v. Oswalt
A witness cannot be impeached upon matters collateral to the principal
issues being tried. The purpose of the rule is basically two-fold:
(1) avoidance of undue confusion of issues, and
(2) prevention of unfair advantage over a witness unprepared to answer
concerning matters unrelated or remote to the issues at hand.
The test of collateralness is: Could the fact, as to which error is
predicated, have been shown in evidence for any purpose independently of
the contradiction?
8. Refreshing Recollection
State v. Peoples
10. Exclusion of Witness
Given the problems inherent in the hypnotic process, such as the enhanced
suggestibility of the subject, his tendency to confabulate when there are
gaps in his recollection, his increased confidence in the truthfulness and
accuracy of his post--hypnotic recall which may preclude effective cross-
-examination, and the inability of either experts or the subject to
distinguish between memory and confabulation, hypnotically refreshed
testimony is simply too unreliable to be used as evidence in a judicial
setting.
Adopting a series of procedural safeguards would not be effective in
combating the dangers we see in hypnotically refreshed testimony. We
hold, therefore, that hypnotically refreshed testimony is inadmissible in
judicial proceedings.
9. Recalling Witnesses
People v. Del Castillo
The court may grant or withhold leave to recall a witness, in its discretion,
and as the interests of justice may require.
Where there are circumstances tending to show insidious attempts to
tamper with the witnesses for the prosecution and would only encourage
the perversion of the truth and make a mockery of the proceedings, the
judge is correct in denying leave to recall a witness.
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. Ong Su
if a witness who has already testified and who has been cross-examined
extensively about his citizenship, alien certificate of registration and the
other name being used (an alias) and the only purpose for the recall on
rebuttal was to determine if such witness had the authority to use the
alias, the court may refuse to admit such witness on recall.
People v. Rivera
The discretion of a judge to exercise discretion in recalling witnesses must
rely on something more than the bare assertion of the need to propound
additional questions is essential before the court's discretion may rightfully
be exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory showing
of some concrete, substantial ground for the recall.
A Judge cannot strike out testimony of a witness who did not show up
under recall especially when if the defense did not file a motion to strike
such testimony from the records and most importantly if the defense had
already crossed examined and re--cross examined such witness.
People v. Sandal
If the Court gives the order that certain witnesses should not be present
during the hearing, and despite that order such witness was present, his
testimony should be excluded unless the proponent of the witness show
cause that such statement affected the cause of the proponent.
State v. Bishop
When one party moves to exclude witnesses and the other party voices no
objection, the motion should always be granted. But when the motion is
opposed, the trial court’s discretion comes into play.
 Judicial discretion is to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law
and in a manner to subserve and not defeat the ends of justice. The trial
court must weigh the good cause shown.
D. Authentication and Proof of Documents (Rules 132, Secs. 19-33;
Commerce Act, Secs. 5, 615; REE Rules 5,6, 9 & 11)
Bunag v. CA
The validity and authenticity of the execution of an unnotarized deed of
absolute sale must be proven, more so if such was signed by a mere
thumbmark and that there were no instrumental witnesses.
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA
The requirements for the application of the “ancient document rule” is that
the document must be:
1) at least 30yrs old;
2) is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine; and
3) unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion.
Also, when the copy of a document is certified as an exact copy by a public
office in which the original is located, said copy is considered as compliant
with the 2nd requirement mentioned above.
sworn to by translator as an accurate translation of the original or the
translation may be agreed upon by the parties as a true and faithful one.
Zalamea v. CA
E-
Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officers having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has
custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice--consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
People v. Monleon
Affidavits written entirely in local dialects must be accompanied by a
translation for it to be admitted in court.
Salison v. People
If a party does not object to the admission of a document written in an
unofficial language which does not have a corresponding translation, then
the objection is waived, and the said document is admissible in evidence.
People vs. Lazaro

Bartolome v. IAC
The requirements for the application of the “ancient document rule” is that
the document must be:
1) at least 30yrs old;
2) is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine; and
unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion.
Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping v. NLRC
A copy of a decision of a foreign court sought to be enforced in the
Philippines must be attested of the legal custodian of the original with a
certificate from the Philippine embassy and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
Documents written in an unofficial language must be accompanied by a
translation into English of Filipino made by an official court interpreter, an
interpreter competent in both languages whose identity is revealed, or a
translator agreed upon by the parties. The translation may also be one
Official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the
Philippines or by a person in performance of a duty specifically enjoined by
law are prima facie evidence of facts stated. A written statement signed by
the officer having custody of official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of specified tenor is found to exist in
records of his office accompanied by certification is admissible as evidence
that records of office contains no such record or entry
People v. Burgos
The lack of confidence in the prosecution witness should not in any way
affect the integrity of the diskettes or the right of the prosecution to show
the contents of the diskettes.
IBM Phils., Inc. v. NLRC
The decisions of the Supreme Court, while adhering to a liberal view in the
conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies, have nonetheless
consistently required some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition
for the admission of documents.
 Aznar v. Citibank
The prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is
Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.It provides that whenever any
private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone who saw
the document executed or written;; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness
of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Nuez v. Cruz-Apao
The Confrontation Clause does not bar admission into evidence of every
relevant extrajudicial statement by a nontestifying declarant simply
because it in some way incriminates the defendant. And an instruction
directing the jury to consider a codefendant's extrajudicial statement only
against its source is generally sufficient to avoid offending the implicated
defendant's confrontation right.
Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud
Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge
thereof.
F. Offer and Objection (Rule 132, Secs. 34-40)
People v. Cariño
Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the court.
Interpacific Transit v. Aviles
Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it was
formally offered, and not when the particular document is marked is
identified and marked as an exhibit.
De los Reyes v. IAC
Formal offer of evidence is hardly applicable in summary proceedings
where no full--blown trial is held in the interest of a speedy administration
of justice.
People v. Yatco
The right to object is a mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if
the ground for objection is known and not reasonably made, the objection
is deemed waived and the Court has no power, on its own motion, to
disregard the evidence.
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc.
When the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed
admitted because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified
denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence
for it may be considered an admitted fact.
Catuira v. CA
Where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse
party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object.
But such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the
objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there
is opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections.
Sheraton Palace v. Quijano
The admission of the said affidavit without any objection on the part of the
defendant merely means that the same was admitted for the purpose for
which it was offered but such admission does not mean that the defendant
is precluded from presenting evidence to contradict the facts in the said
Exhibit including the statement therein that the defendant is indebted to
plaintiff.
Vda. de Oñate v. Court of Appeals
Evidence not formally offered may be admitted and considered by the trial
court provided the following requirements are present, viz .:
1) first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded and,
2) second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the
case.
XV. WEIGHT & SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (Rule 133, Secs 1-7; REE, Rule
7)

U.S. v. Lasada

The law presumes that a defendant is not guilty of any crime, and this
presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof.
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there remains a reasonable doubt as to
his guilt or innocence this doubt must be resolved in his favor and he must
be acquitted.

People. v. Abendan

Alibi becomes unworthy of credit when it is established mainly by the

accused himself and his relative, and not by credible persons.

People v. Solayao

When a negative is averred in a pleading or a plaintiff’s case depends upon

the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are
equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon
the party averring the negative.

People v. Lorenzo

What must be corroborated (under Sec. 3, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of
Court) is the extrajudicial confession and not the testimony of the person
to whom the confession is made, and the corroborative evidence required
is not the testimony of another person who heard the confession but the
evidence of corpus delicti.

XVI. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)