EVIDENCE REVIEWER
Ong Chia v. Republic  A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000
 Ong Chia filed a petition for naturalization. The trial
court granted the petition. The State filed an appeal
and attached to its appellant’s brief are pieces of
evidence proving his disqualification. CA reversed the
ruling.
 ISSUE: WON the CA erred in considering evidence
merely attached to the appellant’s brief and not
formally offered as evidence
 HELD: NO. Rules 4 and 143 of the Rules of Court
provide that the rules DO NOT apply to land
registration, cadastral and election cases,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other
cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.
 The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132 sec. 34)
is not applicable. In fact, reliance upon the documents
appeared to be the more practical and convenient
course of action considering that decisions in
naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule
on res judicata.
 The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of
evidence which has not been formally offered is to
afford the opposite party the chance to object their
admissibility.
Zulueta v. CA
G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
 Zulueta forcibly took documents from the clinic of her
husband. These papers were seized for use in
evidence in legal separation case and disqualification
from practice of medicine. Dr. Martin brought an action
for recovery of the documents.
 ISSUE: WON the documents are admissible in
evidence
 HELD: NO. They are inadmissible because they were
taken illegally.
 The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable"
is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who
thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity)
who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful
order [from a] court or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
violation of this provision renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding."
Page 1 of 10
TOLENTINO
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection is ever available to
him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by making it
privileged.
People v. Yatar
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
 Yatar was charged with rape with homicide. The trial
court convicted him
 ISSUE: WON Yatar can be convicted even without
direct evidence available
 HELD: YES. An accused can be convicted even if no
eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient
circumstantial evidence is presented by the
prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused
committed the crime.
 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors:
how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests.
 In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, pertinent evidence based
on scientifically valid principles could be used as long
as it was relevant and reliable. Under Philippine law,
evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
 Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a
conviction, must form an unbroken chain which leads
to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused,
to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the
crime. To determine whether there is sufficient
circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur:
(1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) facts on which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
 DNA tests are not covered by the right against self-
incrimination. The kernel of the right is not against all
compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion.37 The
right against self- incrimination is simply against the
legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused
an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination
but as part of object evidence. Hence, a person may
be compelled to submit to fingerprinting,
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no
testimonial compulsion involved.
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral
certainty of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. Moral
certainty is that degree of certainty that convinces and
directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and
judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it. This requires that the
circumstances, taken together, should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency; leading, on the
whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused,
and no one else, committed the offense charged.
 Motive, being a state of mind, is established by the
testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of
the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense, deeds or words that may
express it or from which his motive or reason for
committing it may be inferred.
Tating v. Marcella
G.R. No. 155208
 This case involved a parcel of land. A complaint for
nullification of Deed of Absolute Sale was filed on the
basis of a statement from the deceased donor.
Petitioner claimed that the RTC and CA erred in
considering the sworn statement since the donor has
long been dead when the document was offered in
evidence, thereby denying petitioner the right to cross-
examine her.
 ISSUE: WON the sworn statement should be given
probative value
 HELD: NO. There is no issue in the admissibility of the
subject sworn statement. However, the admissibility of
evidence should not be equated with weight of
evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence while the weight of
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its
tendency to convince and persuade. Thus, a particular
item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
 It is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsay
evidence since they are not generally prepared by the
affiant but by another who uses his own language in
writing the affiant’s statements, which may thus be
either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. For this
reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being
hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on
the witness stand to testify thereon.
Page 2 of 10
TOLENTINO
 The legal presumption is in favor of the validity of
contracts and the party who impugns its regularity has
the burden of proving its simulation.
People v. Salafranca
G.R. No. 173476 February 22, 2012
 An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder,
homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions of
admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent
jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying
declaration or as a part of the res gestae, or both.
 Salafranca was charged with murder. The victim was
stabbed. On the way to the hospital, he was able to tell
his uncle that Salafranca stabbed him. The trial court
and CA convicted him of murder
 ISSUE: WON the victim’s statement before his death
is admissible as evidence
 HELD: YES. Considering the circumstances, where
the victim was obviously nearing his demise, and the
statement was made an hour before his death and
right after the hacking incident, the victim’s utterance
qualified as both a dying declaration and as part of the
res gestae.
 A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible
as evidence due to its hearsay character, may
nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites
concur, namely:
(a) that the declaration must concern the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is
under a consciousness of an impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a
victim.
 A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the
res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule when the following
requisites concur, to wit:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence;
(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time
to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances.
 The term res gestae has been defined as "those
circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a
particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such act." In a general way, res gestae
refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations
that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its
character and are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res
gestae encompasses the exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of the crime when
the circumstances are such that the statements were
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired
by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to
fabricate a false statement.
 The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the
res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration,
or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or
connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.
SCC Chemicals Corp. v. CA
G.R. No. 128538 February 28, 2001
 SCC Chemicals obtained a loan from SIHI. To secure
the payment of the loan, a surety agreement was
executed. SCC failed to pay the loan. A case was filed
for sum of money. SCC contended that the promissory
note presented by SIHI was void.
 SCC failed to appear in the hearing. The trial court
declared that SCC has waived its right to cross-
examine the witness.
 ISSUE: WON SCC’s right to cross-examine the
witness and to object have been waived
 HELD: YES. As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded
and carries no probative value. However, the rule does
admit of an exception. Where a party failed to object to
hearsay evidence, then the same is admissible. The
rationale for this exception is to be found in the right of
a litigant to cross-examine. It is settled that it is the
opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim
that the matters testified to by a witness are hearsay.
However, the right to cross-examine may be waived.
The repeated failure of a party to cross-examine the
witness is an implied waiver of such right.
 In addition, SCC’s admission as to the execution of
promissory note at the pre-trial sufficed to settle the
question of the genuineness of signatures. Such
admission must be treated as a judicial admission. A
judicial admission requires no proof.
Page 3 of 10
TOLENTINO
Republic v. Gimenez
G.R. No. 174673
 PCGG instituted a complaint for reconveyance against
Gimenez spouses. The Republic failed to file its
Formal Offer of Evidence, hence the SB declared that
the Republic has waived its right to file such. The SB
also granted the Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to
Evidence.
 ISSUE: WON the rules should be relaxed
 HELD: YES.
 The quantum of evidence required for forfeiture
proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 is preponderance of
evidence.
 Testimonial evidence is offered at the time a witness is
called to testify. Documentary and object evidence, on
the other hand, are offered after the presentation of a
party’s testimonial evidence. Offer of documentary or
object evidence is generally done orally unless
permission is given by the trial court for a written offer
of evidence. The rule on formal offer of evidence is
intertwined with the constitutional guarantee of due
process.
 The best evidence rule applies only when the subject
of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Where
the issue is only as to whether such document was
actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
is admissible.
 A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign
character, or because it has been acknowledged
before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a
competent public official with the formalities required
by law, or because it is a public record of a private
writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and
requires no further authentication in order to be
presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private
document is any other writing, deed, or instrument
executed by a private person without the intervention
of a notary or other person legally authorized by which
some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth.
 Not all types of public documents are deemed prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Notarized
documents are merely proof of the fact which gave rise
to their execution, but is not prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.
 The presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed therefore applies only to the latter portion,
wherein the notary public merely attests that the
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or
her, on the date mentioned thereon.
 Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are
EVIDENCE REVIEWER TOLENTINO
acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits the appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied
are still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason for due process. His conviction was based mainly on the
this rule is that they are not generally prepared by the positive identification made by some of the kidnap
affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own victims.
language in writing the affiant’s statements, parts of
which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by Maquiling v. COMELEC
the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the
 The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws,
affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally
which must be presented as public documents of a
rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants
foreign country and must be "evidenced by an official
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
publication thereof." Mere reference to a foreign law in
thereon.
a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in
 It is better to admit and consider evidence for
deciding a case.
determination of its probative value than to outright
reject it based on very rigid and technical grounds. People v. Janjalani
G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011
Landbank v. Banal
G.R. No. 143276, July 20, 2004  Valentine’s Day bombing incident. Three of the
accused gave an exclusive interview to ABS CBN
 Case for valuation of land. The RTC took judicial
confessing their participation in the crime.
notice of another case pending before it without
 ISSUE: WON the testimony of a co-conspirator (Asali)
hearing or notice to either party.
is admissible
 ISSUE: WON the RTC correctly took judicial notice of
 HELD: YES. It is true that under the rule, statements
another case pending before it
made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are
 HELD: NO. The RTC should have conducted a
admissible only when made during the existence of the
hearing and informed both parties of their taking
conspiracy. However, as the Court ruled in People v.
judicial notice of another case.
Buntag, if the declarant repeats the statement in court,
 Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to
his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial
take judicial notice of the contents of the records of
admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
other cases even when said cases have been tried or
conspirators.
are pending in the same court or before the same
 An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence
judge. They may only do so "in the absence of
against the confessant but not against his co-accused
objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing
as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-
party," which are not obtaining here.
examine him. A judicial confession is admissible
People v. Kulais against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are
G.R. No. 100901, July 16, 1998 afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former.
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies only
 Kidnapping for ransom case. The trial court took to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony
judicial notice of a testimony given by a Lt. in another at trial where the party adversely affected has the
case. opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
 ISSUE: WON the accused was deprived of due
process due to the trial court taking judicial notice of Republic v. Sandiganbayan
the testimony G.R. No. 152375 December 16, 2011
 HELD: NO. As a general rule, courts should not take
 Reconveyance case. SB refused to admit the Bane
judicial notice of the evidence presented in other
deposition as part of evidence, notwithstanding that it
proceedings, even if these have been tried or are
was used as evidence in one of the cases related to
pending in the same court, or have been heard and
the principal case.
are actually pending before the same judge. 18 This is
 ISSUE: WON the Bane deposition should be admitted
especially true in criminal cases, where the accused
as evidence
has the constitutional right to confront and cross-
 HELD: NO. While it is true that the cases were
examine the witnesses against him.
consolidated, such consolidation was only for
 However, even if the court a quo did take judicial
purposes of joint trial. As such, their identities are still
notice of the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did
separate from each other. As a result, the Bane
not use such testimony in deciding the cases against
Page 4 of 10
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
deposition that was used in the “parent” case must
also be offered in the “child” case.
 Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at
the trial of a pending action, Section 4, Rule 23 of the
Rules of Court does not only require due observance
of its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a
condition for admissibility, compliance with "the rules
on evidence." Thus, even Section 4, Rule 23 of the
Rules of Court makes an implied reference to Section
47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the
deposition may be used in evidence.
 Depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual
testimony in open court of a party or witness.
Generally, the deponent must be presented for oral
examination in open court at the trial or hearing.
 That opportunity for cross-examination was afforded
during the taking of the deposition alone is no
argument, as the opportunity for cross-examination
must normally be accorded a party at the time that the
testimonial evidence is actually presented against him
during the trial or hearing of a case. However, under
certain conditions and for certain limited purposes laid
down in Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the
deposition may be used without the deponent being
actually called to the witness stand.
 Section 47, Rule 130 requires that the issues involved
in both cases must, at least, be substantially the same;
otherwise, there is no basis in saying that the former
statement was - or would have been - sufficiently
tested by cross-examination or by an opportunity to do
so.
 The previous condition must remain.
 To render the testimony of a witness admissible at a
later trial or action, the parties to the first proceeding
must be the same as the parties to the later
proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not required;
substantial identity or identity of interests suffices.
 As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court
may properly treat all or any part of the original record
of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of
a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of,
and absent an objection from, the adverse party,
reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and
number or in some other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated; or when the original record of
the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn
from the archives at the court's direction, at the
request or with the consent of the parties, and
admitted as a part of the record of the case then
pending.
 Judicial notice not applicable in this case.
Page 5 of 10
TOLENTINO
Ligtas v. People
G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015
 Ligtas was charged with theft. He claimed that he was
the plantation owner. DARAB ruled that Ligtas was a
tenant.
 ISSUE: WON the DARAB decision may be taken
judicial notice
 HELD: YES. The uncontested declaration of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates a finding of
theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants having rights
to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their
own produce.
 Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not
binding on criminal proceedings. However, this case
does not involve an administrative charge stemming
from the same set of facts involved in a criminal
proceeding. This is not a case where one act results in
both criminal and administrative liability.
Laureano v. CA
G.R. No. 114776, February 2, 2000
 Laureano was employed as pilot of Singapore Airlines.
He filed an illegal dismissal case. The employer
contended that Singapore laws should apply.
 ISSUE: WON Singapore laws should apply
 HELD: NO. Neither can the Court determine whether
the termination of the plaintiff is legal under the
Singapore Laws because of the defendant's failure to
show which specific laws of Singapore Laws apply to
this case. As substantially discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the Philippine Courts do not take judicial
notice of the laws of Singapore. The defendant that
claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this
case has the burden of proof. The defendant has failed
to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should be
applied.
Mallillin v. People
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
 A raid was conducted. While the inventory was
ongoing, the accused was asked to buy cigarettes.
Upon return to the house, the police found shabu in his
room.
 ISSUE: WON presumption of regularity is sufficient to
convict the accused
 HELD: NO. The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions cannot by its
lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
 The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
vital to a judgment of conviction. More than just the
fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance
offered in court as exhibit must also be established
with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite
to make a finding of guilt.
 An unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable
and essential when the item of real evidence is not
distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or
when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.
 Chain of custody was not established. There are
irregularities in the handling of the shabu.
 The presumption of regularity is merely just that—a
mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and
which when challenged by the evidence cannot be
regarded as binding truth. Suffice it to say that this
presumption cannot preponderate over the
presumption of innocence that prevails if not
overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Pagaduan
G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010
 Pagaduan was charged with selling of illegal drugs.
 ISSUE: WON chain of custody was complied with
 HELD: NO. The apprehending team, upon confiscation
of the drug, immediately brought the appellant and the
seized items to the police station, and, once there,
made the request for laboratory examination. No
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items
were taken in the presence of the accused or his
counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and an elective official.
prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to
justify the failure of the police to conduct the required
physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs.
The apprehending team failed to show why an
inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had
not been made either in the place of seizure and arrest
or at the nearest police station (as required by the
Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests).
 Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is
required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise.
People v. Constantino
G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014
 The following links must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
Page 6 of 10
TOLENTINO
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission
of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
 The marking upon seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence
will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of
marking of the evidence is to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time of seizure from the accused
until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of
evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of
initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of
custody that the law requires.
People v. Calantiao
G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014
 A road altercation ensued. One of the passengers of
taxi fired their guns towards police officers. Upon
arrest, marijuana was seized from the bag of the
accused.
 ISSUE: WON the marijuana is admissible
 HELD: YES. A valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person
of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate
control" means the area from within which he might
gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
 Failure to immediately mark the marijuana is not fatal
because the evidentiary and integrity of the drug
seized was preserved.
People v. Rosauro
G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015
 The presentation of an informant as witness is not
regarded as indispensable to the success of a
prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the
informant is not presented in court for security
reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant
from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his
efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant’s
identity is protected in deference to his invaluable
services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony
of the informant is considered absolutely essential in
obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need
to protect his security be disregarded.
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
People v. Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 212171, September 7, 2016
 The failure to strictly comply with the requirements of
Sec. 21 (inventory at the place of arrest) was
satisfactorily explained by the apprehending officers. A
commotion erupted when accused resisted and
shouted for help while she was being arrested. The
commotion eventually gave accused the opportunity to
run and elude arrest. The arresting officers alleged
that the people around them were already aggressive
prompting them to decide to immediately proceed to
the police station for their safety.
People v. Oliva
G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019
 Accused contended that the police failed to
immediately conduct physical inventory in the
presence of the required witnesses.
 R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014
 The rules require that the apprehending officers do not
simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly
state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a
statement on the steps they took to preserve the
integrity of the seized item. A stricter adherence to
Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal
drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible
to planting, tampering, or alteration.
Salas v. Matusalem
G.R. No. 180284 September 11, 2013
 Matusalem filed a complaint for support. Salas denied
paternity of the child. The trial court declared that
Salas has waived his right to present evidence.
Matusalem, to prove paternity, showed a birth
certificate in which Salas’ name appears as the father
but which is not signed by him.
 ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in admitting the birth
certificate
 HELD: YES.
 As to the birth certificate, it was ruled that a certificate
of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is
not competent evidence of paternity when there is no
showing that the putative father had a hand in the
preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the father did not
sign in the birth certificate, the placing of his name by
the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is
incompetent evidence of paternity. Neither can such
birth certificate be taken as recognition in a public
instrument and it has no probative value to establish
filiation to the alleged father.
 As to the baptismal certificates, while they may be
considered public documents, they can only serve as
Page 7 of 10
TOLENTINO
evidence of the administration of the sacraments on
the dates so specified. They are not necessarily
competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein
with respect to the child’s paternity.
 As to the handwritten letters, they are not sufficient as
they are not signed and it did not contain any
statement of admission by Salas that he is the father.
 Paternity or filiation must be established by clear and
convincing evidence.
Loon v. Power Master
G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013
 A complaint for money claims was filed against Power
Master. They did not participate in the proceedings
before LA. LA ruled in favor of the employees. Power
Master was allowed by NLRC to submit evidence for
the first time on appeal.
 ISSUE: WON the best evidence rule will apply
 HELD: YES. Power Master submitted photocopies of
payroll as evidence. It was incumbent upon them to
submit the original copy considering that the
employees submitted their specimen signatures.
 NLRC committed error in allowing Power Master to
submit evidence for the first time on appeal. They
failed to explain their delay or failure to submit
evidence.
MCMP v. Monark
G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014
 Monark presented a photocopy of the contract as the
original copy has been lost. MCMP objected to the
presentation of the evidence contending that the
original should be presented. However, MCMP have
their own copy of the contract and did not present the
same notwithstanding the order of the court to produce
the same.
 Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the
offeror must prove the following:
(1) the existence or due execution of the original;
(2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for
its non-production in court; and
(3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
 The correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
execution, loss, and contents. All of the requisites are
present. MCMP’s failure to present the original copy of
the contract gives rise to a disputable presemption that
such copy, if presented, would be adverse.
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
Dimaguila v. Monteiro
G.R. No. 201011 January 27, 2014
 The cadastral maps and the list of claimants, as
certified true copies of original public records, fall
under the exception to the best evidence rule. As to
the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court similarly provides that entries in official
records are an exception to the rule.
Ortanes v. CA
G.R. No. 107372 January 23, 1997
 Parol evidence is inadmissible. Considering that the
written deeds of sale were the only repository of the
truth, whatever is not found in said instruments must
have been waived and abandoned by the parties.
Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot even make an
inference that the sale was subject to any condition.
As a contract, it is the law between the parties.
 Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the
meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of
incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned
at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or
mistake."
 The alleged failure of the agreement to express the
true intent of the parties obtains only in the following
instance:
[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in
terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such
a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the
contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and
of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when
they entered into the contract may be received to enable
the court to make a proper, interpretation of the
instrument.
Lapulapu Foundation v. CA
G.R. No. 126006 January 29, 2004
 Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
agreement is generally not admissible to vary,
contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract.
While parol evidence is admissible to explain the
meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the
purpose of incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned
at all in writing, unless there has been fraud or
mistake.
Page 8 of 10
TOLENTINO
Sps. Bonifacio v. Kimwa
G.R. No. 171601 April 8, 2015
 Parol Evidence rule is animated by a perceived
wisdom in deferring to the contracting parties’
articulated intent. In choosing to reduce their
agreement into writing, they are deemed to have done
so meticulously and carefully, employing specific —
frequently, even technical — language as are
appropriate to their context. From an evidentiary
standpoint, this is also because "oral testimony . . .
coming from a party who has an interest in the
outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human
memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary
evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously
unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a
uniform language."
 Two (2) things must be established for parol evidence
to be admitted: first, that the existence of any of the
four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse
party; and second, that the parol evidence sought to
be presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting party.
 It is true that petitioners Spouses Paras’ Complaint
does not specifically state words and phrases such as
"mistake," "imperfection," or "failure to express the true
intent of the parties." Nevertheless, it is evident that
the crux of petitioners Spouses Paras’ Complaint is
their assertion that the Agreement that there was
failure to express the true intent of the parties.
Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa
G.R. No. 152807 August 12, 2003
 A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving
the transmission and reproduction of printed and
graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one
elemental area at a time, and representing the shade
or tone of each area by a specified amount of electric
current.
 Pleadings filed via fax machines are not considered
originals and are at best exact copies. As such, they
are not admissible in evidence, as there is no way of
determining whether they are genuine or authentic.
 Facsimile signature is defines as a signature produced
by mechanical means but recognized as valid in
banking, financial, and business transactions.
EVIDENCE REVIEWER TOLENTINO
Torres v. PAGCOR now universally accepted that intellectual weakness,
G.R. No. 193531 December 14, 2011 no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid
objection to the competency of a witness so long as
 A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and
the transmission and reproduction of printed and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one
elemental area at a time, and representing the shade Alvarez v. Ramirez
or tone of each area by a specified amount of electric G.R. No. 143439 October 14, 2005
current. The current is transmitted as a signal over
regular telephone lines or via microwave relay and is  The reasons given for the rule (Sec 22 Rule 130) are:
used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the
1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
elemental area in the proper position and the correct
shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other 2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is
device that produces a printed record on paper consequent danger of perjury;
referred to as a facsimile.
 A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It 3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of confidences of private life, even at the risk of an
an original. Without the original, there is no way of occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
determining on its face whether the facsimile pleading disunion and unhappiness; and
is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by
the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham 4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is
pleading. danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
 Moreover, a facsimile transmission is not considered testimony of the other.
as electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce
 Where the marital and domestic relations are so
Act.
strained that there is no more harmony to be
 The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury
considered as electronic evidence. It is not the
based on that identity is non-existent.
functional equivalent of an original under the Best
 The better rule is that, when an offense directly
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic
attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal
evidence.
relation, it comes within the exception to the statute
Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro that one shall not be a witness against the other
G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013 except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committee
(by) one against the other.
 Trial court granted the motion to disqualify the PNP
handwriting expert to testify to prove the similarity of People v. Castaneda, Jr
the signatures. G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979
 The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses
 Wife filed a case for falsification of public document
excludes the operation of causes of disability other
against her husband.
than those mentioned in the Rules.
 The case is an exception to the marital disqualification
 The witness is allowed to render an expert opinion.
rule.
People v. Golimlim
Razon v. IAC
G.R. No. 145225 April 2, 2004
G.R. No. 74306 March 16, 1992
 Rape case. The victim was a mental retardate. The
 Dead Man’s Statute will not apply. The case was filed
fact that the victim is a mental retardate does not
by the administrator.
disqualify her as a witness nor render her testimony
bereft of truth.
 A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not,
per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental
condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is
Page 9 of 10
EVIDENCE REVIEWER
Sunga-Chan v. Chua
G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001
 The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to
the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage
of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
account of the transaction. But before this rule can be
successfully invoked to bar the introduction of
testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:
1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or
persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted.
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person or a person of
unsound mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person or against
person of unsound mind;
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which
occurred before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind.
 Here, the filing of counterclaim removed the case from
the ambit of the Dead Man Statute. Also, the witness is
not a party to the transaction.
Bordalba v. CA
G.R. No. 112443 January 25, 2002
 The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the
mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to
his knowledge in any other way than through personal
dealings with the deceased person, or communication
made by the deceased to the witness.
TOLENTINO
to an officer or a board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power
to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements
in the communication are made in good faith and
without malice.
Lacurom v. Jacoba
A.C. No. 5921 March 10, 2006
 The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence,
may be waived by failure to timely object to the
presentation of evidence or by any conduct that may
be construed as implied consent.
Chan v. Chan
G.R. No. 179786 July 24, 2013
 Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The wife
requested that a subpoena be issued, covering her
husband’s medical records.
 The physician-patient privileged communication rule
essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient
cannot in a civil case be examined without the
patient’s consent as to any facts which would blacken
the latter’s reputation. This rule is intended to
encourage the patient to open up to the physician,
relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him
access to his body, enabling the physician to make a
correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the
appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be
compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all
that had transpired between him and the patient might
prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own
health at great risk.

Syhunliong v. Rivera
G.R. No. 200148 June 4, 2014

 The rule on privileged communication means that a

communication made in good faith on any subject
matter in which the communicator has an interest, or
concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made
to a person having a corresponding duty.
 In order to prove that a statement falls within the
purview of a qualified privileged communication under
Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the person who made the communication
had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect,
which interest may either be his own or of the one to
whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed

Page 10 of 10