RULE ON EVIDENCE (2006 EDITION) RELEVANT EVIDENCE evidence which has a relation to the fact in issue as to induc e belief

in its existence or non-existence; evidence which tends in any reasonab le degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. MATERIAL EVIDENCE evidence which is directed to prove a fact in issue as determi ned by the rules of substantive law and pleadings; evidence of such quality of s ubstantial importance to the particular issue, apart from its relevance Factum probans the evidentiary fact by which the factum probandum is to be estab lished; material evidencing the proposition, existent, and offered for the consi deration of the tribunal Factum probandum the ultimate fact sought to be established; proposition to be e stablished, hypothetical, and that which one party affirms and the other denies Ordinarily, affidavits are not admissible before the regular courts because ther e is no opportunity for the other party to cross-examine. Depositions are admiss ible because there was an opportunity for the adverse party to cross-examine. The rules of evidence does not apply to 1. probation board 2. CTA 3. SEC 4. Immigration cases 5. LA/NLRC 6. CAR Pertains evidence Weight ofto the evidence Admissibility ofability of the evidence to be allowed and accepted subject to it Substantive essence or characteristic feature Pertains to the effect of s relevancy and competenceevidence admitted of evidence as would make it worth The consideration of evidence which its admission y ofprobative valueby the court beforethe court may give to admit after complyin g with the rules of relevancy and competency ADMISSIBILITY OF Means End Result Medium of Effect and result Evidence proof of evidence Proof to the end EVIDENCE Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by t he law or these rules. Requisites for admissibility 1.relevant- relation to the facts in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence .Evidence on collateral matters allowed only when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 2.competent- when it is not excluded by law. 4blue95: an example of scenario whereby it is excluded by law is secs 2,3,12,7 o f Art III of the Constitution and Art 167 of the Family Code (whereby child is presumed legitimate even if mother says that child is illegitimate) Multiple Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence is relevant and competent for 2/more purposes. In Pp v Animas, it was s aid that if evidence is relevant and competent for 2 purposes such will be recei ved if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented even if it does not sati sfy the other requirements for its admissibility for other purposes (Pp v Yatco) Conditional Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence that which appears to be immater ial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection with o ther facts subsequently to be proved will be established. Curative Admissibility: Evidence ,otherwise improper, is admitted to contradict improper evidence introduced by the other party. 2006 notes:Failure to stamp a document required by law to be stamped shall rende r the document inadmissible in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps sha ll have been affixed thereto and cancelled (201 NIRC). This is an absolute inadmi ssibility. The following are ADMISSIBLE but:

1.paraffin test: not conclusive 4blue95 notes:a paraffin test can establish only the presence or absence of nitr ites on the hand. It cannot established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates was the discharge of firearms. On the other hand, the absence of ni trates on a suspect s hands does not preclude a judgement of conviction where the overwhelming evidence proves his guilt(Pp v Paule) 2.bloodtest: conclusive to prove that person is not the father but not conclusiv e if to show that he is the father 3.fingerprint: not conclusive 4.polygraph:not conclusive since instrument is not 100% effective 5.DNA: it would depend on how the samples were collected, since,there is no such thing as conclusiveness in DNA since it is not 100%. If it excludes putative father: it is conclusive If less 99.9%: its considered as corroborative evidence If higher 99.9%: it s a rebuttable presumption. ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT (R.A 4200) 1. Any person who without authority from all the parties to the private communic ation or spoken word does may of the following (Sec. 1, par1) a) to tap any wire; or b) to secretly overhear or intercept such communication or spoken word by using any other device or arrangement; or c) to record such private communication or spoken word by using a device commonl y known as detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise d escribed. 2. Any person, without participant or not in the above penalized acts, who (Sec . 1, par 2) a) knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disk record or any other su ch record of copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act on the manner prohibited by law; or b) to replay the same for any other person; or c) to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing; or d) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person. 3. Any person who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declare d to be unlawful. (Sec. 2) 4. Any person who shall violate the provisions of Section b of the exempted acts below or of an order issued there under, of aids, permits or causes such violat ions (Se, 2) Exempted Acts: 1. Use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal i nvestigation or trial or offenses mentioned below; (Sec. 1, par. 2) 2. any peace officer, who is authorized by the written order of the court, to ex ecute any the acts declared to be unlawful in case involving the crimes of (Sec. 3 par.1 ) a) treason; b) espionage; c) provoking war and disloyalty in case of war; d) piracy; e) mutiny in the high seas; f) rebellion; g) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion h) inciting to rebellion i) sedition; j) conspiracy to commit sedition; k) inciting to sedition; l) kidnapping as defined by the RPC;

m) violation of CA 616 punishing espionage and other offenses against national s ecurity. Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995) Even a person privy to a communication who re cords his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter violates the anti-wiretapping act. The recording is inadmissible in evidence. Admissibility: Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport s, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information herein contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative he aring or investigation. NOTE: An extension telephone line cannot be placed in the same category as a dic taphone, dictagraph or the other devises enumerated in Section 1. of R.A. No. 42 00 as the use thereof cannot be a telephone line (Geanan vs. Intermediate Appeal late Court, 145 SCRA 112, 114,117-119) NOTE: People vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57, 64, 66-68 (1991)] the Bill of rights can on ly be invoked if there is governmental interference through public officials or employees. Yet, while constitutional solace hardly extends to relationship between private individuals, the breach of private rights by another private individual can lead to a criminal indictment or suit for damages (Waterous Drug Corporation vs. NLR C, 280 SCRA 735,747, cited by Peralta, Jr., Perspective of Evidence, 2005 Editio n, pp. 9-11) GENERAL BANKING ACT Sec. 55. Prohibited Transactions. 55.1. No director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank shall (b) Without orde r of a court of competent jurisdiction, disclose to any unauthorized person any information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belon ging to private individuals, corporations, or any other entity: Provided, That w ith respect to bank deposits, the provisions of existing laws shall prevail; Elements of the exclusion 1. director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank 2. disclosure to unauthorized person 3. information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank be longing to private individuals, corporations, or any other entity 4. without a court order Note that this provision covers only property in the custody of the bank other t han bank deposits. For bank deposits, RA 1405 governs. Note also that the provis ion does not state the nature of the inadmissibility. I submit that it is a rule of absolute inadmissibility. Read also: LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS MATTERS NEED NOT BE PROVED 1.MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality 2. the law of nations (this pertain only to International Law and not to Foreign law since latter must be proved as any other fact except when they are accepted by RP through the doctrine of Processual Presumption). 4blue95:when parties in a case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and a ct upon; hence they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position. 3. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals 4. the political constitution and history of the Philippines 5. the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of t

he Philippines (includes ORDINANCES) 6. the laws of nature 7. the measure of time, and 8. the geographical divisions Sermonia v. CA, 233 SCRA 155 (1994) In determining prescription in a prosecution for bigamy, the reckoning point is actual discovery of the subsequent marriage by the offended party, not from the registration of the marriage contract. The d octrine of constructive knowledge does not apply, even if it is more favorable t o the accused. 2006 notes:Judicial notice is the cognizance which courts may take without proof of facts which they are bound or are supposed to know by virtue of their office 2006 notes:Difference bet actual knowledge & judicial notice is that a fact may be personally known to a judge and yet improper for judicial notice in the same manner that a fact may be personally unknown to the judge and yet proper for jud icial notice (ex: the defense tries to prove the mitigating circumstance of mino rity, it would be an error for the judge to stop presentation of evidence on tha t point on ground that he knows the accused s age) 4blue95 notes: If evidence is admissible ,it does not follow that it has probati ve value since admissibility has nothing to do with its probative value or weig ht. In fact, its admission is not a guarantee of its being considered or believ ed by the court. Whether evidence has any weight is dependent upon the court. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES: MTC: they should take judicial notice of municipal or city ordinances in force i n their territorial jurisdiction. RTC: take judicial notice of municipal ordinances only when : (1) they are expressly authorized by statute; (2) on appeals of decisions by the inferior court when such courts had taken not ice of a municipal ordinance. APPELLATE Courts: 1. appellate court is without authority to take judicial notice or take into con sideration the judicial records of a case previously decided by the trial court upon which said court did not have the opportunity to pass 2. it cannot consult the records in another case to ascertain a fact not shown b y the records of the case before it but could go to its other decisions for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review SUPREME COURT It can take judicial notice of its record in a previous case in connection with conduct of litigant or witness in a similar manner. 4blue95: lower courts (from CA down to lowest level) must take judicial notice o f decisions of the Supreme Court as they are in fact duty bound to know the ruli ngs of the high tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of cases, they be ing part of the legal system. IF IT IS A JUDICIAL NOTICE: there is no need to prove them as evidence. EXCEPT: where judicial notice is not allowed (so you have to prove them) 1. testimony in another case 2. unpublished case (since it is not yet effective for being unpublished) 3. foreign laws 4.unoffered evidence (so it must be offered) 5. value of stolen goods 6.if complaint was SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED/MODIFIED Torres v CA: admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading, although filed in the same case, are considered as extraju dicial admissions. Therefore the original pleading must be proved by the party w ho relies thereon by formally offering it in evidence. 2.JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS Requisites for judicial admission

1. made by a party 2. in the course of the proceedings 3. in the same case If the admission was made in outside the proceedings or in another case, it is a lso admissible under admissions of a party (Rule 130, Sec. 26). The admission may be contradicted only by showing that 1. it was made through palpable mistake or 2. no such admission was made Instances of Judicial admissions 1. the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied or attache d to a pleading, when the other party fails to specifically deny under oath (Rul e 8 sec8) 2. material allegations in the complaint, when the other party fails to specific ally deny it (Rule 8 sec11) 3. admissions in superseded pleadings, when offered in evidence (Rule 10 sec8) 4. act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130 sec2 6) 5. admission in answer 6. implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in crimin al cases, except quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130 sec27) 7. admission by silence (Rule 130 sec32) JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are always conclusive upon the admitter and does not require formal offer of evidence unlike in extra-judicial admissions. (BAR) A filed a complaint against B who filed an answer with admission.the compl aint was dismissed .State the effect of B s admission in his responsive pleading HELD: Admission held in responsive pleadings to claims that have been dismissed are not judicial admissions, but they are merely extrajudicial admissions. 4blue95: facts alleged in a party s pleadings are deemed admissions of that party and are binding upon it but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An answ er is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but i t is not evidence. 4blue95: allegations in a complaint are not the full repositories of truth and t hat ADMISSIONS in affirmative defenses are merely hyphothetical. GENRULE: Admissions made in another case will not be considered as judicial admi ssion (so you must present evidence),and it is also the same way with admission made in a pleading which was latter amended (so present evidence also) Judicial admissions made in one case are admissible only at the trial of another case provided they are proved and are pertinent to the issue involved in the la tter, UNLESS: 1.the said admissions were made only for purposes of the first case as in the ru le of implied admissions and their effects in rule 26 2.same were withdrawn with the permission of the court therein 3.court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom. SELF SERVING rule is not admissible to judicial admissions since former prohibit s the admission or declaration of a witness in his favor which such prohibition do not apply to judicial admissions. If the declaration is made in open court, such is raw evidence ,it is not self-s erving. It is admissible because the witness may be cross-examined on that matte r. However, whether it will be credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on t he part of the court. 4blue95 notes:Judicial admission made by counsel during trial are binding and co nclusive on his client (Garcia v CA) 3.DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE matters which are

1. of public knowledge, or 2. are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or 3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions When court takes judicial notice 1.During trial, on any matter allow the parties to be heard thereon 2.After trial, and before judgment or on appeal any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hearing is necessary when 1. During the trial, the court a. motu propio, on request of a party b. announces its intention to take judicial notice of any matter 2. After trial a. before judgment or on appeal b. motu propio, on request of a party c. takes judicial notice of any matter, and d. if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case Hence, the court can take judicial notice of any matter during the trial as long as there is a hearing. If trial is already over, the court can take judicial no tice only of matters decisive of a material issue in the case as long as there i s a hearing . GENRULE: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of th e records of other cases,even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or actually pending before the same judge. EXCEPTIONS: 1.when,either at initiative of the judge or that of the parties, and w/o objecti on of any party, the record of the previous actions are either read and adopted into the present action or attached to the records of the present action by cour t order. 2.when the present action is closely interrelated to another case pending betwee n the same parties. 3.where the interest of the public in ascertaining the truth are of paramount im portance 4.in cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise of discretion or whe ther or not the previous ruling is applicable in a case under consideration. These exemptions are applicable only when the case is clearly referred to or the original or part thereof are actually withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the record of the case. A.KINDS OF EVIDENCES I. OBJECT & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Kinds of Evidences: 1.OBJECT real evidence since these are addressed to the senses of the court. When an obje ct is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Example: fingerprints, weapon used, photograph, tape recording (person who recor d or another person who knows how to operate the recorder must testify) 4blue95: if a photocopy document was used to slap you on the face, you can use s uch document as object evidence. HOWEVER, if the subject of inquiry is the conte nts of the document, then you cannot use such photocopy document as a documentar y evidence (remember the best evidence rule) Object (Real) evidence may be: a. Direct- it can prove directly the fact for which it is offered. (example: in a personal injury case, the direct real evidence of disfiguring injury would be an exhibition to the court of the injury itself) b.Collateral(circumstantial) Matters Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inter

ference as to the existence or non existence of the facts in issue. As a rule, i t is not allowed in evidence, except ,when they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 1.Prospectant collateral matters are those preceding of the fact in issue but po inting forward to it like moral character, motive ,conspiracy etc.. 2.Concomitant collateral matters are those accompanying the fact in issue and po inting to it, like alibi, or opportunity and incompatibility 3.Retrospectant collateral matters are those succeeding the fact in issue but po inting backward to it, lie flight and concealment, behaviour of accused upon bei ng arrested ,fingerprints or footprints ,articles left at the scene of the crime which may identify the culprit. 2.DOCUMENTARY Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, wo rds, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as PROOF OF THEIR CONTENTS. any material containing modes of written It is used when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document Interpretation of Documents 3. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning in the place of ex ecution 4. Instrument construed so as to give effect to more provisions 5. Interpretation according to intention of the parties 6. particular over general 7. Interpretation according to circumstances of the parties and the subject 8. Terms presumed to be used in primary and general acceptation, evidence of loc al, technical, or peculiar signification use admissible 9. Written words control printed 10. When the characters are difficult to decipher, or the language is foreign, t he evidence of experts and interpreters is admissible 11. When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by th e different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in whic h he supposed the other understood it 12. When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, th at is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the pr ovision was made 13. preference for natural right 14. usage may be considered 3.TESTIMONIAL (TO BE DISCUSSED LATER) RULES APPLICABLE WHEN SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IS THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT: i.BEST EVIDENCE RULE When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself Exception is the SECONDARY EVIDENCE RULE Purpose of Best Evidence Rule is to ascertain that there exist no fraud or tampe ring (like proving that the signature in the document is not forge) 4blue95: best evidence rule is not applicable to object evidence, as such, phot ocopy documents may be presented as object evidence but not as best evidence in documentary evidence. THREE CONCEPT OF ORIGINAL: 1. one of the contents of which is the subject of inquiry 2.when a document is in 2/more copies executed at or about the same time with id entical contents,all such copies are equally regarded as originals. 4blue95: here is a scenario where you photocopy a certain document and you sign them all, thereby it operates as making those documents original, and that one o f them may be introduced as evidence without non-accounting of the other copies. 3.when an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from one another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are equ

ally regarded as originals. 4blue95:in summary procedures, you still have to present the original. ii.SECONDARY EVIDENCE Requisites for admission of secondary evidence, according to grounds 1. the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court a. prove execution or existence b. there s unavailability and without bad faith on the part of the offeror c. account all copies (since if there s 3 original copy, and only 1 is lost, then it is not considered LOST since there s 2 remaining,so dapat all must be lost) 2. the original is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party a. adverse party had reasonable notice to produce the original (Subpoena duces t ecum) b. proof of the original s existence c. adverse party fails to produce the original 4blue95: For 1&2, the following are the proof of contents in the following orde r 1) copy 2) recital of its contents in some authentic document, 3) testimony of witnesses 3. the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be establis hed from them is only the general result of the whole; 4. the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is reco rded in a public office contents may be proved by a CERTIFIED COPY issued by the public officer IN CUSTODY thereof a. Rule 132 25: What attestation of copy must state 1) the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof 2) under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he b e the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court b. Rule 132 27: Public record of a private document - may be proved by 1) the original record, or 2) by a copy thereof a) attested by the legal custodian of the record b) with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody iii. PAROL (ORAL) EVIDENCE RULE When the terms of an, agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered a s containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. Exceptions: a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading(SO IT MUST BE ALLE GE) 1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement 2. failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties 3. validity of the written agreement; or 4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement If the ground is subsequently-agreed terms, the subsequently-agreed terms must a lso be put in issue in the pleadings. The rule applies only to the terms of an agreement. If the evidence sought to be admitted refers to matters other than the terms of the agreement (e.g. statemen t of facts), then the PER does not apply, such evidence is admissible. PER applies only to the parties to the agreement. It does not apply where PER is invoked against a litigant who is a stranger to the agreement. Requisites for mistake as exception to PER

1. mutual between the parties 2. of fact, not of law 3. alleged and put in issue in the pleadings 4. proved by clear and convincing, not merely preponderance of, evidence Note that the rule on self-defense also requires that the circumstances of selfdefense be proven by clear and convincing evidence. 2006 notes:study also Statute of Frauds REQUISITES FOR APPLICABILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE RULE 1. There must be a valid contract; 2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing; 3. The dispute is between parties and their successors in interest; and 4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement. Evidence Aliunde (Extrinsic Evidence) That which is excluded under the Parol Evidence Rule. It may refer to a testimon ial, real or documentary evidence. 4blue95: Parol Evidence Rule applies only to INTEGRATED AGREEMENTS, thus, unless the written instrument was intended by both parties as the final and exclusive memorial of their dealings, the rule does not apply. 4blue95:Purpose of PER is to insure stability in written transactions, as such, when it is in writing , then you cannot attack or modify the content of such wri ting by any other evidence (therefore, it is not only oral but also other eviden ces are generally prohibited) THEORY OF INTEGRATION OF JURAL ACTS under this theory, previous acts and contemporaneous transactions of the parties are deemed integrated and merged in the written instrument which they have redu ced their agreement to writing, it is presumed that they have made the writing t he ONLY REPOSITORY and MEMORIAL OF THE TRUTH, and whatever is not found in the w riting must be understood to have been waived and abandoned. EXCEPTION: COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT A contract made prior to or contemporaneous with anoth er agreement and IF ORAL and NOT INCONSISTENT with written contract IS ADMISSIBL E within the exception to parol evidence rule. An Agreement is COLLATERAL if it meets the following requirements: 1. it is not a part of the integrated written agreement in any way; 2. it is not inconsistent with the written agreement in any way, including both the express and implied provisions of the written agreement; and 3. it is not closely connected with the principal transaction as to form part an d parcel thereof. The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT refers to separate and DISTINCT SUBJECTS. 4blue95:Parol evidence cannot be used to ratify or supplement a void contract. Intrinsic or Latent ambiguity when the writing on its face appears clear and una mbiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meanin g uncertain. Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguity ambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing i tself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning the w ords used. Intermediate Ambiguity where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal word s designating the person or subject matter, parol evidence of collateral or extr insic matter may be introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving a t the meaning of the language used. (This kind of ambiguity result from the use of the words susceptible of two interpretation, like dollars, tons, etc.) 4blue95:INTRINSIC and INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITIES are curable by evidence aliunde o

r extraneous evidence. PATENT AMBIGUITY cannot be cured by evidence aliunde. Principle of Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat :False description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person intend ed has once been sufficiently described. > Where there are two descriptions in a deed, the one as it were superadded to t he other and one description being complete and sufficient of itself and the oth er which is subordinate and superadded is incorrect, the incorrect description o r feature of circumstance of the description is rejected as surplusage. PAROL EVIDENCE is admissible to prove mistake in the execution of a written agre ement. REASON: It would be unjust and inequitable to allow he enforcement of a written instrument which does not reflect or disclose the real meeting of the minds of t he parties. Elements of Mistake 1. it should be of fact; 2. it should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument; 3. it should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence. The ground that the written agreement fails to express the true intent of the pa rties can only be invoked when the contract is literally ambiguous or obscure in its terms and that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understoo d from the mere reading of the instrument. Note: The Parol Evidence Rule is not applicable to a mere receipt, unless that r eceipt can qualify as a valid and enforceable contract. Hence, a receipt being given for the payment of rent due on the lease, parol evi dence is admissible to show that the payment was made by note (Peralta, Jr., Per spective of Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 142, citing 10 McKinney, Ruling Case La w, 1916 Edition, page 859, and Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 192 SCRA 209, 217-220) RULE ON CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS: may be established by parol evidence because there is no 1. Conditions Precedent varying of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the rea son that, there is no contract in existence; there is nothing o which to apply t he excluding rule. 2. Conditions Subsequent may not be established by parol evidence Contemplates situation where the original is not available in court and/or the Presupposes that the BEST EVIDENCE RULE PAROLEVIDENCEaRULE original is available in court. Prohibits the varying of the said of a written agreement re is a dispute as to whetherterms writing is the originallieu of the original d introduction of substitutionary evidence in Can be regardless when the or not it is between the parties to the written a ocumentinvoked onlyof whethercontroversyvaries the contents of the original Can be invoked privies, or to party directly affected thereby greement, theirby any party anyan action regardless of whether such party partic With the not in the wills, applies only to documents which are contractual in ipated orexception ofwriting involved. Applies nature to all kinds of writing II. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES Perception of the General Rule: 1. A person who takes the witness stand is presumed to posses the qualifications of a witness (Presumption of Competency) 2. unlike, Rule 601 of the Washington Federal Rule of Evidence and the Oregon Fe deral Rules of Evidence, which unmistakably asserts that every person is compete nt as a witness except as otherwise provided by statue or court rules, the Revis ed Rules on Evidence did not incorporate an unequivocal mark for competency of a testimonial sponsors (Peralta Jr., Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 156) Note: A child is legally presumed competent to testify, either as a victim, acc used or as a witness, subject to scrutiny by the court or he adverse party upon challenge to the child s fitness (Section 6, Rule on Examination of Child Witness) Exception: the following shall be prima facie evidence that one is of unsound mi nd: 1. the fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. that one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane. Reason: Insanity is presumed to continue as a mental estate if I has one existed

until the contrary is shown. Thus, the burden is on the party offering him to s how his competency. WHO MAY BE WITNESSES - Except as otherwise provided in the rules, all persons w ho can perceive, and perceiving, and can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Unless otherwise provided by law, the following shall NOT be a ground for disqua lification: 1. Religious or political belief; 2. Interest in the outcome of the case; or 3. Conviction of a crime. Exception: Art. 821 of the New Civil Code disqualifies those who have been convi cted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony from being witne sses to a wit: THE FF. CANNOT BE WITNESSES: Those persons who, under the law, labor under: 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21) 2. Disqualification by reason of marriage; (Sec. 22) 3. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party; (Dead Man s Statute, Sec. 23) 4. Disqualification on ground of privileged communication. (Sec. 24) TEST OF COMPETENCY:Whether the individual has sufficient understanding to apprec iate the nature and obligation o an oath and sufficient capacity to observe and describe the facts in regard to which he is called to testify. A witness is presumed to be competent. The objection to the competency may be ra ised at any time during the examination or cross-examination; but it should be m ade as soon as the facts tending to show incompetency are discovered. (BAR)X confided to Director Neri that she committed adultery.Is the statement ad missible in evidence? HELD:YES, since the Director is not a peace officer or investigating officer con ducting custodial investigation.He cannot claim that her admission is inadmissib le.Director Neri is a competent witness.There is no violation of constitutional right to remain silent or to counsel (Arroyo v CA) BAR: JP lived in Dvo City with his 17 yr old daughter CJ , who the former was s hot outside his house at around 8:25 pm on 16 May 2006. During trial of accused M, CJ testified that she saw a gunman shot her father who hurriedly ran across t he street where a motorcycle was waiting. The gunman boarded the motorcycle driv en by M. The place where M waited for the gunman was illuminated by the light co ming from a nearby vulcanizing shop. Another witness, a resident near the place testified that while he was at the st ore at about 7 that night he saw 2 persons on board a motorcycle stopped and hav e some beer at the store. Later, they left in the general direction of the place of the incident. On his way home, he saw the motorcycle along the roadside and then he heard a gunshot. He pointed M as the driver. M claims that CJ when questioned by the police after the incident indicated that she did not know who shot her father and did not identify the driver of the mot orcycle. Granting arguendo that CJ did not identify M, was there a basis for the conclusi on of M? HELD: YES,even assuming that CJ did not actually identify M as the driver of the getaway motorcycle, sufficient circumstantial evidence was established to uphol d his conviction. Sec 4,Rule 133 of the Revised Rule of Court provides requisites for circumstanti al evidence to be sufficient. In this case, the circumstantial evidence based on the testimony of the other witness, pieced together with CJ is undisputed testi mony that she saw her father s gunmen run to a getaway motorcycle driven by M, the prosecutor has successfully conjured up a murder picture attributable to a undi sputed gunman and M as the motorcycle driver (Pp v Mansueto) Two kinds of Incompetency to testify 1. Absolute a person is forbidden to testify on any matter 2. Partial (relative) a person is forbidden to testify only on certain matters

specified under Section 23 and 24 of rule 130 due to interest or relationship or to privileges of other parties. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION: a preliminary examination conducted by the trial judge wh ere the witness is duly sworn to answer as to his competency. CITIZEN S TESTIMONIAL DUTY:As a general rule, every competent person may be compel led to bear testimonial in the administration of the laws by the duly constitute d courts of the country. This can only be invoked by the state after adequate no tice is given, thru subpoena. RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS (A.M. NO. 00-4-07-SC) EFFECTIVITY: DECEMBER 15, 2000 Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witne sses who are victims of crime. Accused to a crime, and witnesses to crime. It sh all apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving chi ld witnesses. (Sec. 1) Competency under this rule every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. Ho wever the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu propio o r on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exist regarding he ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate he duty to tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6) Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only be the judge . Counsel for the parties, however, an submit questions to the judge that he may , in his discretion ask the child (Sec. 6 (d)) Definitions: Child witness is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below eightee n (18) years, in child abuse cases a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take are of himself or protect him self from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4 (a)) Facilitator means a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child ( Sec. 4 (c)). The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social w orker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent or relative. Support Person is a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial proceedings or deposition to provide emotional support for hi m (Sec. 4(1)) Best Interest of the child the totality of the circumstances and conditions as a re most congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security of the ch ild and most encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional developmen t. It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding th e growth and development of the child. The public may be excluded from the courtroom when they do not have a direct int erest in the case. Such an order may be made to protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines on the record that requiring the child to t estify in open court would cause psychological harm to him. Hinder the ascertain ment of truth, or result in his inability to effectivity communicate die to emba rrassment, fear, or timidity. The court may also, on motion of the accused, excl ude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties . The court may: 1. allow the hold witness to testify in a narrative form; 2. allow leading questions in all stages of the examination of a child if the sa me will further the interests of justice. Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusio n, or judgment subject to the standards of proof required in criminal and non-cr iminal cases. Exception to the hearsay rule: A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:

a) Before such hearsay statement maybe admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars t o provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, re quire the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for c ross-examination by the adverse party. b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall con sider the time, content and circumstances thereof, based on various factors prov ided by he law, which provide sufficient Indicia of reliability. SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving al leged child sexual abuse: 1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual beh avior; and 2. Evidence offered to proved the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged vict im to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of the semen, in jury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible. It is likewise settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a child says that she has been raped, s he says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. (People v. Pulanco, GR No. 141186, Nov,. 27, 2003) ABSOLUTELY DISQUALIFIED WITNESSES 1. can t perceive 2. not perceiving 3. can t make known their perception to others 4. whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, rend er them incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others 5. whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the f acts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully 6. marital disqualification GR: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the other with out the consent of the affected spouse Exceptions: 1. in a civil case by one against the other, or 2. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against a. the other or b. the other s direct descendants or ascendants The marital disqualification rule refers to ALL MATTERS, whether or communicated by one spouse to the other. It applies only during the existence of the marriag e. It can be invoked only if one spouse is a party to the action. It is an absol ute disqualification and can be invoked the moment that one spouse is called to testify. Disqualification by REASON OF MARRIAGEPRIVILEGE disqualification) By MARITAL (marital (Sec. 24 (a)) Constitutes Appliesclaimed whether or the marriage is is a is or the to the action.of the Can be invokedtotal marriage the spousesat theparty to the action (maritalonlyaifonly in onenotis existingspousefor a partytestimony is offered. w communication) even after of (ALL Matters) time against the prohibition other dissolved spouse The objection would be raised on the ground of marriage. The married witness wou Applies itness. only to CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS between the spouses. ld not be allowed to take the stand at all because of the disqualification. Even if the testimony is, for or against the objecting spouse, the spouse-witness ca nnot testify. 4blue95:can be used only to prior and during marriage but cannot be invoke if ma The married person is rriage is dissolved. on the stand but the objection of privileged is raised whe n confidential marital communication is inquired into. 4blue95: it cannot be used to prior communication before marriage,but it can be The for communication learned after marriage. useddisqualification does not apply where an offense directly attacks or directl y and vitally impairs the conjugal relations.

4blue95:if it is a suit, use marital disqualification; if it is communication th en use marital communication rule. NATURE OF THE PROHIBITION:It is an absolute prohibition against the spouse s testi fying to any fact affecting the husband or the wife however the knowledge of the se facts may have been acquired. MARRYING THE WITNESS an accused can effectivity seal the lips of a witness by marr ying the witness. as long as a valid marriage is in existence at the time of the trial the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify even where the crime ch arged is against the witness person, and even though the marriage was entered int o for the express purpose of suppressing the testimony. WHO MAY OBJECT? Only the spouse-party and not the other spouse who is offered as witness. EXCEPTION TO DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE: In a civil case by one agai nst the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the ot her or the latter s direct descendants or ascendants. 4blue95:self incrimination is applicable only in a criminal case. 4blue95: 2 aspect whereby there is disqualification in terms of relationship and that is (1) marital disqualification and (2) dead man s statute. 4blue95:reason for marital disqualification are (1)identity between husband and wife (2) avoid perjury and (3)avoid marital discord. 4blue95: however, if relationship is strained ,disqualification does not apply s ince there is no more identity of interest and no danger of perjury. 7. parental and filial privilege No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendan ts, children or other direct descendants. (20a) There is no distinction between legitimate or illegitimate relations. Note that this is a testimonial privilege, not a testimonial disqualification, f ound in 22-24 of Rule 130 [careful not to be confused in the multiple use of the word privilege ]. Here, the WITNESS is the HOLDER OF THE PRIVILEGE and has the POWE R TO INVOKE OR WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE. The relative against whom he is testifying c an not invoke nor waive the privilege. However this must be construed in the lig ht of Art. 215 of the Family Code Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify again st his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (315a) Hence, a descendant may be compelled to testify in a criminal case where 1. the descendant-witness himself is the victim, or 2. the descendant-witness s parent commits a crime against the descendant-witness s other parent. Note that an ascendant may not be compelled to testify even if it is a crime by the descendant against the ascendant-witness. The ascendant-witness may testify voluntarily though. People v. Publico, 7 CAR (2s) 703 (1972) information given by child to 3rd perso n is protected 4blue95:ALWAYS REMEMBER that this rule is only with regard prohibition on compul sion of person to testify,but if latter wanted to testify ,then he may do so sin ce this time there is no more compulsion and that this privilege can now be inop erative. RELATIVE/ PARTIAL DISQUALIFICATIONS It can be in any form, it can be in oral or written. 1. DEAD MAN S STATUTE Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party (DE AD MAN S STATUTE / THE RULE ON SURVIVING PARTIES) aka Survivor Disqualification Rule . Survivor cannot testify /claim against the est ate of a deceased person. Such incompetency is confined to giving of objected te

stimony on matters of fact occurring before the death of deceased or before such became of unsound mind. Requisites: 1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose b ehalf a case is prosecuted; 2. the action is against an executor or administrator or other representative o f 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. The testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. BAR: what is the effect of the cross examination by a party of a witness he seek s to disqualify under the Dead Man s Statute HELD: when a party cross-examines a witness in matters that occurred during the lifetime of the deceased, such protection under the Dead Man s statute is effectiv ely waived (Santos v Santos) 2006 notes:It disqualifies only parties(and assignors of parties) but the office rs/stockholders of a corp are not disqualified from testifying for or against a corp which is a party to an action upon a claim/demand against the estate of a d eceased person as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such decea sed person. Previous testimony offered in evidence against one party ceases to be competent upon new trial after death of such party. Incompetency to testify applies whether the deceased died before or after the co mmencement of the action against him if at the time the testimony was given he w as already dead and cannot disprove it. Assignor means assignor of a cause of action which has already arisen and not the assignor of a right before any cause of action accrued. DEAD MANDISQUALIFICATION RULE as the witness is not completely disqualified bu Only a S STATUTE MARTIALpartial disqualification Applies only to civil case disqualification. It is a completeaand absoluteor special proceeding therein estate of t is only prohibited from testifying on the mattersover the specified.a deceased Applies to person. or criminal case, subject only to the two exceptions provided or insane a civil therein: (1) except in a civil case by one against the other; or (2) in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the lat ter s direct descendants or ascendants. Purpose of the Rule It is designed to close the lips of the party plaintiff when death has permanent ly close he lips of the party defendant in order to remove from the surviving pa rty the temptation to give false testimony and the possibility of fictitious cla ims against the deceased. MATTERS PROHIBITED Matters occurring in the presence and within the hearing of the decedent to whic h he might testify of his personal knowledge if he were alive. Facts favorable to the deceased are NOT prohibited In as much as the statutes are designed to protect the interest of a deceased or insane person, they do not exclude testimonies which are favorable to the repre sentative of such person. The Dead Man s Statute or the Survivorship Rule does not apply in the following ca ses: 1. Testimony of mere witnesses who are neither party plaintiffs, nor their assig nors, nor persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted; 2. If the plaintiff is the executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or the person of unsound mind; 3. in an action against a partnership 4. If the person or person mentioned under the rule files a counterclaim; 5. When the testimony refers to fraudulent transactions, committed by the person s mentioned in the rule; 6. When there is waiver;

7. When the testimony of a plaintiff refers to the non-occurrence of a fact, bec ause in that case, the plaintiff does not testify on the occurrence of a fact bu t on its non-occurrence; 8. In cadastral cases; 9. Testimony on the possession by witness of a written instrument made by the de ceased, as such fact exits even after the decedent s demise. 2. DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION WHO MAY ASSERT PRIVILEGE? 1. Holder of privilege 2. Authorized persons; and 3. Persons to whom privileged communication were made. We apply the privileged communication to both civil and criminal cases EXCEPT as to the doctor-patient privilege, which is applicable only in CIVIL CASES. Unless waived, the disqualification under Sec. 24 remains even after the various relationship therein have ceased to exist. A. Privileged Communication Between Husband and Wife The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined withou t the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the ot her, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants It has the same exceptions with Marital disqualification. Requisites: 1. there was a valid marital relation; 2. the privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between the spouses during said marriage; and 3. the spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not given his or h er consent to such testimony. There is a presumption of confidentiality on all communication between husband a nd wife: Communications overhead by third persons without knowledge of spouses is still c onfidential but the third party is not disqualified to testify Where there is collusion and voluntary disclosure to third party the later becom es an agent and cannot testify. Communication in furtherance of fraud and crime is not privileged. B. Privileged Communication Between Priest and Penitent Requisites: 1. The confession must have been made to the priest in his professional characte r in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs; 2. The communications made were confidential and penitential in character. NOTE: It is respect for religious order and the confessor that adheres to the di vine concept of atonement which spawned the privileged in Section 24 (d) , rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Its rationale is to allow and encourage i ndividuals to fulfill their religious, emotional or other needs by protecting co nfidential disclosures to religious practitioners (Peralta , Jr., Perspectives o f Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 220, citing Evidence, Oregon State Bar Committee on continuing Legal Education $ 24.3) C. Privileged Communication to Public Officers Requisites: 1. The holder of the privilege is the government acting through a public officer ; 2. the communication was given to the public officer in confidence; 3. The communication was given during the term of office of the public officer o r afterwards; 4. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the communication Exception to ALL this privilege: Court, a House or committee of Congress finds t

hat such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. Burden of proof the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue ne cessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in eviden ce against him. (29a) This rule is applicable only in criminal cases.A confession need not be in writi ng in order to be admissible in evidence.If it is in writing, it is NOT required to be under oath. However, if it is not in writing, the prosecution may find di fficulty in proving it. D. Privileged Communication Between Attorney and Client. Requisites: 1. There is an attorney and client relationship; 2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between them in the course of professional employment; and 3. The client has not given consent to the attorney s testimony thereon; or if the attorney s secretary, stenographer or clerk is sought to be examined, that both t he client and the attorney have not given their consent thereto. Purposes:To encourage full disclosure by client to his attorney of all pertinent matters so as to further the administration of justice. Test: Whether the communications are made to an attorney with a view of obtainin g from him professional assistance or advice regardless of whether there is pend ing or merely impending litigation or any litigation. The disqualification based on the attorney client privilege does NOT apply to co mmunications which are: 1. intended to be made public; 2. intended to be communicated to others; 3. received from third persons not acting in behalf of or as agents of the clien t; 4. intended for an unlawful purpose; 5. made in the presence f third parties who strangers to the attorney client rel ationship it must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confident ial communications or information is limited only to communications which are le gitimately and employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in conte mplation of a crime or perpetration of fraud. e.g. if the unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this case, the complainant s alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to his case, the communicat ion is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer pr ofessionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorn ey-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in t he strict sense. (Genato vs. Silapan, Adm. Case NO. 4078, Jul. 14, 2003) 2006 notes: applicable even if client has not paid any fee and there has been no formal retainer. The attorney-client privilege does not apply if the attorney w as sued by his client. 2006 notes: does not extend to information gathered by an attorney from witnesse s. 2006 notes: out of court admission (written or not) by attorney is not binding o n the client, as such, it is not admissible against his client. It extends to an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk concerning any fac t the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity 2006 notes:the consent of both the attorney and the client is necessary for the attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk to testify. GENERAL RULE: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the na me or identity of his client. Exceptions:

1. where a strong possibility exists that revealing he client s name would implica te the client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer s advice; 2. where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; and 3. where the prosecutors have no case against the client unless by revealing the client s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chai n of testimony necessary to convict an individual for a crime. (Regata vs. Sandi ganbayan, 262 SCRA 122) E.Parental and Filial Privilege No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendan ts, children or other direct descendants. Reason: To preserve family cohesion. NOTE: Article 215 of the Family Code provides that No descendant shall be compell ed, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, EXCEPT when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one against the other Rule 130, Sec. 25 of the Rules of Court does not provide for an exception, where as, Art. 215 of the Family code does. Which should be applied in case of conflic t? It was suggested that the Rules of Court should apply because it tool effect in 1989 as compared to the Family Code which took effect in 1988. It may be argu ed that the former is procedural and the latter, is substantive; however, it was further suggested that although the Family Code provision is substantive, it is procedural in character. So, of these two provisions, the Rules of Court which was made by the Supreme court, should prevail. F. Privileged Communication Between Doctor and Patient BAR: A confidential psychiatric evaluation report is being presented in evidence before the trial court in a petition for an annulment of marriage grounded on p sychological incapacity. The witness testifying is the husband who initiated the annulment proceedings not the physician who prepared the report.Can wife invoke rule on privilege communication between physician-patient to enjoin her husband from disclosing the contents of the report?NO, in order for this privilege may be successfully invoked, the ff requirements must be present: a.claimed in civil case b.person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practic e medicine, surgery or obstretics c.such person acquired information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity d.information was confidential and if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient. Purpose: It is intended to facilitate and make safe fill and confidential disclo sure by the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms un trammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and public ation on the witness stand to the end that the physician may form a correct opin ion and enabled safety and efficaciously to treat his patient. When physician is acting in his professional capacity When he attends to the patient for curative, preventive or palliative treatment. NOTE: it is essential that at the time the communication were made the professio nal relationship of physician and patient existed. When privilege does NOT apply: 1. Where the communication was not given in confidence; 2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employment; 3. The communication was made for an unlawful purpose; 4. The information was intended to be made public; 5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of contract or law. Dentist, pharmacist or nurses are disqualified if acting as agents. TEST: whether a third person was an agent of the doctor in a professional capaci ty. Scope of Prohibition

Applies not only to communication but also to opinions or prescriptions. > Not all information obtained confidentially by the physician from the patient and necessary for his treatment are within the privilege. The information held t o be privileged is that which would blacken the reputation of the patient. NOTE: It is only the tenor of the communication by the patient to the doctor tha t is privileged. Hence, the fact of communication the date and frequency of cons ultation with the doctor are executed. (Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 273,2 82-283 (1992), cited at Peralta, Jr. Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Edition, pag e 216) Duration of the Prohibition : It continues after death but it may be waived by t he personal representative of the decedent. NOTE: Padilla was of the view that the privilege is eternal. However, passages f rom ruling Case Law suggest the necessity of continuity of the bond between the patient and the physician and it follows that the physician is not hampered from testifying as to information respecting a patient which he acquired either befo re the relation began or after its termination. (Peralta Jr., Perspectives of Ev idence, 2005 Edition, page 215, citing 1 Padilla, Evidence Annotated, 1971 Editi on, page 358 and 28 Ruling Case Law, pp, 539-540. G. Other Privileged Matters 1. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning any info rmation , statement, or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to promote the best interest of the child (Sec. 5 (e) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness ) 2. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news; 3. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; 4. Trade secrets; 5. Bank Deposits. B.ADMISSIONS THAT ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST A PARTY 1.Admissions against interest The general rule is evidence as to extra-judicial acts, omissions, and declarati ons (AODs) of a party is admissible. These evidences can either be favorable or unfavorable to a party. Rule 130, 26 expressly allows evidence of AODs prejudicia l to the AODer. However, an objection may be raised as to the admissibility of A ODs favorable to the AODer on the grounds of that these are self-serving AODs. Self-serving statements = hearsay? Declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule only applies if the declarant is deceased or unable to testi fy. Self-defeating statements can not be excluded by the hearsay rule because it is expressly admissible by the rules. 2006 notes: admission of the accused to his classmate that he was one of the vic tim s killer is not hearsay. The testimony of his classmate was offered to prove t he extra-judicial admission of his involvement in the crime. Such admission is a n admission against personal interest and is competent evidence (Pp v Simangan) Examples of Acts,declarations, or omissions of a party which may be given in evi dence against him: 1.flight, which is inconsistent with innocence of the accused Flight of the accused after the commission of the offense is evidence of guilt. Reason: The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bol d as a lion. 2.failure to deny charges despite the fact that he was confronted twice, then he went to his friend s house, the same is admissible against him (pp v Masongsong) In an administrative complaint against a lawyer for his negligence in the perfor mance of duties as counsel. Respondent s failure to file an answer o the complaint despite notice from the IBP amounts to an admission of the allegations therein . (Pilapil vs. Carillo, AC No. 5843, Jan, 14, 2003) 3.fact that the driver stated before the police that he ran over an old woman.T

he extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence against him (Pp v Estrella ) 4.spontaneous statements made not elicited through investigation or questioning but given in ordinary manner where accused orally admitted that he killed the vi ctims (Arroyo v CA) ADMISSION is any extra-judicial statement or conduct by a party to the present l itigation that is inconsistent with apposition the party presently takes. RULE ON ADMISSIONS that act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Reason: it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they do not. Therefore, if the act, declaration or omission is in his favor, it is NOT an adm ission. SELF-SERVING DECLARATION one which has been made extrajudicially by the party to favor his interest. It is not admissible in evidence because they are inherentl y untrustworthy and would open the door to fraud and fabrication of testimony. NOTE: Personal cognition of facts by the one who asserts an inconsistent postur e is not expected in an admission. Nonetheless, commentaries from Jones cited ca ses to the country (Peralta Jr., Perspectives of Evidence, 2005 Edition, page 22 7, citing 2 Wigmore on Evidence, 1904 Edition, page 1222 and 2 Jones on Evidence , pp. 634-635). Adoptive Admission one where a party by words or conduct, voluntarily adopts or ratifies another s statement. Secondary Covered by the hearsay rule Exception evidence INTEREST ADMISSIONStoAGAINSTand admissible only if the DECLARATIONthe hearsay rule and admissible declarant is already dead or unava The have been any the declaration May fact testify Mustbe evidence in admissible even must declarant the time it Primarymade at madetime, before/duringi.e.,trial. at controversy was witness. ilable toassertedandante litem motam,ifthehave beentheis available as amade so f the before ar contrary to the declarant sdeclarant as opposed to his interest at the time w Need not be considered by the own interest hen made, it is enough, if it is inconsistent with his present claim and defense It s. is not necessary that the declarant be a party to the action, it is admissibl It is competent only when the declarant or someone e to an action where his declaration is relevant identified in interest is a p May to the action. artybe admitted against himself or successor in interest and against third perso Used n. only against the party admitting. 2. Confession Confession a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an accused in a crimina l case, without any exculpatory statement or explanation. If the accused admits having committed the act in question but alleges a justifi cation therefore, the same is merely an admission. There can also be a confession of judgment in a civil case where the party expre ssly admits his liability. JUDICIAL CONFESSION is one made by the accused before a court in which the case is pending and in the course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can su stain a conviction. EXCEPT in capital offenses, evidence must be presented in capital offenses and t he court must be satisfied that the pleas of guilty was entered with full knowle dge of the meaning and consequences of his act. (Rule 116. Sec. 3) ADMISSION vis--vis CONFESSION Every confession is an admission, but not all admis sions are confessions. Always or ExpressExpress Can May be made facts Statement only by persons CONFESSION implied which does himselfacknowledgement of guilt ADMISSION ofby thirdthe party not involve an acknowledgment of guilt involves an EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION is one made in any other place or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction UNLESS its voluntariness is proven and UNLESS corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE 1. It must be express (Sec. 33, Rule 130 Rules of Court) 2. Voluntary (1987 Constitution); 3. With assistance of competent and independent counsel (1987 Constitution); 4. Must be writing (R.A. 7438). GENERAL RULE: an EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION is admissible against the confessor only. It is incompetent evidence against his co-accused for being hearsay and be cause of the res inter alios acta rule.

EXCEPTIONS: When admissible against the co-defendants: 1. if the co-defendants impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession; 2. Interlocking Confession If the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confession without collusion, and corroborated by other evide nce; 3. where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being app rised of such confession; 4. if they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by on e of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborating evidence; 5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probabili ty of participation by the co-conspirator; 6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant 7. Where the co-conspirator s extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other e vidence of record. In line with the 1987 Constitution, illegal confessions and admissions are inadm issible against the confessant or the admitter BUT are admissible against the pe rsons who violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal conf essions or admissions. (Fruit of the poisonous free) Custodial Investigation A questioning initiated by the law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any signifi cant way. It is present where the investigation ceased to be a general inquiry into an uns olved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect who is taken into custod y and asked questions that leads into eliciting incriminating statements. NOTE: The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply during in-cu stody investigation. 3. Exceptions to Res Inter Alios Acta (admission of third party are inadmissible ) 1st PART: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission or another, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 28); EXCEPTIONS TO PART ONE: (Vicarous Admissions) A. Admissions by Co-Partner or Agent (Sec. 29) Requisites: 1. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within the scope of his authority. 2. During the existence of the partnership or agency; and 3. After the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or d eclaration. The same rule applied to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29). The admissions of one partner are received against another, not on the ground th at they are parties o the record, but on the ground that they are identified in interest, and that each is agent for the other, and that the acts and declaratio ns of one during the existence of the partnership, while transacting its busines s and within the scope of the business, are evidence against the other/s. B. Admission by Conspirator (Sec. 30): It refers to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator, and not to his testi mony given on the stand which is subject to cross-examination. Requisites: 1. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itse lf; 2. That the admission relates to the conspiracy itself; 3. That it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the con spiracy; and 4. That the object of the conspiracy has not yet been consummated. DOCTRINE OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION An adoptive admission is a party s reaction to a statement or action by another pe rson when it is reasonable to treat the party s reaction as an admission of someth

ing stated or implied by the other person. (Estrada vs. Desierto 356 SCRA 108) I n this case, Estrada s admission was based on the diary of Angara. Instances where there is no implied admission 1. allegations of unliquidated damages; 2. allegations which are not material to the cause of action; 3. conclusions of fact/law; 4. in cases of usury; 5. if defendant has not filed his answer and is declared in default. C. Admission by Privies (Sec. 31) PRIVIES those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of p roperty or subject matter such as personal representatives, heirs, devisees, leg atees, assigns, voluntary grantees, or judgment creditors or purchasers from the m with notice of the facts. The declarant was so situated that his interest were such that he would not have made the admission to the prejudice of his title or possession unless hey were true. The declarant need not be presented as witness, his statement may be prove d by those who have knowledge of them. Requisites: 1. There must be privity, between the party and the declarant; 2. The declarant as predecessor in interest made the declaration while holding t he title to the property; and 3. The admission to the property. D. Admission by Silence (Sec. 32) Requisites: 1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person; 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it; 3. He must have understood the statement; 4. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have done so , if the statement was no true; 5. The facts were within his knowledge; and 6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn form his silence is material to the issue. 4blue 95: Qui tacet consentire videtur: He who is silent appears to consent. 4blue 95:in line with the constitution ,illegal confessions and admissions are i nadmissible against the confessant or the admitter but are admissible against th e persons who violated the constitutional prohibition in obtaining such illegal confession (fruit of the poisonous tree) People v. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105 (1978) Failure by a supposed rape victim to rebut sweetheart defense based on testimonial evidence may be taken against her. Requ irements for admission by silence: 1) heard and understood, 2) at liberty to den y, 3) affects his rights, 4) within his knowledge, and 5) material to the issue People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) silence of accused in custody during invest igation can not be used as evidence against him Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 853 (1965) court may not comment on accused s fail ure to testify regarding facts within his knowledge 2nd PART: Similar acts as evidence (Sec. 34) PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE GENERAL RULE: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time i s not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at anther time. EXCEPTIONS: It may be received to prove: 1. specific intent or knowledge; 2. identity; 3. plan; 4. system; 5. scheme;

6. habit; 7. custom or usage; and 8. others of the like. Section 35. Unaccepted offer An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written ins trument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equiv alent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. US v. Evangelista, 24 Phil 453 (1913) In a trial for arson, the prosecution may prove that the accused had attempted to set fire to the house on the day previou s to the burning alleged in the information, for the purpose of showing the inte nt of the accused in subsequently setting fire to the house. Where a person is c harged wit the commission of a specific crime, testimony may be received of the other similar acts committed about the same time, only for the purpose of estab lishing the criminal intent of the accused. US v. Pineda, 37 Phil 457 (1918) Facts: A druggist filled a prescription for protassium chlorate with barium chlo rate, a poison, causing the death of two horses. After analyzing the packages, t wo chemists went to the drug store of the defendant and bought potassium chlorat e, which when analyzed was found to be barium chlorate. Held: The testimony of the chemist was admissible in order to demonstrate defend ant's motive and negligence. It is permissible to ascertain defendant's knowledg e and intent and to fix his negligence. If the defendant has on more than one oc casion performed similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negl igence is intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be established. There is n o better evidence of negligence than the frequency of accidents. Evidence is adm issible in a criminal action which tends to show motive, although it tends to pr ove the commission of another offense by the defendant. 4. Offer of Compromise a.In CIVIL CASES, offer of compromise is not admissible only as evidence of liab ility. If the offer of compromise is offered as evidence on other matters (e.g. amount of liability), then the evidence is admissible. an offer is clearly not only to buy peace but amounts to an admission of liabili ty the offered compromises being directed only to the amount paid. (El Varadero de manila vs. Insular Lumber). REASON: it is the policy of the law to favor the settlement of disputes, to fost er compromises and to promote peace. b.In CRIMINAL CASES, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in ev idence as an implied admission of guilt. EXCEPTIONS: 1. those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence; (Reckless imprudence); 2. Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law; 3. Plea of guilty later withdrawn; 4. an unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense; 5. an offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasio ned by an injury; 6. Tax cases. An offer of compromise that may be considered an implied admission need NOT be m ade by the accused himself, it may be made by his lawyer or relatives, provided it is made with the consent of the accused or with his knowledge and he does not stop it. The Good Samaritan Rule An offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital and other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil and criminal liabilit y for the injury. REASON: To encourage the giving of charitable and meritorious aid to the victims of accidental harm plus a concern that such payment may have been prompted sole ly by humanitarian motives. OFFER OF COMPROMISE VS. ORDINARY ADMISSION In an offer of compromise, the proposal is tentative and any statement made in c onnection with it is hypothetical to buy peace and in contemplation of mutual co

ncessions, whereas in an ORDINARY ADMISSION, the intention is apparently to admi t liability and to seek to buy or secure relief against a liability recognized a s such. Although a judicial or an extra-judicial amicable settlement does not bear the c ourt s approval . the agreement can become the source of rights an obligations of th e parties (Iloilo Traders Finance Inc. vs. Heirs of Soriano, GR No. 149683, June 16, 2003) C.TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowled ge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise prov ided in these rules. 4blue95:matters learned from third person is considered as HEARSAY, ex: I learned from my informant that.. People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 (1992) Hearsay evidence not objected to may be ad missible but, whether objected to or not, has no probative value and as opposed to direct and primary evidence the latter always prevails. REASON FOR EXCLUDING HEARSAY:It is not subject to the test of truth because ther e is no opportunity for cross-examination.In other words, the witness cannot swe ar as to the truth beyond what was told to him, heard or read. Also, this will b e a violation of the constitutional right to confrontation. BAR: Defendant was declared in default so that the plaintiff presented evidence. The lone witness presented testified on hearsay matters but since the hearing wa s ex parte, no objection was raised against her testimony. Should the testimony be given probative value?NO,it has no probative value even if not objected at th e trial since it is hearsay evidence. CLASSIFICATION OF OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS 1. HEARSAY - Those which are considered as hearsay and therefore inadmissible, t his occurs when the purpose for introducing the out-of-court statement is to pro ve the truth of the facts asserted therein. 2. NON-HEARSAY Admissible. This occurs when the purpose for introducing the stat ement is not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein but only the makin g of the statements and are admissible in evidence when the making of the statem ent is relevant. These are so-called INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS. 3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE Those which are hearsay but are considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule and are therefore admissible. These are from Sect ions 37 to 47 of Rule 130. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE 1. Dying Declaration 2. Declaration Against Interest 3. Act or declaration about pedigree; 4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree; 5. common reputation; 6. Res Gestae; 7. Entries in the ordinary course of business; 8. Entries in official records; 9. Commercial lists; 10. Learned treatises; 11. testimony or deposition at a former proceeding 12. statement made by child describing a child abuse act(according to 4blue95 th is is a 2006 update since in other books,the 12th ground is waiver) Reason for the exceptions: They are admissible by reason of NECESSITY and TRUSTW ORTHINESS. 4blue95:1,2,3&7 requires the witness must be dead INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS An out of court declaration while having certain characteristics of hearsay evid ence are not actually cases of hearsay but are original evidence. These are statements which are relevant independently, whether they are true or not. It is also called as he apparent hearsay.

4blue95: it is merely presenting the tenor of the statement and not the truth or veracity of such statements like in LIBEL cases whereby X declares that Y is pr ostitute , such statement is not excluded from record since such is an original ev idence for libel, which to wit will be shown to prove that such statement declar ed is libelous and not to prove that Y is prostitute. 4blue95: NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS can be proved whereby accused admitted his guilt or participation, it is admissible in evidence regardless of truth or falsity of s uch. Two classes of Independently Relevant Statement 1. Those statements which are the very fact in issue; 2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue. It i ncludes the following: a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his mental conditio n, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other emotions; b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition as illness and the l ike; c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is knowledge, belief, motive, good faith/bad faith of the latter; d. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in question; e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. D. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE 1.Dying Declaration (NOT COVERED CIVIL CASES) The ante mortem statements made by a person after the mortal wound has been infl icted under the belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the c ause of and the circumstances surrounding the attack. It applies to any case where DEATH of the DECLARANT is the subject of the inquir y. Requisites: 1. That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; 2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death; 3. That the declaration relates to the facts which the victim is competent to te stify to(IN WRITING OR NOT and it may be SIGNED OR NOT.; 4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant s death is subj ect of the inquiry(the victim necessarily must have died); 5. That the statement is COMPLETE IN ITSELF. (People vs. De Joya, 230 SCRA 343) To be complete in itself does not mean that the declaration must recite everythi ng that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. Reason for admission 1. necessity because the declarant s death renders impossible his taking the witne ss stand. 2. Trustworthiness Maxim: truth sits on the lips of the dying man. At the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced. The mind is induced by the mos t powerful consideration to speak the truth. 4blue95:There must be a settled, hopeless expectation that DEATH is at hand. It is sufficient that he believed himself in imminent danger of death at the time o f such declaration. Determination of consciousness of impending death: 1. utterances; 2. circumstances that at the time of making the declaration, the declarant did n ot expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. 3. actual character and seriousness of his wounds; 4. by his conduct.

4blue 95:A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by signs which could be interpreted and testified to by a witness thereto. 4blue95:Dying declarations favorable to the accused are admissible. 4blue95:Dying declaration may also be regarded as part of the RES GESTAE as they were made soon after the starting occurrence without the opportunity for fabric ation or concoction. 4blue95:Dying declaration is not considered a confidential communication between spouses.A dying declaration may be attacked on the ground that any of the requi sites for its admissibility are not present and the same may be impeached at the same manner as the testimony of any other unless of the stand. 2006 notes: If answer is that he did not know that he was going to die and show s that his identification of person who stabbed him was not made under the consc iousness of impending death. Hence, the identification is not admissible as a dy ing declaration (Pp v. Dominguez)AS SUCH, if X says that Dela Cruz stabbed me an d he died. And it turned out there are 6 persons with the family name of Dela Cr uz then such statement is not admissible since it has no particularity as to who among the dela cruzes stabbed X. 2.Declaration against interest Requisites: 1. That the declarant is DEAD OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY; 2. That it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant. 3. That at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that the sa me was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and 4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such declaration to be true. Reasons for its admission such declarations are the only mode of proof available. 1. Necessity 2. Trustworthiness persons do not make statements that are disadvantageous to th emselves without substantial reason to believe that the statements are true. Sel f-interest induces men to be cautions in saying anything against themselves. In other words, we can safely trust a man when he speaks against his interest. The declarant must realize at the very time of making the declaration that his d eclaration is against his interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true. It is essential that at the time of the statement, the declarant s interest affect ed thereby should be actual/real/apparent not merely contingent, future or uncon ditional; otherwise, the declaration would not in reality be against interest. If the declarant is still alive and available as a witness, his declaration woul d be admissible only as an admission against himself or privies or if he testifi es, his statement against him as a prior inconsistent statement in some instance s. 3.Act or declaration about pedigree (sec 39) According to 4blue95, this is needed in suits for recognition. 4.Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (sec 40) Testimony Witness 40 ismember ofmember of the who pedigree Family 39 a not Act or reputationbeabout PEDIGREE family Sectiondeclarationoratradition regardingis DEAD OR UNABLE TO TESTIFY, has said c is need about what declarant, the family The word is about family the declarant family genealogy, matters of pedigree. TestimonyPEDIGREE includesreputation or tradition coveringbirth, marriage, death oncerning the pedigree pf relationship s family , the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with p edigree. 5.Part of RES GESTAE RES GESTAE literally means thing done; it includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to illustrate its character and also includes acts, words or declaration which are closely co nnected therewith as to constitute part of the transaction. TWO TYPES OF RES GESTAE 1. SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS Statements made by a person while a startling occurren

ce is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to th e circumstances thereto; REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS a.there must be a startling occurrence; b.the statement must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence; an d c.the statement must be spontaneous. Grounds for admissibility of spontaneous statement a.Necessity natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the test imony of the same person on the stand; b.Trustworthiness the statement is made instinctively. The facts speaking thru t he party not the party talking about the facts. It is essential that they should have been caused by something startling enough to produce nervous excitement. The declarant must be a witness to the event to w hich the utterance relates. He must have personally observed the fact. What the law distrusts is not the after speech but after thought . 2. VERBAL ACTS Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, a nd giving it a legal significance. REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF VERBAL ACTS a.the act or occurrence characterized must be equivocal; b.verbal acts must characterize or explain the equivocal act; c.equivocal act must be relevant to the issue; and d.verbal acts must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act. 2006 notes:Age of a young girl was proven by testimonies of the girl herself, he r aunt and the judge based on her appearance, SC held that such evidence is not sufficient, since the age of victim being essential in statutory rape must be in dubitably proved by the prosecutions .Conviction based on oral testimony as to a ge of victim by victim herself, aunt or judge is erroneous. May be made by the DYING DECLARATIONS killer himself after or during the killing OR that of a 3rdd RES GESTAE in Connection with a homicidal act Trustworthiness the Justification in by homicidal being given homicidal attack was committed Made only after basedspontaneity after been awareness May precede, accompanyupon itsattack hadstatement Can be person made onlythe theor be madeof the thein committed of impending death. victim Statements Verbal gestae be contemporaneous The resact STATEMENTS prior, or immediately SPONTANEOUSmay be madestartling occurrence after the staring occurrence. VERBAL ACTSmustis the equivocal actwith or must accompany the equivocal act People v. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218 (1994) Facts: Atanacia Ramos had a daughter Rosita. Rosita married Domiciano Peralta. T hey had a daughter Siony. On morning, Siony came to Atanacia at her house franti cally told her that Domiciano was strangling Rosita. They went to the Peralta ho me and found Rosita dead. Domiciano was not there. They immediately reported the matter to the police, who eventually arrested the Domiciano. At the preliminary investigation, Siony executed a sworn statement implicating her father. Domicia no was charged with Parricide. At the trial Atanacia testified as to Siony s decla ration. However, Siony testified for her father and said that though she saw som eone strangling her mother, she did not see who it was. After the defense rested , the prosecution presented the investigating judge who testified as to the regu larity of the conduct of the preliminary investigation. TC convicts. Held: The statement Siony made to her grandmother when she rushed to inform her of her father's attack on her mother was part of the res gestae. Res gestae mean s the "thing done." It refers to those exclamations and statements made by eithe r the participants, victims or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are suc h 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. Siony rushed to Atanacia imme diately upon seeing her father strangling her mother to death. Her spontaneous declaration to Atanacia was part of the res gestae and is assume d to preclude the probability of premeditation of fabrication. Since the utteran ce was made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses rather than reason and reflection, and during the brief period when consideration of s elf-interest could not have been fully brought to bear, the utterance may be tak en as expressing Siony's real belief as to the facts just observed by her.

6.Common reputation The following may be established by common reputation: 1. matters of public interest more than 30 yrs.old; 2. matters of general interest more than 30 years old; 3. matters respecting marriage or moral character and related facts; 4. individual moral character. Common Reputation is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists. It means the general or substantially undivided re putation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified one, although it need no be unanimous. As a general rule, the reputation of a person should be that existing in the pla ce of his residence it may also be that existing in the place where he is best k nown. EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE GOOD REPUTE Where the foundation proof shows that the witness was in such position that he w ould have heard reports derogatory to one s character, the reputation testimony ma y be predicated ion the absence of reports of bad reputation or on the fact that the witness had heard nothing against the person. 7.Entries in the course of business Requisites: 1. that the entrant made the entry in his professional capacity or in the perfor mance of a duty; 2. That the entry was made in the ordinary course of business or duty; 3. The entries must have been made at or near he time of the transaction to whic h the relate; 4. The entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entr ies; 5. The entrant must be decease or unable to testify. The law does not fix any precise moment when the entries should be made. It is s ufficient if the entry was made within a reasonable period of time so that it ma y appear to have taken place while the memory of the facts was unimpaired. How regularly of the entries proved it may be proved by the form in which they a ppear in the corresponding book. 8.Entries in official records. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OFFICIAL ENTRIES 1. that it was made by a public officer by another person specially enjoined by law to o so; and 2. that it was made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, or by an other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and 3. the public officer of the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through offici al information. Reasons for its admission 1. Necessity practical impossibility of requiring the official s attendance as a w itness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty. 2. Trustworthiness there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of of ficial duty. Probative value: only facie evidence of the fact state therein. It is not essential for the officer making the official statement to have a pers onal knowledge of the facts stated by him, it being sufficient that the official information was acquired by officers who prepared the reports from person who n ot only have personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to gi ve such statements for the record. It is well settled that entries in the police blotter should not be given the du e significance or probative value as they are not conclusive evidence of the r\t ruth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded. Hence, th ey do not constitute conclusive proof. (People vs. Cabrera Jr. GR No. 138266, Ap ril 30, 2003) 9.Commercial lists and the like

Requisites: 1. statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation; 2. The statements must be contained in a list register, periodical or other publ ished compilation; 3. That compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation; and 4. Is generally relied upon by them. Reasons for its admission 1. Necessity because of the usual unaccessibility of the persons responsible for the compilation of matters contained in a list, register, periodical or other p ublished compilation and tremendous it would cause to the court if it would issu e summons to these numerous individuals. 2. Trustworthiness they have no motive to deceive and they further realize that unless the list, register, periodical or other published compilation are prepare d with care and accuracy, their work will have no commercial or probative value. 10.Learned Treatises In order that a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law, history, science or art may be admissible, it is necessary either. 1. That the court can take judicial notice of it; or 2. a witness, expert in the subject, testifies the writer of the statement in th e treatise, periodicals, or pamphlet is recognize in his profession or calling a s expert in the subject. Reasons for its admission 1. Necessity even if such person is legally procurable, the expense is frequentl y disproportionate. 2. Trustworthiness learned writers have no motive to misrepresent. He is aware t hat his work will be carefully scrutinized by the leaned members of his professi on and that he shall be subject to criticisms an ultimately rejected as an autho rity on the subject matter if his conclusions are found to be invalid. 11.Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding Requisites: 1. The testimony or depositions of a witness deceased or unable to testify; 2. The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administr ative; 3. Involving the same parties; 4. Relating to the same subject matter; 5. The adverse party having had an opportunity to cross-examine him. 12.waiver (or child made a statement describing a child abuse act) E.OPINION RULE Opinion: An inference or conclusion drawn from facts and not their inferences, c onclusions or opinions. GENERAL RULE: Witnesses must give the facts and not their inferences, conclusion s or opinions(OPINION OF WITNESS NOT ADMISSIBLE). Exceptions: 1. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS : On a matter requiring SPECIAL knowledge, skill, e xperience or training which he is shown to possesses (Sec. 49); 2. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge (Sec. 50[a]) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity (Sec. 50 [b]); The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted (Sec. 50 [ c]); The witness impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a p erson (Sec. 50 [d]) Expert evidence: The testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge which is not usually acquired by other persons. TEST: whether the opinion called for will aid the fact finder in resolving an is sue. An expert witness may base his opinion either on the first-hand knowledge of the facts or on the bases of hypothetical questions where the facts are presented t

o him hypothetically and on the assumption that they are true, formulates his op inion on the hypothesis. Expert evidence is admissible only if: 1. the matter to be testified requires expertise; and 2. the witness has been qualified as an expert. How to present an expert witness 1. Introduce and qualify the witness; 2. Let him give his factual testimony, if he has knowledge of the facts; 3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him, to assume certain facts as tru e; 4. Conclude the question, by, first asking the expert if he has an opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true and secondly, asking him, after he has answered affirmatively, to give his opinion on the point; 5. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to give his reasons. Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert to elicit his opinion. Courts, however, are NOT necessarily bound by the experts findings. Limitation on Hypothetical Question:The proponent must have already introduced e vidence to support a finding that the assumed facts exist. The opinion of an expert as to the possibility becomes conjectural or speculativ e without any probative value to establish causation in the absence of other evi dence thereof. Opinion of Ordinary Witness Ordinary Opinion Evidence:That which is given by a witness who is of ordinary ca pacity and who has by opportunity acquired a particular knowledge which is outsi de the limits of common observation and which may be of value in elucidating a m atter under consideration. Shorthand rendering of facts:This is also known as instantaneous conclusions of facts. The memory may retain no single detail indeed. One may never have recognized a s ingle detail yet the appearance of the man may have left upon the mind an indeli ble impression as to his physical and mental condition. In truth, that which we call opinion is fact. The impression or conclusion is th e sum of what he saw and in its final analysis, the offer is to prove a fact and not an opinion. F.CHARACTER EVIDENCE Character (Sec. 51):The aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and dis tinguish an individual person. GENERAL RULE: CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE (THIS IS WITH REGARD MAIN PAR TIES) EXCEPTIONS(applicable to civil and criminal cases not admin except if accused in itiate to prove his good moral character in admin cases then other party may not prove his bad character): a.CRIMINAL CASES: (applicable if to establish probability/improbability of offen se charge) 1. Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral tr ain involved in the offense charge; 4blue95: IN THIS SCENARIO, once accused prove his good moral character ,then pro secution may prove bad character of accused (but prosecution cannot be the 1st o ne to initiate to prove the character of the accused ,it should be the latter w ho must initiate) 2. The prosecution may not prove bad moral character of the accused unless in re buttal when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character; 3. As to the offended party, his good or bad oral character may be proved as lo ng as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense char ged; Exceptions: 1. proof of the bad character of the victim in a murder case is not admissible i

f the crime was committed through treachery and premeditation; and 2. in prosecution for rape, evidence of complainant s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the c ase. b.CIVIL CASES: The moral character of either party thereto CANNOT be proved UNL ESS it is PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE of character involved in the case. 4blue95:in both civil and criminal cases,the evidence presented must be proximat e in time,as such,if party presents evidences which occur 10 years ago, such sha ll not be admissible except if what you will present focuses on previous conviction and not on cases filed against the other, on that instance, it is already admissible since you pr ove that such party was once upon a time a convict. G.BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS BURDEN OF PROOF/RISK OF NON-PERSUASION - the duty of a party to present evidenc e on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amoun t of evidence required by law. Proof the establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue. Two separate burdens in burden of proof 1. burden of going forward that of producing evidence 2. burden of persuasion the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burd ened party is entitled to prevail. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, no qui negat He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. UPON WHOM BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS: A. Civil Cases 1. the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense; 2. the defendant has the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff. NOTE: In a civil case, the plaintiff is always compelled to allege affirmative a ssertions in his complaint. When he allege a cause of action, he will be forced to allege that he has a right and such right was violated by the other party. Th us, he has the duty t prove the existence of this affirmative allegation. When the defendant files his answer and sets up purely a negative defense and no evidence is presented by both sides, it is the defendant who will win the case since the plaintiff has not presented the quantum of evidence required by law. O n the other hand, when the defendant in his answer sets up an affirmative defens e. If there is no evidence presented by both sides, it is the defendant who will lose the case. B. Criminal Case The burden of proof is with the prosecution by reason of the presumption of inno cence. The burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused must be borne by the prosecut ion. It required that courts determine first if the evidence of the prosecution has at least shown a prima facie case before considering the evidence of the def ense. If the prosecution does not have a prima facie case, it is futile to waste time in considering the evidence presented by the defense. Should the prosecuti on succeed in establishing a prima facie case against the accused, the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. Under the Speedy Trial Act, if the accused is NOT brought to trial within the ti me required the information shall be dismissed on the motion of the accused. In this case, the BURDEN OF PROOF of supporting such motion is with the accused (Se c. 13, RA 8493). DEGREE OF PROOF THAT SATISFIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF A. CIVIL CASES Preponderance of evidence B. CRIMINAL CASES

To sustain conviction Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Preliminary investigation Engenders a well founded belief of the fact of the com mission of a crime. Issuance of warrant of arrest Probable cause, i.e., that there is reasonable gro und to believe that the accused has committed an offense. C.ADMINISTRATIVE CASES Substantial evidence. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE 1. proof beyond reasonable doubt; 2. clear and convincing evidence; 3. preponderant of evidence; 4. substantial evidence. PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENTS GENERAL RULE: Negative allegations need not be proved, whether in a civil or cri minal action. EXCEPTION: Where such negative action or defense in a civil case, or are essenti al ingredients of the offense in a criminal or defenses thereto. HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, such negative allegation does not have to be pr oved if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party. In a criminal case, the rile is that of the subject of the negative averment inh eres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of proving the same. In view, however, of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation, the prosecution, under such circumstance, need to do no more than make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable (People vs Q uebral 68 PHIL 564) BURDEN OF EVIDENCE logical necessity on a party during a particular time of the trial to create a p rima facie case in his favor or to destroy that created against him by presentin g evidence. In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies on the party who a sserts an affirmative allegation. Does not PROOF BURDEN OFshift and remains throughout the entire case exactly where the pleading EVIDENCE Shifts from placed party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the cour s originallyparty toit. Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party. by the provisions of s se of the trial. developments of the trial, or ubstantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting e UPON WHOM the facts alleged. vidence onBURDEN OF EVIDENCE RESTS A. Civil Cases: The plaintiff has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant has to prove the affirmative allegations in his counterclaim and his affirmative defenses. B. Criminal Cases: The PROSECUTION has to prove its affirmative allegations in the information rega rding he elements of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances; while the DEFENSE has to prove its affirmative allegations regarding the existence of jus tifying or exempting circumstances, absolutely causes or mitigating circumstance s. H.PRESUMPTIONS An inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are per mitted to draw from the proof of other facts. A presumption shift the burden of going forward with the evidence. It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption. Note: Presumptions are like bats of the law flitting in the twilight, but disappe aring in the sunshine of actual facts. (9 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 249) Classification of Presumptions: 1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made form particular facts. 2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT is a deduction which reason draws from facts p

roved without an express direction from the law to that effect. Certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW FACT Derived to fixed directly from part to drawing of jurisprudence Reduced inferenceruled the tribunal circumstances thethe particular case by mea Discretion is vested inand form athe asof the system ofinference of the wholly and PRESUMPTION JURIS may be divided into: ns of the common experience of mankind. 1. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION (juris et de jure) which is a resumption of law that i s not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary; CLASSES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS under RULE 131 1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec, 2(par, a) whenever a party has, by his own d eclaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to belie ve a particular thing to be true and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to fal sify it. 2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (par.b)) the tenant is not permitted to de ny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Note: What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship. If the title asse rted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply. 2. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS that which the law permits to be overcome or contrad icted by proofs to the contrary; otherwise the same remains satisfactory. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS 1.Presumptions of Innocence Applies to both civil and criminal cases.This presumption accompanies the accuse d throughout the trial down to the moment of conviction. This presumption disapp ears after conviction and the appellate court then will presume the accused guil ty. By reason of this presumption, an accused is not called upon to offer evidence o n his behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Where the evidence gives rise to two probabilities, one consistent with defendan ts innocence and another indicative of his guilt that which is favorable to the accused should be considered. (Equipoise Rule) 2.Presumption of Silence So if person remains quiet then he may be presumed guilty so he may be convicted of the offense charged. 3.Presumption of suppression of evidence The natural conclusion is that the proof if produced, instead of rebutting would support the inference against him and the court is justified in acting upon tha t conclusion. When presumption will not apply: 1. when the suppression of evidence is not willful; 2. when the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulativ e; 3. when the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; 4. when the suppression is an exercise of privilege. 4.Presumption from possession of stolen goods(BAR) This is not in conflict with the presumptions of innocence. At the start of the criminal case, the court will apply the presumption of innocence. But once the p rosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully taken, tha t there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution has also proven t hat the accused is in possession of this object unlawfully taken, then the presu mption of innocence disappears. The new presumption of guilt will not take the p lace. (if thing is taken not through theft but malversation ,so such is not cove red by this rule- - dapat theft or robbery lang.) 5.Presumption that a person in a public office was regularly appointed or electe d to it Reason: it would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it might

be collaterally in issue. The burden of proof is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed or designated. 6.Presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed Reasons: 1. innocence and not wrongdoing is to be presumed; 2. an official oath will not be violated; 3. a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent at least to the extent of such presumption. 7.The presumption of regularity and legality of official acts is applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases. This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. It has bee n extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to a local or special sta tute to act in quasi-public or quasi-official capacities an to professional men e.g., surgeons and attorney. 4blue95: all things are presumed to have been done regularly and with due formal ity until the contrary is proved. While ordinarily, irregularity will not be presumed, an adverse presumption may arise where the official act in question appears to be irregular on its face. 8.Presumption of regularity of judicial proceedings, that a court, or judge acti ng as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in a lawful exer cise of jurisdiction. The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subje ct matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect Jurisdiction is resume in all cases, be it the superior or inferior court. Howev er, jurisdiction to render a judgment in a particular case or against a particu lar case of against particular persons may not be presume where the record itsel f shows that jurisdiction has not been acquired or where there is something in t he record showing the absence of jurisdiction. 9.Presumption that private transactions have been done fair and regular An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only what he ahs the right to do. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a pres umption that all men act fairly, honestly and in good faith. 10.Presumption that an ordinary course of business has been followed Those who are engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the business. 11.Continuing Existence(BAR) Thing once exist in the past is presumed to continue to the present like a mayor who allowed cockfighting in his municipality, the prosecution show evidence of mayor securing permit in the past years but did not show any proof that he secur ed permit in operating cockfighting in the present, such is a disputable presump tion that as of current he still operates. 12.Presumption of absence/death (BAR) Remarriage: 2 yrs for extraordinary 4 yrs for ordinary Succession: 2 yrs for extraordinary 10yrs ordinary but 5 yrs if over 75 yrs old Other Purposes: 4 yrs for extraordinary 7 yrs for ordinary I.PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE & EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES HOW ORAL EVIDENCE GIVEN it is usually given orally, in open court. Therefore, ge nerally, the testimonies of witnesses cannot be presented in affidavits. One instance when the testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits is und er the Rules on Summary Procedure. PURPOSE: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witn ess manner of testifying, their intelligence and their appearance. General rule: Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation

Two fold object in requiring a witness to be sworn 1. by affecting the conscience of the witness to compel him to speak the truth; 2. if he willfully falsifies that truth, that he maybe punished for his perjury. The right to have the witness sworn may be waived, if a party fails to object to the taking of the testimony of witness without the administration of an oath, h e will be deemed to have waived his objection. Questions propounded to a witness must: 1. not be indefinite or uncertain; 2. be relevant; 3. not be argumentative; 4. not call for conclusion of law; 5. not call for opinion or hearsay evidence; 6. not call for illegal answer; 7. not call for self-incriminating testimony; 8. not be leading; 9. not be misleading; 10. not tend to degrade reputation of witness; 11. not be repetitious; 12. not cal for a narration. Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness RIGHTS OF A WITNESS 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from h arsh or insulting demeanor; 2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice require; 3. No to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offe nse unless otherwise provided by law; 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade is reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact at issue would be pre sumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction fo r an offense. Rights of a witness to be free from personal violence The action of the judge is seizing the witness by the should and turning him abo ut (to look to the judge) was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled whole giving the testimony in court, which his attorney had the right to protest and to deman d that the incident be made of record. Scope of right against self-incrimination 1. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; 2. The rule may be invoked in any court or proceedings 3. The rule only covers testimonial compulsion and production by him of incrimin ating documents and articles. Rationale against testimonial compulsion: The court may not extract form the defendant s own lips and against his will an ad mission of his guilt. When is an act testimonial?If it explicitly or implicitly relate a factual asser tion or discloses information. When is there compulsion?It is present only if a witness has asserted a right to refuse to disclose self-incriminating information and this refusal has been ove rridden. Forced re-enactment Comes within the ban since prohibition against testimonial compulsion extend to those communicative in nature. Rights of a defendant He has the right to be exempt from being a witness against himself, cannot be co mpelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the a ccused or one of he accused, he cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the court. He cannot be required either for the prose cution, for co-accused or even for himself.

An ordinary witness or a party in a civil action An ordinary witness may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the rig ht to refuse to answer a particular incriminating question at the time it is put to him. Limitation if a witness to a party in a civil action Before the plaintiff could compel the defendant to be a witness, the plaintiff m ust first prove that he has submitted written interrogatories to the defendant. The exception under no. 4 refers o IMMUNITY STATUTES wherein the witness is gran ted immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses admitted in his testimony. e .g., under Sec. 8, RA 1378, the law providing for the forfeiture of unlawfully a cquired property; and under P.D. 749, in prosecutions for bribery and graft. CLASSIFICATION OF IMMUNITY STATUTES 1. Use Immunity Only prohibits the use of witness compelled testimony and its fru it in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution with the criminal p rosecution of the witness immune from prosecution. 2. Transactional Immunity grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. For purpose of evidence right against self incrimination refers only to testimon ial compulsion. Right against self-incrimination is granted only in favor of individuals. Right against self-incriminations extends to administrative proceedings with a c riminal or penal aspect. STATE WITNESS - person who has participated in the commission of a crime and de sires to be a witness for the state shall be admitted into the program whenever the following circumstance are present. 1. the offense in which his testimony will based is a grave felony as defined un der the RPC or its equivalent under special laws; 2. absolute necessity for his testimony; 3. there is no direct evidence available or the proper prosecution of the offens e committed; 4. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points; 5. he does not appear to be the most guilty; and 6. he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. (Sec. 10) Sworn Statement Before any person is admitted into the program he shall execute a sworn statement describing in detail the manner the offense was committed and his participation therein. (Sec. 11) If his application is denied, said sworn statement and other immunity from crimi nal prosecution for the offenses in which his testimony will be given and used ( Sec.12) Failure without just cause of the witness to testify when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be liable for perjury. His immunity shall be removed and he shall be subje ct to criminal prosecution. (Sec. 13) WITNESS PROTECTION, SECURITY AND BENEFIT ACT RA 6981 Who may be admitted? (Sec. 3) Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission o f a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judi cial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, maybe admitt ed into the program: Provided that: 1. the offense in which his testimony will be is used is a grave felony as defin ed under RPC or its equivalent under special laws; 2. his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points; 3. he or any member of his family within the second degree of consanguinity or a ffinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury; 4. he is not a law enforcement office. Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness ORDER: 1. direct-examination;

2. cross-examination; 3. redirect-examination; 4. re-cross examination. Section 5. Direct Examination Direct examination is the examination in chief of a witness by the party presen ting him on the facts relevant to the issue. Section 6. Cross-Examination The most reliable and effective way known to testing the credibility and accurac y of testimony. PURPOSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1. To discredit the witness; 2. To discredit the testimony of the witness; 3. To clarify certain matters; 4. To elicit admissions from a witness. SCOPE OR LIMITS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION 1. ENGLISH RULE where a witness is called to testify to a particular act, he bec omes a witness for all purposes any may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue, the examination not being confined to the matters inquir ed about in the direct examination. 2. AMERICAN RULE - restricts cross-examination to facts and circumstances which are connected with matters that have been stated in the direct examination of t he witness. Under Philippine jurisdiction, we follow the two rules, specifically under the f ollowing instances: IN GENERAL, we follow the English Rule, which allow the cross-examination to eli cit all important facts bearing upon the issue (Sec. 6), but this does not mean that a party by doing so is making the witness his own in accordance with Sectio n 5. We follow the American Rule as to the ACCUSED or a HOSTILE WITNESS, who may only be cross-examined on matters covered by direct examination. DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY When cross-examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompe tent and should be stricken from the record. Except where the prosecution witnes s was extensively cross-examined on the material points and produced despite a w arrant for his arrest (People vs. Gerospe, GR 51513, May 15, 1984) GENERAL RULE: A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the c ase is bound by the testimony of said witness. EXCEPTIONS: A party is not bound when calling the following: 1. adverse party; 2. hostile witness; 3. unwilling witness; 4. witness required by law to be presented. Hostile Witness a witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so d eclared by the court upon adequate showing of: 1. his advance interest; or 2. unjustified reluctance to testify; or 3. his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. Section 7. Re-direct examination Principal object: To prevent injustice to the witness and the party who has called him by affordin g an opportunity to the witness to explain or amplify the testimony which he has given on cross-examination or to explain any apparent contradiction or inconsis tency in his statements, an opportunity which is nor ordinarily afforded him aff orded him during his cross-examination. The witness may be allowed to reaffirm o r explain his statements, their meaning or import and to minimize or destroy dis crediting tendencies. NOTE: if in the exercise of discretion, the court admits new mater in re-examina tion or if explanation of the answers given is necessary, the court may permit a

re-cross examination. Section 8. RE-cross examination Purpose: To overcome the party s attempt to rehabilitates a witness or to rebut damaging ev idence brought out on cross-examination. NOTE: It is not a matter of right on re-cross examination for counsel to touch o n matters not brought on the re-direct examination of the witness. Re-cross exam ination of the witness is limited to new matters brought out on the redirect exa mination of the witness and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. Section 9. Recalling witness. GENERAL RULE: After the examination of a witness by both sides has been conclude d, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. Reason:A witness cannot be detained longer than the interest of justice requires . Exception: Recall has been expressly reserved with the approval of the court. Section 10. leading and misleading questions. Leading Question One which suggests to the witness the answer which the examinin g party desires. It is GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED. EXCEPTIONS: 1. On preliminary matters; 2. On cross-examination; 3. To adverse party witness; 4. To the officer of the adverse party who is a juridical person; 5. To hostile witness; 6. To unwilling witness; 7. To children of tender age; 8. To deaf-mutes; 9. To those who are ignorant; 10. To those who are of weak minds. Reason for allowing leading questions on cross-examination: The witness is not the cross-examining party s witness. He is expected to be adver se or hostile to the cross-examiner. He is not expected to cooperate. For exceptions # 3 and 4:The party producing the said witnesses may interrogate him by leading questions and contradict him in all respects as if he had been ca lled by the adverse party. There is no need of a preliminary showing of hostilit y before leading questions can be asked. Misleading Question one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated it is NOT ALLOWED. EXCEPTIONS: 1. when waived; 2. asking hypothetical questions to an expert witness. Only one counsel should be allowed to examine a witness in a single stage. Howev er, the other counsel may make objection to the testimony. Reasons: 1. To Whom It May Concern: protect the witness from undue and confusing interrog ation; and 2. To secure system and brevity by giving the control of the interrogation to a single hand. When is a Question Preliminary?When the question does not touch on any issue.A q uestion that merely suggest a subject without suggestion an answer or a specific thing is not a leading question. Example: State whether anything occurred betwee n you and the defendants on the evening of January 9, 2003. Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party s witness. To impeach a witness means to discredit the witness s testimony. it is a fundament al right on cross-examination. Since the witness s credibility is always in issue, it is never beyond the permissible scope of cross-examination.(Gilbert, Evidenc e, Sec. 991) WAYS OF IMPEACHMENT ADVERSE PARTY S WITNESS 1. By contradictory evidence;

2. By evidence that the general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity of the witness is bad; or 3. By prior inconsistent statements. (Sec. 11) OTHER MODES OF IMPEACHMENT ASIDE FROM Sec. 11 1. By involving him during cross examining in contradiction; 2. By showing the impossibility or improbability of his testimony; 3. By proving action or conduct of the witness inconsistent with his testimony; 4. By showing bias, interest or hostile feeling against the adverse party. NOTE: the impeachment is limited to bad reputation and the bad reputation must b e for lack of veracity and does not extend to bad reputation for lack of morals. (e.g., you may discredit a witness because he is a well known liar but not if h e is a well known sex addict) The fact that a witness has been impeached does not mean her testimony will be s tricken or disregarded. Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other e vidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another witn ess. While prior inconsistent statements refer to statements, oral or documentar y, made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying. Section 12. party may not impeach his/her own witness Reason: By calling a witness, the party certifies his credibility. EXCEPTIONS: 1. witness required by law; e.g., In the probated of a will, if the will is contested, the law requires that the proponent should present all the attesting witnesses to the will if they ar e sill alive. If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the wil l or do no remember having attested to it or are otherwise of doubtful credibili ty, the proponents can start impeaching these witnesses; 2. witness is an adverse arty; 3. witness is an unwilling or hostile witness Reason: without the exemption above, the party calling the witness will be at th e mercy of the TREACHEROUS witness. THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT Two different stages 1. the facts discrediting the witness or his testimony may be elicited from the witness himself upon cross-examination. 2. the facts discrediting the witness are proved by extrinsic evidence i.e., the adverse party in rebuttal proves by another witness or documentary evidence the facts discrediting the testimony of the witness under attack. A WITNESS IS IMPEACHED BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY LAYING THE PREDICATE. 1. by confronting him with such statements, with the circumstances under which t hey were made; 2. by asking him whether he made such statements; 3. by giving him the chance to explain the inconsistency. It is universal accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross-examinatio n, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to impeach a witness. The rule that the attention of the witness be called to the time, place and circ umstances, does not apply where the impeaching evidence is in writing must be so wn to the witness so that he may read it or it may be read to him. He must be as ked if he wrote it or signed it and if he admits this, his attention must be cal led to the inconsistencies. Reasons for laying the predicate 1. to avoid unfair surprise to the adversity; 2. to save time, as an admission by the witness may take the extrinsic proof un necessary; and 3. to give the witness, in fairness to him, a chance to explain the discrepancy it is the duty of the party trying to impugn the testimony of a witness by means of prior or for that mater, subsequent inconsistent statements, whether oral or in writing, to give the witness a chance to reconcile his conflicting declarati on such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is given by him that he s

hall be deemed impeached. Prior contradictory statement of a witness which is admissible as independent ev idence may be shown without laying the predicate. (e.g., Where said testimony co ntains admission against interest. The admission is presented as original or ind ependent evidence. This must be offered in evidence-in-chief and not on rebuttal ) Difference between Laying the Predicate and Laying the Foundation or Basis Laying the predicate refers only to impeachment of a witness through prior incon sistent statements. Laying the foundation/basis refers to a situation where an evidence which otherw ise incompetent will be introduced in evidence because it falls under the except ions to the rule on exclusion. (e.g., Under the best evidence rule, if a party d esires to introduce secondary evidence, he must first prove that the writing was duly executed and that the original has been lost or destroyed. Without first l aying the foundation, secondary evidence will not be admitted by the court. Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness NOT ADMISSIBLE EXCEPT when suc h character has been impeached. 4blue95: It is the adverse party which must INITIATE the move to prove the bad c haracter of the other party s witness before latter can prove GOOD CHARACTER of th eir witness. 4blue95:one cannot prove bad character of his own witness even if latter turns h ostile. 4blue95: this is the reverse of CHARACTER EVIDENCE since in the latter ,it is th e CHARACTER of the main parties that is put into issue while here in Sec 14, it is the character of the witnesses that is put into issue. Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum GENRULE: WITNESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO READ NOTES WHILE TESTIFYING EXCEPTION: 1.PRESENT RECOLLECTION REVIVED / REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY a witness may be allo wed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that it was correctly recorded. NOTE: The evidence is still TESTIMONIAL in character. The memorandum will not be considered as documentary evidence. 2.PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED / REVIVAL OF PAST RECOLLECTION a witness may also t estify from such writing or record, though he retains no recollection of the par ticular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly state d the transaction when made, but such evidence must be received with caution. NOTE: Since there is complete loss of recollection or memory on the part of the witness, then it is the MEMORANDUM itself that will serve as evidence. It will n ow be considered as documentary evidence. The memorandum from which the witness may be permitted to refresh his memory nee d NOT be an original writing. It is sufficient if it is shown that the witness k nows that copy to be a true one, and his memory refreshed thereby enables him to testify from his own recollection of the facts, independent of his confidence i n the accuracy of the copy. 4blue95:but if he never saw the document, then it will not qualify to either the se two exemptions. The witness is zero. there Recollectionsimplybutthe testimony of the that the Memory PASTmainRECOLLECTION REVIVED that he knowswitness. memorandum is correctly writ PRESENTisevidence RECORDED is still memory. RECOLLECTION is obscure testifies memorandum. Witness must swear that the writing need to states ten by him or under his direction; nocorrectlyswear the transaction Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the r emainder admissible RULE ON COMPLETENESS

1. When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by th e other; and 2. When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given i n evidence, any other act declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. Section 18. Rights to Inspect writing shown to witness J.AUTHENTICATION & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS AUTHENTICATION - means the process of PROVING the due execution and genuineness of the document. 4blue95:A public document can be received in evidence without giving any proof o f their due execution and authenticity. DOCUMENT :A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something i s proved,evidenced or set forth (Sec. 19) CLASSES OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: (no need for authentication) 1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign a uthority, official bodies and tribunals, and pubic officers, whether of the Phil ippines, or of a foreign country(SSS, Blotter,cedula and permits) 2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testamen ts (deed of sale & affidavits) 3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. All other writings are PRIVATE(as such it need authentication). A private writing is not self-authenticating. It requires proof of their due exe cution and authentication before they can be received in evidence. Public document is a document in the execution of which a person in authority o r a notary public takes part. PUBLIC WRITING DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE WRITING: A to AspublicWRITING PRIVATEWRITING PUBLICauthenticityis admissible in evidence, without further proof of its genuin document A private writing must eness and due executionbe proved relative to its due execution and genuineness, A to it may be received in evidence Aspublic instrument beforeperson bound is evidence even against third persons, of the fact which ga A rise to its due execution the parties who executed it or veprivate writing binds only and to the date of the latter. their privies, insof Certain transactions must be in a public document otherwise As to validity of certain transaction ar as due execution and date of the document are concerned. they will not be giv REQUISITES FOR en any validityADMISSIBILITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT 2. offered as authentic due execution and authenticity must be proved a. either by 1) anyone who saw the document executed or written; or 2) evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker(PROV ING GENUINESS OF THE HANDWRITING). a) any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because i. he has seen the person write, or ii. has seen writing purporting to be his i) upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and ii) has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person b) a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings i. admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offe red, or ii. proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge c) expert witness Handwriting experts not mandatory Handwriting experts while probably useful are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting b. Unless it is an ancient document; requisites 1) more than 30 years old 2) produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and 3) unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion Ancient Document Rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine authenticity.

An ancient document is said to be in proper custody if it is in the place in whi ch and under the care of the person with whom it would naturally be. Reason: the fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to remove presumptions of fraud and strength the belief of its genuineness. 3. not offered as authentic identified as that which it is claimed to be PUBLIC DOCUMENTS It is admissible without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Reason: 1. Necessity practical impossibility of requiring the official s attendance as a w itness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty. 2. Trustworthiness there is a presumption of regularity, legality and accuracy. Proof of official record 1. if it is domestic record, it may be evidenced by: a. an official publication; or b. a copy thereof(photocopy) attested by the officer having the custody of the r ecord or his deputy, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. 2. if it is a foreign record, it may be evidence by: a. an official publication; or b. a copy thereof(photocopy) attested by the officer having the custody of the r ecord or his deputy, accompanied by a certificate of the secretary of the embass y or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or foreign service officer and with a seal of his office. c. Philippine Consul (this is a 2006 update) must certify also that such officer attesting has the custody of such document and such officer is the lawful offic er (or the lawful clerk of court ) What attestation of copy must state It must state that it is a correct copy of the original or a specific part there of, as the case may be. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any or if he be clerk of court having a seal, under the seal of such court. Public record of a private document may be proved by 1. the original record, or 2. a copy thereof a. attested by the legal custodian of the record b. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody GR: Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept Exception: upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case Section 26 connotes the irremovability of public record Reasons: 1. to enable others to use the records; 2. to prevent the serious risk of loss; 3. to \prevent its exposure to wear and tear. Only exception: upon order of the court where the inspection of the record is es sential to the just determination of a pending case. Proof of lack of record 1. A written statement a. signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deput y b. that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found t o exist in the records of his office, 2. accompanied by a certificate that such officer is supposed to have custody If a notarized document is lost, get certifications of loss from 1. notary public 2. bureau of archives 3. clerk of court who commissioned the notary public Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of 1.want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer

2.collusion between the parties, or 3.fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS: Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law 1. may be presented in evidence without further proof 2. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dis pute 3. must account for the alteration, either as a. made by another, without his concurrence, or b. made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or c. otherwise properly or innocently made, or d. the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument 4. If he fails to do that the document shall not be admissible in evidence Notarial document is one which is duly acknowledged before a notary public. A document acknowledged before a notary public becomes a public instrument. Henc e, its execution and authenticity need not be proved as in a private writing. Probative value of a notarial document: It is evidence of the facts expressed th erein. 4blue95: private document becomes public document once it was notarized but if n otary public is not authorized by law ,then such remains private document. HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATION IN DOCUMENTS The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have material to be question in dispute must account for the alteration. He must show that: 1. The alteration was made by another, without his concurrence; or 2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it; or 3. was otherwise properly or innocently made; or 4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. Seal. There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. Documents written in an unofficial language 1.shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino 2.parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared befo re trial. E-COMMERCE LAW R.A.8792 Electronic Document It refers to information or the representation of informatio n, data, figures, symbols by which a right is established or an obligation extin guished, or by which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retr ieved or produced electronically. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules o n admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authent icated in the manner prescribed by these rules. When is electronic evidence regarded as being the equivalent of an original docu ment under the Best Evidence Rule?(Bar Question 2003)An electronic document shal l be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to re flect the date accurately. Electronic Date Message - refers to information generated, sent, received or sto red by electronic, optical or similar means. REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT (SEC. 7) 1. Where the law requires a document to be in writing, the requirement is me by an electronic document, if the said electronic document maintains its Integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent refer

ence: i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the a ddition of any endorsement and nay authorized change or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of al relevant circumstances. 2. Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document n ot being presented or retained in its original form; 3. Where the law requires that the document be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic document if: i) there exist a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time it was first generated in is final form; and ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented; provided that no provision of this act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the executi on of documents for their validity. For evidentiary purposes an electronic document shall be the functional equivale nt of a written document under existing law. BURDEN OF PROOF: The person seeking to introduce an electronic data message or e lectronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authent icity by evidence capable of supporting a finding by evidence capable of support ing a finding that the electronic date message or electronic document is what th e person claims it to be. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC.- RE: RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE) RULE 1:COVERAGE SECTION 1. Scope. - Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply wh enever an electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or us ed in evidence. SEC. 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall apply to all CIVIL ACTIONS and procee dings, as well as QUASI-JUDICIAL and ADMINISTRATIVE cases. SEC. 3. Application of the other rules on evidence. - In all matters not specifi cally covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of sta tues containing rules on evidence shall apply. RULE 2:DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of these Rules, the following ter ms are defined, as follows: (a) Asymmetric or public cryptosystem means a system capable of generating a secur e key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature. (b) Business records include records of any business, institution, association, pr ofession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for pr ofit, or for legitimate purposes. (c) Certificate means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair. (d) Computer refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze , project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, v oice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. (e) Digital Signature refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transforma tion of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed elec tronic document and the signer s public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that correspond s to the signer s public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transfor

mation was made. (f) Digitally signed refers to an electronic document or electronic data message b earing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. (g) Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or sto red by electronic, optical or similar means. (h) Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information , data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or howe ver represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, tran smitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes dig itally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic docum ent. For purposes of these Rules, the term electronic document may be used interch angeably with electronic data message . (i) Electronic key refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive inf ormation that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key. (j) Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in electronic form. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approvin g an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules , an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (k) Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations, text mes sages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (4blue95:Text message is considered as ephemeral electronic communication,as suc h ,it is admissible as evidence in civil cases and the message must be authenti cated by testimony of person who receives it and the source of such message and proven by person who was party to the case or has personal knowledge of such tex t or number Magtolis v Salud: Sept 9,2005) (l) Information and Communication System refers to a system for generating, sendin g, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electr onic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or i n which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording o r storage of electronic data message or electronic document. (m) Key Pair in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathe matically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signatu re that the former creates. (n) Private Key refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature . (o) Public Key refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases. The Interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the interna tional origin of Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commer ce Act. RULE 3:ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based document s. Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed t o include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. SEC. 2. Admissibility. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it co mplies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and rela ted laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. SEC. 3. Privileged communication. The confidential character of a privileged com munications is not solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic

document. RULE 4:BEST EVIDENCE RULE SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. An electronic document shall be r egarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule i f it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a coun terpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix , or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or b y other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to t he same extent as the original if: (a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in li eu of the original. RULE 5:AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. The person seeking to introduce an el ectronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenti city in the manner provided in this Rule. SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to hav e signed the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic docum ents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rul es of Court. RULE 6:ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES SECTION 1. Electronic signature. An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticate din the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as th e functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. SEC. 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. An electronic signature may be authenticate in any of the following manner: (a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital sig nature and verity the same; (b) By any other means provided by law; or (c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions relation to electronic signature. Upon the authe ntication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that: (a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates; (b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of au thenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to i ndicate such person s consent to the transaction embodied therein; and (c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signatur e operated without error or fault. SEC. 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. Upon the authent ication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those menti oned in the immediately preceding section, that: (a) The information contained in a certificate is correct; (b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certifi cate;

(c) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from th e time it was signed; and (d) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated there in RULE 7:EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. - In assessing the evidenti ary weight of an electronic document, the following factors may be considered: (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, control s, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agree ment; (b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified; (c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is rec orded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as programming errors; (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the com munication and information system; (e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic docu ment was based; or (f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or inte grity of the electronic document or electronic data message. SEC. 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. In any dispute inv olving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an ele ctronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following factors: (a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic docume nt, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the info rmation and communication system; (b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the pro ceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or (c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordi nary course of business by a person who is not a party tot he proceedings and wh o did not act under the control of the party using it. RULE 8:BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by el ectronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmis sion or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in th e regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular pra ctice ot make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custod ian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule or hearsay evidence. SEC. 2. Overcoming the presumption. The presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof. RULE 9:METHOD OF PROOF SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein. SEC. 2. Cross-examination of deponent. The affiant shall be made to affirm the co ntents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of r ight by the adverse party. RULE 10:EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to

Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine t he necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under the circumstance, including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned. SEC. 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. When examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire proceedings, including the questions and answers, sh all be transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypes or other recorder authorized fo r the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him. The tran script should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been electronically recorded. SEC. 3. Storage of electronic evidence. The electronic evidence and recording th ereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the cas e. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such pr oceedings. RULE 11:AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC. VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. Audio, photographic and video evid ence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided is shall be sh own, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or a uthenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person compet ent to testify on the accuracy thereof. SEC. 2. Ephemeral electronic communication. Ephemeral electronic communications s hall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has p ersonal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, o ther competent evidence may be admitted. A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section. If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic docume nt, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply. K.OFFER & OBJECTION OFFER-The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. Section 34. Offer of evidence

Why purpose of offer must be specified to detemine whether that piee of evidence should be admitted or not. Because such evidence may be admissible for several purpose under the doctrine of mutiple admissibility, or may be admissible for on e purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interose the p roper objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for an y other purpose by the judge. In Mata Vda De Onate vs. CA, the Court allowed evidence not formally offered to be admited and considered by the trial court provided the follwing requirements are present 1. the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; 2. the same to the records o the case. Section 35. When to make offer WHEN OFFER OF TESTIMONIAL/ORAL EVIDENCE MADE at the time the witness is called t o testify. IMPLIED OFFER every time a question is asked of a witness, there is an implied automatic offer of the evidence sought to be elicited by the question. If there is any objection to the question, the same must be raised immediately; otherwis e there is a waiver. THEREFORE, oral evidence is always being offered twice; 1. before the witness testifies; and 2. every time a question is asked of him. WHEN OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MADE - after the party has presented his testimonial evidecne. Before he rests, he must make a formal o ffer of all his documentary and object evidence and speciy the purpose for which he is offering these evidence. PROCEDURE BEFORE DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT 1. marking; 2. identification; 3. authentication; 4. formal offer; and 5. if the evidence is excluded, an offer of proof. Authentication and identification can be dispensed with if there is a stipulatio n on the due execution and genuineness of the private document. If it is a public document, then there is NO NEED for authentication. STAGES IN THE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. IDENTIFICATION By identification is meant proof that the document being presented is the same o ne referred to by the witness in his testimony. 2. MARKING All exhibits should be marked to facilitate their identification. The marking ma y be made at the pre-trial or during the trial. The plaintiff and the prosecution use capital letters ( A , B , C , etc.) and the accused use Arabic numbers ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.). If the exhibit is presented in connection with affidavit, like in support or in opposition to a motion to dismiss, the words Motion to Dismiss should be added aft er the letter or number. 3. AUTHENTICATION The proof of a document s due execution and genuineness if the purpose is to show that it is genuine if the purpose is to show that it is genuine, or the proof of its forgery, if the purpose is to show that the document is a forgery. 4. INSPECTION Under Section 18 of Rule 132, whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.

5. FORMAL OFFER After the termination of the testimonial evidence, the proponent will then make a formal offer and state the purpose for which the document is presented. (Rule 132, Sec. 34) 6. OBJECTIONS The objection to the introduction or presentation of the document shall be made when it is formally offered in evidence. (rule 132, Sec. 36) There is a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and formal offer of documentary evidence as an exhibit: 1. In identification of documentary evidence, the same is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. 2. In formal offer of documentary evidence as an exhibit, the same is done when the party has presented his testimonial evidence. NOTE: the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an e xhibit does not mean that it will be or has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. The party may decide to formally offer it if it believes this wil l advance its cause, or it may decide not to do so at all. CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS 1. General objection Does not go beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial, in competent, irrelevant or inadmissible. In other words, it does not specify the g rounds for objection. (also known as a broadside objection) 2. Specific Objection States why or how the evidence is irrelevant or incompeten t. Example: Objection to the question for being leading Requirements to exclude inadmissible evidence 1. one has to object to the evidence; 2. the objection must be timely made; 3. the grounds for the objection must be specified (specific objections) a protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and if not so made, it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection: 1. Objections to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offe r is made; 2. Objections to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent; 3. an offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days after noti ce of the offer unless a different period is allowed y the court. Reasons why an objection must be specific 1. so that the judge may understand the question raised and that the adversary m ay have an opportunity to remedy the defect, if possible; 2. to make a proper record fir the reviewing court in the event of an appeal. As a rule, failure to specify the grounds for the objection is in effect a waive r of the objection. Every other objection which is not particularly stated is to be considered abandoned, except where the evidence could not have been legally admitted for any purpose whatever. When evidence is excluded upon a mere general objection, the ruling will be uphe ld, if any ground in fact existed for the exclusion. It will assumed, in the abs ence of any request by the opposing party or the court to make the objection def inite, that the ruling was placed upon the right ground. MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE 1. Objection when the evidence is offered 2. Motion to strike out or Expunge proper in the following cases: a. when the witness answers prematurely before there is reasonable opportunity f or the party to object (Sec. 39); b. unresponsive answers; c. answers that are incompetent, irrelevant, or improper (Sec. 39); d. uncompleted testimonies where there was no opportunity for the other party to cross-examine;

RULE ON CONTINUING OBJECTIONS When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witnes s that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which ob jection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it sha ll NOT be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions. Requisites for a proper continuing objection 1.in the course of the examination of a witness 2.objection has been made 3.reasonably apparent that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made 4.adverse party records his continuing objection to such class of questions Grounds for objection 1. Hearsay 2. argumentative 3. leading 4. misleading 5. incompetent 6. irrelevant 7. best evidence rule 8. parole evidence rule 9. question has no basis Striking out answer. Requisites for Striking out an answer 1. witness answers the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection 2. objection is found to be meritorious 3. court order that the answer given to be stricken off the record. On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence What is tender of excluded evidence? offer of proof? When an attorney is not allowed by the court to present testimony which he think s is competent, material and necessary to prove his case, he must make an offer of proof. This is the method of properly preserving the record to the end that t he question may be saved for purposes of review. (Revised Rules of Evidence 2004 ed., p. 337) Purposes: 1. to inform the court what is expected to be proved; and 2. so that the appellate court may determine from the record whether the propose d evidence is competent. How made: a. As to documentary or object evidence: May have the same attached to or made part of the record. b. As to oral evidence May state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witnes s and the substance of the proposed testimony. Only OF PROOF/TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OFFERresorted to if admission is refused by the court for purposes of review on EVIDENCE Refers appeal to testimonial documentary or object evidence that are presented or offer ed in court by a party so that the court can consider his evidence when it comes Ruling. preparation of the decision. to the The ruling of the court on an objection 1. must be given immediately after the objection is made 2. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the qu estion presented; but the ruling shall always be made a. during the trial and b. at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. GR: The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.

Exception: If the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. The parties may ask for the ground for the ruling, even if the rules does not re quire the judge to so state L.WEIGHT & SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE probative value or credit that the court gives to a particula r evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue. Hierarchy of Evidentially Values 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. -It is required for conviction of an accused in a criminal case. -That which is the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, excl usive of any other consideration, of the moral certainty of the guilt of the acc used or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 2. Clear and Convincing Evidence > This is adduced to overcome a prima facie case or a disputable presumption. > That degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a fi rm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. 3. Preponderance of Evidence > The degree of proof required in civil cases. > That which s of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered i n opposition to it. 4. Substantial Evidence > Required to reach a conclusion in administrative proceedings or to establish a fact before administrative quasi- judicial bodies > Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to suppor t a conclusion. > NOTE: Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness but mus t also be credible in itself. Equipoise rule / Equiponderance of Evidence Where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the co nstitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the acc used. The rule is different in a civil case, the party who will lose is the party who has the burden of proof. Positive testimony distinguished from Negative testimony: POSITIVE TESTIMONY - is when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occu r. NEGATIVE TESTIMONY is when a witness states that he did not see or now of the oc currence of a fact. Positive testimony has greater weight than negative evidence. Reason: He who denies a certain fact may not remember exactly the circumstances on which he basis his denial. Section 1. Preponderance of Evidence In order to have the evidence which bears on the issue preponderate in his favor , a party must have presented in support of his contention proof which appears t o have overcome opposing presumptions as well as opposing evidence. Section 2. Proof Beyond Reasonable doubt Tutuis semper est errare acuietandod quam in puniendo it is always safer to err in acquitting than in punishing. Prosecution must present evidence that is strong enough to convince the court th at the prisoner must be punished not because he cannot prove that he is innocen t but because it has proved that he is guilty. In determining the existence of proof beyond reasonable doubt, only the existenc e of moral certainly is required. For the defendant, it is enough that he is able to prove his defenses by prepond erance of evidence since it will create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Thus , whenever there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the accused is entitled

to an acquittal. ALIBI must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. One of the weakest defenses because of the facility with which it can be fabrica ted, just like a mere denial. Requisites: 1. showing that not only is the accused somewhere else; 2. but is was also [physically impossible for him to be at the scne of the crime at the time of its commission MOTIVE -- The rule is well settled that the prosecution need not prove motive on the part of the accused has not been positively identified and proof thereof be comes essential only when the evidence of the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or is inconclusive. FLIGHT --Flight from the scene of the crime is a circumstantial evidence which i s admissible against him and, if not explained in a manner consistent with his i nnocence, is to be considered as tending to show that he was the person who comm itted the deed. OUT OF COURT IDENTIFICATION: The Supreme Court has held that on the admissibility of out-of-court identificat ion of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test which util izes the following factors. 1. the witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2. the witness degree of attention at the time; 3. the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4. the level of certainly demonstrated by the witness at the identification; 5. the length of time between the time and the identification 6. the suggestiveness of the identification procedure 4blue95:When the identity of the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal necessity follows, Conviction for a crime rests on the strength of the prosecution s evidence never on the weakness of that of the defense. 4blue95:In every criminal prosecution, the prosecution must prove two things: (1 ) the commission of the crime and (2) the identification of the accused as the p erpetrator of the crime. Cursory identification does not suffice to convict the accused. What is needed is positive identification made with moral certainty as to the person of the offender. 4blue95:Eyewitness identification is often decisive of the conviction or acquitt al of an accused. Identification of an accused through mug shots is one of the e stablished procedures in pinning down criminals. However, to avoid charges of im permissible suggestion, there should be nothing in the photograph that would foc us attention on a single person. 4blue95:A police line-up is merely a part of the investigation process by police investigators to ascertain the identify of offenders or confirm their identific ation by a witness to the crime. Police officers are not obliged to assemble a p olice line-up as a condition sine qua non to prove the identity of an offender. If on the basis of the evidence on hand, police officers are certain of the iden tity of the offender, they need not require any police line-up anymore. RES IPSA LOQUITUR (The thing speaks for itself) a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plai ntiffs prima facie cases and present a question of fact for the defendant to mee t with an explanation. The doctrine is simply a recognition of postulate that as a matter of common kno wledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrence may justif y an inference of negligence on the part of person who controls the instrumental ly causing the injury. In the absence of some explanation by him. However, it do es not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. RULE ON PARTIAL CREDIBILITY Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything) If the testimony of the witness on a material issue is willfully false and given

with an intention to deceive, court may disregard all the witness testimony. This is NOT a mandatory rule of evidence but is applied by the courts in its dis cretion. IMPORTANT a. Deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive rule of law; b. The witnesses false or exaggerated statements on other matters shall not precl ude the acceptance of such evidence as is relieved from any sign of falsehood. c. The court may accept and reject portions of the witness testimony depending o n the inherent credibility thereof. The credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe and evaluate their demeanor on the witness stand. The trial court s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a clear showing that it plainly overlooked matters of substance which, if con sidered, might affect the results of the review. In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, of free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to sustain verdict of conviction (People vs. Esperanza) REASON: No young Filipina of decent repute would undergo the expe nse, trouble, inconvenience of a public trial exposing herself to public shame a nd ridicule, suffer scandal, embarrassment and humiliation of a public trial and publicly admitting that she was criminally abused unless it is the truth. The sole, uncorroborated testimony of an accused who turned state witness may su ffice to convict his co-accused if it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightf orward manner and is full of details which by their nature could afterthought, o therwise, it needs corroboration, the presence or lack of which may ultimately d ecide the case of the prosecution and the fate of the accused. Extrajudicial confession not sufficient ground for conviction An extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for conviction UNLESS corro borated by evidence of corpus delicti. CORPUS DELICTI the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. Two Elements: 1. That a certain result has been proved; 2. That someone is criminally responsible for the act. NOTE: The identity of the accused is not necessary element of the corpus delicti . Corpus delicti in its legal sense refers to the fact of the commission of the cr ime, not to the physical body of the deceased or to the ashes of a burned buildi ng or as in the present case to the smuggled cigarettes. The corpus delicti may be proven by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physic al evidence such as those aforementioned. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient It is sufficient for conviction if a. There is more than one circumstance; b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction b eyond reasonable doubt. Reason for its admission: It is due to necessity, especially in a criminal case. If only direct evidence i s allowed, very few conviction could be had. Besides circumstantial evidence is based on sound rational grounds of everyday logic. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary to prove c onspiracy as it may be deduced from the acts of the perpetration before, during and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a common design, c oncerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Direct evidence distinguished from circumstantial evidence Establishes the Circumstantial existence Direct EvidenceEvidence of a fact in issue without the aid of any inference or Does not prove the existence of a fact in issue directly, but merely provides fo presumption The witnesses testify directly of really exists. r logical inference that such facttheir own knowledge as to the main facts to be Each proof is given of facts and circumstances from which the court may infer ot proved

her connected facts which reasonably follow according to the common experience o Substantial f mankind Evidence Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquire expertise in spec ific matters within their jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect b ut at all times even finality, if such findings are supported by substantial evi dence. When may Supreme Court Review Findings The evaluation of testimonial evidence by trial courts is accorded great respect because of its chance to observe first-hand the demeanor of witnesses. The rule is not inflexible but admits of exceptions. The Supreme Court may review factua l findings of the trial courts and the court of Appeals in any of the following instances: 1. When the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradicto ry: 2. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises a nd conjectures; 3. When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurb or impossible; 4. When there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; 5. When the appellate court in making its findings went beyond the issues of the admission of both appellant and appellee; 6. When the judgment of the court is premised on a misappreciation of facts; 7. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not di spute by the parties which, if property considered would justify a different con clusion; 8. When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; 9. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific eviden ce on which they are based; 10. When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absenc e of evidence but such findings are contradicted by evidence on record. The court may stop the intr Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. oduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon i t is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6) Sec. 7. Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record 1. the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the r espective parties 2. but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral te stimony or depositions. 2006 Mockbar: A 12 yr old Rose filed a petition for compulsory recognition agai nst Rosendo Alba who denied that he is the biological father. Hence, Rose filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing. May DNA analysis be adm itted as evidence to prove paternity? HELD: Herrera v Alba (June 15,2005) DNA is a fundamental block of a person s entir e genetic make-up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique and a person s DNA profile can det ermine his identity. Hence, can now be admitted as evidence. This does not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege appli es only to evidence that is communicative in essence taken under duress (Pp v Olvi s) In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence (sec1). In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the is sues involved lies, the court may consider 1. all the facts and circumstances of the case 2. the witnesses' manner of testifying 3. their intelligence 4. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying

5. the nature of the facts to which they testify 6. the probability or improbability of their testimony 7. their interest or want of interest 8. their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon th e trial. 9. number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the gre ater number. An cause of action on the ground of reformation of instrument must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt 1. does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, prod uces absolute certainty. 2. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conv iction in an unprejudiced mind. A defense of self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. ?? ?? ?? ??