CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Revised Rules of Court, of ascertaining to a

judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128)

DEFINE THE FOLLOWING TERM:

Rule of Evidence - Material Evidence - Relevant Evidence - Competent Evidence -

Direct and circumstantial evidence - Primary or best or secondary evidence - Positive and
negative evidence - Export evidence - Cumulative evidence - Corroborative evidence -
Rebutting evidence - Prima facie evidence - Conclusive evidence - Real evidence - Testimonial
evidence

Rule of Evidence – expresses the mode of manner of proving the facts and
circumstances upon which the party relies to establish the fact in dispute (Ruporto Martin,
Rules of Court in the Philippines. Vol. V. citing 20 Am. Jur. 34, p. 1)

Material evidence – tends to prove the fact in issue as that issue is determined by the
rules of substantive law and pleadings (Jaime R. Nuevas, Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed.,
citing Wigmore, Student’s Ed., p. 530)

Relevant evidence – evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish

the probability or improbability if a fact in issue. (Vicente Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court
in the Philippines, 1990 Ed., citing 1 Elliot on Evidence, p. 5)

Competent evidence – not excluded by law in a particular case (Bautista vs. Aparece,
(CA ), 51 O.G. 805 )

Direct and circumstantial evidence – direct evidence proves the fact in dispute without
the aid of any inference or presumption., while circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or
facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute
may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence (5 Moran, Remedial Law Review, p.
2)

Primary or best and secondary evidence – primary or best evidence is that which the
law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question, while secondary evidence
is that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by the law only when the best
evidence is not available ( 5 Moran, op. cit., p. 3 )

Positive and negative evidence – evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a
fact did or did not occur, and negative when the witness states he did not see or know of the
occurrence of a fact (People vs. Ramos, L-30420, Sept. 22, 1971)

Expert evidence – given by one possessing in regard to a particular subject or

department of human activity knowledge does not usually acquired by other persons (U.S. vs.
Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
 Cumulative evidence – evidence of the same kind and character as that already given,
and tends to prove the same proposition (Francisco, Ibid., citing Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray
(Mass. 434), p. 5)

Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of different kind and character, tending to

prove the same [point (Francisco, supra, citing Wyne vs. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817, p. 4)

Rebutting evidence – evidence given to repel, counteract or disprove facts proved by

the other side ( Nuevas, citing State vs. Silva, 21 Ida. 247, p. 531 )

Prima facie evidence – evidence which suffices for the proof of a fact in issue until
rebutted or overcome by other evidence (Nuevas, citing Cal. Code of Civil Procedure, Sec.
1833, p. 531)

Conclusive evidence – evidence which is inconvertible (Nuevas, citing Wood vs.

Chapin, 13 NY 509)

Real evidence – object (real) evidence is that which is addressed to the senses of the
tribunal, as where objects are presented for the inspection of the court ( Franciso, citing 1
Jones on Evidence, 2nd ed., Sec. 16, p. 9 0)

Testimonial evidence – testimony given to the court of deposition by one who has
observed that to which he is testifying; or one who, though who has not observed the facts, is
nevertheless qualified to give an opinion relative to the fact ( Francisco, citing Gilbert, Law
Summaries of Evidence, p. 9 )

WHERE ARE OUR RULES OF EVIDENCE FOUND?

Our entire rule s of evidence have been incorporated in the Revised Rules of Court

DISTINGUISH EVIDENCE FROM PROOF

Evidence is the means of proof: proof is the effect of evidence, the establishment of as
fact by evidence. Proof results as a probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or
persuasion of mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence (Jaime R. Nuevas, Remedial
Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed., p. 531)

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE RULES OR LAW OF EVIDENCE?

The law of evidence deals with the rules to be followed in presenting a matter of fact to a
court for its use in the judicial investigation. (1) it prescribes the manner of presenting the
evidence personally by one who knows the thing, the subject to cross-examination, or by
means of a preposition (2) it fixes the qualification and the privileges of witnesses, and the
mode of examining them (3) and chiefly, it determines, as among probative matter, what
classes of things shall not be received (Ruperto Martin, Rules of Courts in the Philippines,
Vol. V, 1978 Ed., pp. 1-2)

WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE?

The object of the law of evidence is to have a specific inquiry of the truth to establish the
truth by the use of the perceptive and reasoning faculties (Martin, supra., p. 2)

DISTINGUISH FACTUM PROBANDUM FROM FACTUM PROBANS

Factum probandum is the ultimate fact or the fact to be established; factum probans is the
evidentiary fact, or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established ( Nuevas, citing
Wigmore 5-9, p. 531-532 )

ARE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE THE SAME, IN CRIMINAL AS WELL AS IN CIVIL CASES?

Yes, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules (Sec. 2, Rule 128)

WHEN IS EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE?

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules (Sec. 3, Rule 128)

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

In order that the evidence may be admissible, two requisites must concur, namely:
a. that is relevant to the issue; and
b. that is competent. That is, that it does not belong to the class of evidence
which is excluded by the law or Rules of Evidence ( Vicente Francisco, The
Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. VII, 1990 Ed., p. 19 )

WHEN IS EVIDENCE RELEVANT?

Evidence to be relevant must throw light upon, or have logical relation to the facts in
issues to be established by one party or disproved by the other ( Ruperto G. Martin, Rules of
Court in the Philippines, Vol. V., 1987 ed., citing 20 Am. Jur. 240, p. 9 )

WHEN IS EVIDENCE COMPETENT?

Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by any of the rules of evidence such
as when it is hearsay or because it is not best evidence which is within the power of a party to
produce. Evidence must not only be logically relevant, but must be of such character as to be
receivable in courts of justice ( Ruperto G. Martin, Ibid., citing Gilbert Law Summaries on
Evidence, p. 3 )

IS EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED ADMISSIBLE? WHY?

Evidence illegally obtains is admissible, the reason being that exclusion of such kind
of evidence is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure ( Stonehill vs. Diokno, L-19550, June 19, 1967 )

WHAT ARE THE TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY WHICH UNDERLIE THE ENTIRE
STRUCTURE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE?
 The following: none but facts having rational probative value are admissible, which is
the axiom on relevancy; and all facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless
some specific rule forbids, which is the axiom on competency ( Nuevas, citing 1 Wigmore 289-
95, p. 532 )

WHAT ARE THE THREE KINDS OR CLASSES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

They are:
a. multiple admissibility;
b. conditional admissibility;
c. curative admissibility

WHAT IS MEANT BY MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

This means evidence which is [plainly relevant and competent for two or more purposes.
When this happens, such evidence will be received 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 satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes (People vs. Yatco.
97 Phil. 940)

WHAT IS MEANT BY CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

It means that the evidence which appear to be material is admitted by the court subject
to the condition that its connection to other facts subsequently to be proved will be established
(People vs. Yatco. Supra)

WHAT IS MEANT BY CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE?

This means that evidence, otherwise improper is admitted to contradict improper

evidence introduce by the other party (Jaime R. Nuevas, Remedial Law reviewer, 1971 ed., A
& J Publishing citing Wigmore 304-09, p. 533)

STATE THE RULE OF RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matter shall not be allowed, except when it tends in
any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact of issue (Sec. 4,
Rule 128)

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON RELEVANCY?

The purpose of the rule on relevancy is to restrict the field of inquiry to its proper scope
and to prevent the issues of becoming beclouded. It also aims to prevent surprise on the
litigant, or the subjection to the party to the necessity of meeting the evidence that is possibly
prejudicial and of which he has no means of anticipating (Martin, p. 15 citing 2 Jones on
Evidence, 2nd Ed., 1086, 1087)

WHAT ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS?

Collateral matters are those other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a
basis for inference as to existence of the facts in issue (Sec. 4, Rule 129)

WHEN MAY THE COURT ALLOW EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS?

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue (Sec. 4, Rule
128 )

GIVE THE CONCEPT OF (1) PROSPECTANT COLLATERAL MATTERS; (2) CONCOMITANT

COLLATERAL MATTERS; (3) RETROSPECTANT COLLATERAL MATTERS

a. Prospectant collateral matters are those preceding of the fact in issue but
pointing forward to it, like moral character, motive; conspiracy, etc.
b. Concomitant collateral matters are matters are those accompanying the fact in
issue and pointing to it, like alibi, or opportunity and incompatibility;
c. Retrospectant collateral matters are those succeeding the fact in issue but
pointing forward to it, like flight and concealment, behavior of the accused upon being
arrested; finger prints or foot prints; articles left at the scene of the crime which may
identify the culprit ( Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano, Remedial Law Reviewer 1 st Ed. 1995,
Rex Book Store, p. 888 citing 1 Wigmore 442-43 )

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE?

The basis upon which all rules of evidence must rest, if they are to rest upon reason, is
their adaptation to the successful development of the truth; and the rule of evidence at one time
though necessary to the ascertainment of truth should yield to the experience has clearly
demonstrate the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule (Nuevas Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971
Ed., A & J Publishing, p. 534 citing Funk vs. U.S., 290 U.S. 391)

DEFINE JUDICIAL NOTICE

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act
on without proof because they already know them. It means no more than that the court will
bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matter of public
concern which are known by all well-informed persons ( Martin, Revised Rules of Evidence,
1985 Ed., Premium Book Store, p. 3 citing C.J.S. 509 )

WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE?

It displaces evidence since, as it stands for proof, it fulfills the object which evidence is
designed to fulfill and make evidence unnecessary. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 535 citing State vs. Main,
69 Conn 123)

STATE THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE IS BASED?

The doctrine of judicial notice is based upon obvious reasons of convenience and
expediency and operated to have trouble, expense and time which would be lost in
establishing, in the ordinary way, facts which do not admit of contradiction (Nuevas, Ibid., p.
535 citing 20 Am., Jur. 47; Tracy’s Handbook, 62 ed., p. 44)
WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY?

A court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical
divisions ( Sec. 1, Rule 129, Revised Rules on Evidence )

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE?

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites, namely:
a. the matter be common and general knowledge;
b. the matter must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain; and
c. the matter must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court
( Martin, Ibid. p. 35 citing 1 Jones on Evidence, 2 nd ed., 643; 20 Am. Jur. 48 )

WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129 )

WHEN IS HEARING NECESSARY IN JUDICIAL NOTICE?

During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of the party, may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court. On its own initiative or
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case (Sec. 3, Rule 129 )

IS THERE ANY NEED TO PROVE ADMISSIONS IN THE COURT OF PROCEEDING IN

COURT?

An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof ( Sec. 4, Rule 129 )

HOW MAY AN ADMISSION BE CONTRADICTED?

Through admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made ( Sec. 4, Rule 129 )

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTS AS EVIDENCE?

Objects as evidenced are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it mat be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court ( Sec. 1,
Rule 130 )

WHAT IS THE PRO BATIVE VALUE OF OBJECT AS EVIDENCE?

Proof which is addressed directly to the senses of the court is a most convincing and
satisfactory class of proof (Martin, p. 57 citing 20 Am. Jur.) object evidence is usually the most
trustworthy type of evidence (Martin, citing Gilbert Law Summaries on Evidence, p. 1)

WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE?

The following:
a. the evidence must e relevant; ( Sec. 1, Rule 130 )
b. indecent or improper objects should be excluded, unless the same is
necessary for ascertaining the truth; ( Brown vs. Swineford, 28 Am. Rep. 582 )
c. repulsive objects should also be excluded if not absolutely necessary for
the administration of justice (Knowless vs. Crampton, 55 Conn. 366 )

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OB OBJECT OF EVIDENCE?

It is the best and the highest form of proof (Gentry vs. Mominiss, 3 Dana, Ky. 382 )

WHAT IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE OBJECT EVIDENCE?

The object must be first identified, which means that it must be shown, by independent
evidence, that the object offered is the thing in dispute ( People vs. Besold, 154 Cal. 363)

WHAT ARE DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE?

Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words,

numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their
contents ( Sec. 2, Rule 130 )

STATE THE 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 (Sec. 3, Rule 130 )

THE RULE IS THAT, NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE OTHER THEN THE

DOCUMENTS ITSELF, ARE THERE EXCEPTION?

Yes, in the following cases:

a. when the original has been lost or destroy, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
b. when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
 c. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and fact sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole; and
d. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office ( Sec. 3, Rule 130 )

WHAT ARE CONSIDERED ORIGINALS OF A DOCUMENT?

The following:
a. the original of a document is one of the contents of which are the subject of inquiry
b. when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals
c. when an entry is repeated in a regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals ( Sec. 4, Rule 130 )

HOW MAY THE ORIGINAL OF A LOST OR DESTROYED DOCUMENT BE PROVED?

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
bad faith on its part, may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic documents, or by the testimony of witness in the order stated ( Sec. 5, Rule 130 )

WHEN MAY SECONDARY EVIDENCE BE SHOWN IF THE ORIGINAL OF A DOCUMENT IS

IN THE POCESSION OF THE ADVERSE PARTY?

If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party he must have a
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence,
he fails to produce that document secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its
lost ( Sec. 6, Rule 130 )

HOW MAY A PUBLIC DOCUMENT BE PROVED?

When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer and is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public office in
custody thereof ( Sec. 7, Rule 130 )

IS THE PARTY WHO CALLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A DOCUMENT BOUND TO

OFFER IT IN EVIDENCE?

No. A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence

WHAT IS PAROL EVIDENCE?

Parol evidence literally means oral or verbal testimony of a witness ( Ballentine’s Law
Dict.., 2nd Ed., p. 932 ) However, in the application of the rule, it has been extended to writings
other than the complete written agreement of the parties ( Phil. Sugar Estates Dev. Co. vs.
Gov’t of P.I. 247 U.S. 385; Woodhous vs. Halili, 93 Phil. 526 ) Another term for parol evidence
is intrinsic evidence or evidence aliunde ( Uy Coque vs. Sioca, 43 Phil. 405 )
STATE THE RULE WHEN THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT ARE PUT TO WRITING

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as

containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement ( Sec. 9, Rule 130 )

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY A PARTY PRESENT EVIDENCE TO MODIFY,

EXPLAIN OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE?

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;
a. an intrinsic ambiguity mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
b. the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
c. the validity of written agreement;
d. the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement

The term “agreement “includes wills (Sec. 9, Rule 130 )

HOW SHALL THE LANGUAGE OF WRITING BE INTERPRETED?

The language of writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning; it bears in the
place of execution, unless the parties intended otherwise (Sec. 10, Rule 130)

GIVE SOME RULES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

1. In the construction of an instrument where there are several provision of

particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to
all ( Sec. 11, Rule 130 )
2. In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued
and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it (Sec.12, Rule 130)
3. For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was
made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be place in the position of those whose language he
is to interpret ( Sec. 13, Rule 130 )
4. The terms of writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be constructed accordingly ( Sec. 14,
Rule 130 )
5. When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form,
and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter ( Sec. 15, Rule 130 )
6. When the character in which the instruments are difficult to be deciphered, or the
language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in
deciphering the character, or who understand the language is admissible to
 declare the characters or the meaning of the language ( Sec. 16, Rule 130 )
7. When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the
different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision
are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which the most favorable to the
party in whose favor the provision was made ( Sec. 17, Rule 130 )
8. When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of
natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted ( Sec. 18, Rule
130 )
9. An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true
character ( Sec. 19, Rule 130 )

WHO ARE COMPETENT TO BE WITNESSES?

All persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others,
may be witnesses
Neither religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.(Sec. 20, Rule
130 )

WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY?

The following persons cannot be witnesses:

a. those whose mental condition, at the time of there production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; and
b. children whose mental maturity is such to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully ( sec. 21, rule 130 )

WHEN ARE INSANE PERSONS ICOMPETENT TO TESTIFY?

What renders insane persons incompetent to testify is their insanity “ at the time of their
production “ Insanity at the time of the occurrence on which as witness is called upon to testify
merely affects his credibility, not his competency ( Moran, Remedial Law Reviewer, p. 578 )

WHAT DEGREE OF INSANITY DISQUALIFIES A PERSON FROM TESTIFYING?

A person is incompetent to testify if he is insane to such degree as to be incapable of

perceiving and making known his perception to others. (Moran, ibid., p. 578 citing State v.
Meyers, 46 Nebr. 152)

IS A DEAF AND DUMB PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY?

A deaf and dumb person may testify in any manner satisfactory to the court, as by writing
or signs through an interpreter. (People vs. De Leon 50 Phil. 539) If he testifies by signs, there
must be an interpreter with whom he may have an understanding by such means (Territory vs.
Duran 3 N.M. 189) Otherwise he cannot testify (People vs. Bustos, 51 Phil. 385)

IS THE INTOXICATED PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY?

 Drunkenness does not pursue disqualify a witness from testifying. The port of
Pennsylvania said on this matter: “The point of inquiry is the moment of examination. Is the
witness then offered so besotted in his understanding as to be deprived of his intelligence? If
he is, excluded him; even if he be a hard drinker or habitual drunkard yet, if at that time, he is
sober, and possessed of a sound mind, he is to be perceived. “(Gebhar vs. Shindle, 15 Serg. &
R. (Pa 283)

IS A PERSON UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OPIUM OR OTHER DRUGS, COMPETENT TO

TESTIFY?

If the witness at the time of his examination, is so intoxicated by opium or other drugs that
he is deprived of his mental powers to such a degree as to be capable of making known his
perceptions, he is disqualified from testifying. Otherwise, he is competent

HOW CAN THE COMPETENCY OF AN INFANT BE DETERMINED?

It is a doctrine laid down in modern decisions that the test of an infant’s competency to
testify is his capacity to receive just impressions truly. If he possesses the necessary mental
capacity to that effect and comprehends the obligation of an oath, he is a competent witness
(Moran, Ibid., p. 579 citing Wheeler vs. U.S. 523)

WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO BE WITNESS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE?

During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other or
the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants ( Sec. 22, Rule 130 )

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE FORBIDDING ONE SPOUSE TO TESTIFY
FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER?

The rule forbidding one spouse to testify or against the other is based on principles which
are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection,
and that this is regarded as more important in public welfare than that the exigencies of the
lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be disregarded for the sake of ferreting out some
fact within the knowledge of strangers ( U.S. vs. Concepcion, 31 Phil 182 )

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF THE RULE OF FORBIDDING ONE SPOUSE TO

TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER?

There are three:

a. that the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is offered, is a party to
the case;
b. that the spouse are legally married; and
c. that the case is not by one against the other ( Moran, Remedial Law Reviewer, p. 584 )

IN ONE CASE, THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACCUSEDOF KILLING HIS SON TESTIFIED
IN HIS OWN BEHALF DID NOT LIMIT HIMSELF TO DENYING THAT HE WAS A KILLER
BUT WENT FURTHER AND IMPUTED THE CRIME TO HIS WIFE. MAY THE WIFE BE
ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN REBUTTAL AGAINST THE HUSBAND’S CONSENT?
 Yes. In giving such testimony, the husband must, in all fairness, be held to have intended
all its natural and necessary consequences. By his said act, the husband – himself exercising
the very right which he would deny to his wife upon the ground of their marital relations – must
be taken to have waived all objections to the latter’s testimony upon rebuttal, even considering
that such object would have been available at the outset. (People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil 694)

WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO BE WITNESS BY REASON OF DEATH OR INSANITY OF

ADVERSE PARTY?

Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,

against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person
or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such diseased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (Sec. 23,
Rule 130)

WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN CONFIDENCE?

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following
cases:

a. the husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication receive in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in the criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants;
b. an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a
view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquiring in such capacity;
c. a person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.

WHO MAY NOT BE A WITNESS AS TO MATTERS LEARNED IN CONFIDENCE?

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following
cases:

a. The husband of the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without
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 other, or in criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants;

b. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any

communication made by client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a
view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

c. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil

case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient.

d. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession
made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;

e. A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to

communications made to him in official confidence, when the courts find that the public interest
would suffer by the disclosure. (Sec., Rule 130)

GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE RULE ON MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS

a. The spouses are legally married;

b. The communication, oral or written, is made during the marriage;.
c. The communication is confidential. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 559)

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVELEGE?

The reason is to preserve the peace of families and maintain the sacred institution of
marriage. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 559 citing Mever svs. State, 40 Fla. 216).

MAY THE PRIVILEGE BE WAIVED AND IF SO, HOW AND BY WHOM?

The privilege is claimable by the spouse not called as a witness, so that it is waivable only
by him or her; and it is waivable by any act of such spouse which might be considered as an
express or implied consent to the disclosure of the communication. (Neuvas, Ibid., citing
People vs. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484).

GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

The following:
a) There must be a relation of attorney and client;
b) There must be a communication by the client to the attorney, or advice thereon
given by the latter to the former;
c) The communication or advice must have been given confidentially;
d) The communication must have been made in the course of professional
employment.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVILEGE?

The reason is to promote the confidence of the people in attorneys for their work is
essential to the administration of justice and to encourage the freedom of consultation of
lawyers for clients. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 561 citing Fosters vs. Hall, 12 Pick 89; Alexander vs.
U.S., 138 U.S. 353)

MAY THE LAWYER BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY ON COMMUNICATIONS MADE TO HIM

AS TO A FUTURE CRIME OR WRONG? WHY?

YES, because those communications are not covered by the privilege for the reason that a
lawyer is not supposed to be consulted on a future crime or wrong. (Matthews vs. Hoaglang, 21
Atl. 1054)

MAY A LAWYER BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY ON COMMUNICATIONS MADE TO HIM AS

TO A PAST CRIME OR WRONG? WHY?

NO, for those communications are protect by the privilege. (Alexander vs. U.S., 138 U.S.
353)

WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THIS PRIVILEGE?

Its duration is forever. (Carter vs. West, 93 Ky. 211)

GIVE THE EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRIVILEGE AND REASON

THEREFOR.

This privilege does not apply to an action filed by the lawyer against his client, and this
exception is for the protection of the lawyer. (Hunt vs. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464)

GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT.

The following:

a) That the privilege is claimed in a civil case;

b) That the person against whom the privilege is claimed, is one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
c) That such person acquired the information while he was attending the patient in his
professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity; and
d) That the information was confidential, and if disclosed, shall tend to blacken the
character of the patient.

IS THE PRIVILEGE OF COMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT

APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASES?

In criminal cases, the privilege does not apply.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRIVILEGE?

The reason is to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential disclosure by patient to
physician of all symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced
disclosure and publication on the witness stand. (Nuevas, Ibid., 562 citing Will of Bruendl, 102
Wis. 47)
WHEN IS THERE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF A PHYSICIAN?

There is such employment of a physician when he is called for the purpose of treatment,
whether curative, preventive or palliative. (Smart vs. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 162) There is no
professional employment when a physician is consulted for an unlawful purpose, like the
procuring of an abortion. (Nuevas, Ibd., p. 563 citing Seifert vs. State, 67 N.E. 100)

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS PRIVILEGE?

The privilege applies not only to the testimony of the physician on the stand, but also to
affidavits, certificates, prescription, and hospital records. (Krap vs. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
143 Mich. 309)

GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIEST AND PENITENT.

The following:

a) There must be a priest and a penitent;

b) There must be a confession;
c) The confession must have been given to the priest in his professional capacity; and
d) The confession must have been made in the course of discipline enjoined by the
church to which the penitent belongs.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE?

The reason is to preserve the sanctity of the confessional institution. (People’s vs.
Philipps, 1 West L.J. 109)

GIVE THE REQUISITES OF THE PRIVILEGE OF A PUBLIC OFFICER.

The following:

a) There must be a confidential official communication;

b) The communication must have been made to a public officer; and
c) The disclosure of the communication would affect public interest.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEPRIVILEGE?

The privilege is intended not for the protection of public officers, but for the protection of
public interest. (Morn, Ibid., p. 599 citing Vogel vs. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311)

WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE PRIVILEGE?

The public officer is privileged not to testify to official secrets, not only during his term of
office, but also afterwards. The law, therefore, intends that secrecy be permanent. (Moran,
Ibid., p. 509)

IS A DESCENDANT DISQUALIFIED TO TESTIFY, IN A CRIMINAL CASE, AGAINST HIS

PARENTS OR HIS ASCENDANTS?
 A descendant is not disqualified to testify against his parents and descendants. The rules
provides that “No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants.” (Sec. 25, Rule 130)

WHAT IS AN ADMISSION?

The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)

AGAINST WHOM ARE ADMISSION RECEIVABLE?

Admissions are receivable against the party who made them, but not in his favor, because
then they would be self-serving evidence (5 Moran, Comments, p. 212, 1963 Ed.)

DEFINE SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE AND STATE IF IT IS ADMISSIBLE. WHY?

Self-serving evidence is an admission favorable to the party making it. (Lichauco vs.
Atlantic Gulf, etc., 84 Phil. 330). It is not admissible in evidence because of its hearsay
character, and for the further reason that a man may be safely believed if he declares against
his own interest, but not if he advocates his interest. (Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf, etc., supra).

CLASSIFY ADMISSIONS

Admissions are generally divided into two classes:

1. Judicial or those made on the record, or in connection with the judicial proceeding
in which it is offered;
2. Extra-judicial, or those made elsewhere, irrespective of time, place, or to whom
made. (Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 209 citing The Chamberlayne Trial
Evidence, p. 42)

DISTINGUISH ADMISSION FROM A CONFESSION

Admission operates equally in both civil and criminal cases and with the same effect, while
confession is an admission by the person accused of having committed the act of which he is
accused. “It pertakes largely of the nature of an offer to compromise with the criminal
authorities. (Martin, Ibid., p 210 citing The Chamberlayen Trial Evidence, p. 441).

STATE THE RULE ON OFFER OF COMPROMISE.

In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a lea of guilty to a lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Sec.
27, Rule 130).
GIVE THE EFFECTS OF AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE.

It depends on whether the offer is made in a civil or criminal case.

It made in a civil case, it is not an admission that anything is due and, therefore, not
admissible in evidence. (Obejera vs. Iga Sy, 76 Phil. 580)
If made in a criminal case, it is an implied admission of guilt and, therefore, admissible in
evidence, unless those involving quasi-offense(criminal negligence) or those allowed by laws to
be compromised. (Sec. 27, Rule 130).

DEFINE COMPROMISE

A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid

a litigation or put an end tone already commenced. (Art. 2028, Civil Code of the Philippines)

WHAT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE?

It is often difficult to determine in a particular case what amounts to an ordinary admission

and what constitutes an offer of compromise. The intention of the parties must be the guide in
each case. If the proposal is tentative, and any statement made in connection with it is
hypothetical – if the offer was made to “buy peace” and in contemplation of mutual
concessions, it is as to such point a mere offer of compromise. On the other hand, if the
intention is apparently a liability recognized as such, the proposal is an ordinary admission.
(Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, 1985 Ed., p. 220 citing 31- A C.J.S. 728-729)

STATE THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA AND THE EXCEPTIONS.

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another

(Sec. 28, Rule 130) except when between the party making the admission and the party
against whom the admission is offered, the relation of (a) partnership, (b) agency, (c) joint
interest, (d) conspiracy or (e) privity exists. (Secs. 29 to 33, Rule 130).

GIVE THE REASON FOR THE RULE OF RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

On the principle good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s acts, conduct and
declarations are binding upon him and, therefore, evidence, against him. Yet, it does not only
seem inconvenient, but also manifestly, unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither can their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. (Nuevas, Ibid, p.
568 citing Stack on Evidence, 35d., pp. 58-59)

WHEN MAY THE ACT OR DECLARATION OF CO-PARTNER OR AGENT BE ADMISSIBLE

AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL?

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scoop of his authority
and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence of the
partnership or agency, against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of
a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (Sec. 29, Rule
130).

WHEN MAY AN ADMISSION OF A PARTNER BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS

CO-PARTNER?

When the following requisites occur:

1. The partnership must be established by independent evidence;
2. The statement refers to a matter within the scope of the partnership; and
3. The statement was made during the existence of the partnership. (Sec. 29, Rule
130).

WHEN MAY THE ADMISSION OF AN AGENT BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS

PRINCIPAL?

When the following requisites concur:

1. The agency must be established by independent evidence;
2. The statement refers to a matter within the scope of the agency; and
3. The statement was made during the existence of the agency. (Nuevas, Ibid., p.
569 citing Hitchman Coal etc. vs. Mithcell, 245 U.S. 229)

STATE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY CONSPIRACTOR?

The act or declaration of a conspiractor relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. (Sec. 30, Rule 130).

WHEN IS THE ADMISSION OF A CONSPIRACTOR RECEIVABLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST

HIS CO-CONSPIRACTOR?

When the following requisites concur:

a) The conspiracy must be established by independent evidence;
b) The statement refers to the purpose or object of the conspiracy: and
c) The statement was made during the existence of the conspiracy. (Sec. 30,
Rule 130); People vs. Dacanay, 92 Phil. 873)

This rule refers to extrajudicial acts and declarations of a conspiractor, and not to his
testimony as a witness at the trial. (People vs. Dacanay, supra).

GIVE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY PRIVIES.

Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. (Sec.
31, rule 130).

DEFINE PRIVIES.

The word “privies” denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or
testamentary legacy, but also succession by virtue of acts intervivos, as by assignment,
subrogation, or purchase – in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the place of
the predecessor in interest. (Alpuerto vs. Pastor & Roa, 38 Phil. 785).

GIVE THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY SILENCE, THE REASON THEREFORE, AND THE
EXCEPTION, IS ANY.
 An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a
party who does or say nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action
or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him. (Sec. 32, Rule 130). This rule applies to both civil and criminal cases.
The reason is the recognized rule that if a man remains silent when he ought to speak, he will
be debarred from speaking later. Qui tacet consentire videtur or silent means consent.
(Gabriel vs. Baens, 56 Phil. 314)

The exceptions to this rule are the following:

1. Where no good reason exists for the party to comment on the act or declaration as
when the act or declaration was not specifically directed to the party who remained
silent (80 A.L.R., Anno., 1272)
2. When the party had no opportunity to comment on the act or declaration; (People vs.
Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
3. Where the act or declaration was made in the course of an official investigation; (U.S.
vs Dela Cruz 12 Phil. 87)

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE ON ADMISSION BY SILENCE?

The basis of such rule is that the natural reaction of one accused of the commission of a
crime or of the implication therein is to deny the accusation if it is unjust or unfounded. (Martin,
Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 252 citing Mathews vs. State, 55 Ala, 187, 28 Ann. Rep. 698)

DEFINE CONFESSION

The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of any
offence necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 33, Rule
130).

DISTINGUISH CONFESSION FROM ADMISSION

A confession as distinguished from an admission is a declaration made at any time by a

person voluntarily, without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he has
committed or participated in the commission of a crime. The term admission on the other hand
is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly
involve an acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the
offense with which he is charged. (U.S. vs. Corraled, 28 Phil. 362; U.S. vs. Razon & Tayag, 37
Phil. 856)

CLASSIFY CONFESSIONA AND DEFINE EACH

A confession may be judicial or extra-judicial. A judicial confessions is that made in the

trial court in the due course of legal proceedings, whereas an extra-judicial confession is that
made elsewhere, either in a prior trial, in the preliminary investigation, or out of court to any
person. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 571 citing Underhill on Criminal Evidence, p. 241).

WHEN IS A CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE?

 A confession is admissible when it is voluntary. (People vs. Pulido, 85 Phil. 695)

WHEN MAY A CONFESSION BE REJECTED? WHY?

A confession may be rejected when the following requisites concur:

1. The confession is involuntary; and

2. The confession is false (People vs. Villanueva, 98 Phi. 327; People vs. De Los
Santos, 93 Phil. 83)
3. The reason for the rule is that what the law abhors is compelling an accused, by
means of force, violence, or intimidation, to tell a falsehood, and not compelling
him by the same means to tell the truth. (People vs. Prias, L-13767, July 30, 1960)
So that, even if a confession is involuntary, if it is proved or turns out to be true, the
same is admissible. (Ibid).

IN ORDER TO RENDER A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY ON THE GROUND OF FORCE

AND VIOLENCE, IS IT REQUIRED THAT IT BE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED UPON THE
PERSON OF THE ACCUSED? WHY?

No, because it is enough that the force or violence were employed upon the person of his
co-accused, in his presence and within his observation, such that he had reasonable grounds
to believe that he would suffer the same maltreatment. (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 1 Phil. 451)

WHEN IS THREAT SUFFICIENT TORENDER A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY?

It must be a threat of bodily harm or injury and accompanied by overt acts showing
determination to carry out the threat. (People vs. Cabrera, 82 Phil 839).

WHEN IS A PROMISE OF REWARD OR LENIENCY SUFFICIENT TO RENDER A

CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY?

It must be a promise of immunity from or leniency in the criminal prosecution and made by
a person who is in a position to grant the same. (People vs. Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334)

AGAINST WHOM IS A CONFESSION ADMISSIBLE? WHY? GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS, IF

ANY.

A confession is admissible only against the accused who made it and not against his co-
accused, for, as against the latter, the confession would be hearsay and res inter alios acta
(People vs. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533)

The exceptions to this rule are the following:

a) When the confession of an accused implicating his co-accused is made judicially at a

joint trial; (U.S. vs. Macamay, 36 Phil 893)
b) When the offer in evidence of an extra judicial confession against a co-accused is not
objected to; (People vs. Atienza, 83 Phil 576)
c) When the co-accused against whom an extra-judicial confession is offered had, by his
acts, conduct and declarations, adopted the confession as his own; (People vs.
Atienza, supra)
 d) Where several accused, without collusion, made extra judicial confessions which are
identical in essential details and corroborated by other evidence, each confession is
admissible against the others; (People vs. Go, 88 Phil. 203)
e) The confession of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirators provided it
was made during the existence of the conspiracy; (People vs. Ramirez, L-5875), May
15, 1953)
f) When the recitals in the extra judicial confession of an accused are corroborated in its
important details by other proofs in the record, it may be admitted against the other
accused. (People vs. Villanueva, L12687, July 31, 1962)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF A THIRD PERSON

TENDING TO EXCULPATE AN ACUSED?

Unless such confession can be considered as part of the res gestae, it cannot be received
in favor of the accused for the reason that the same is hearsay. (People vs. Catalino, L-25403,
March 15, 1968) Besides, the court before which said extra-judicial confession is offered has
ample power to determine its credibility, and the court may discard the same if it finds the
confession in inherently improbable. (Ibid)

WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A CONFESSION?

It depends on whether the confession is judicial or extrajudicial.

A judicial confession, like a plea of guilty, is in law and in fact evidence of guilt of the most
trustworthy kind, is conclusive upon the court and is sufficient to sustain a judgment of
conviction. (People vs. Lastimoso, 83 Phil. 714)
A extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence
of corpus delicti. (People vs. Mananla, L – 13142, Jan. 30, 1959)

STATE THE RULE ON SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove
that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage,
and the like. (Section 34, Rule 130).

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE ON SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE?

To admit the proof of crimes other that the particular one with the accused is charged
would be unfair to the accused. It will compel the defendant to meet the charges of which the
indictment gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issue, and
thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it. In fact it would be
allowing evidence of collateral offenses as substantive evidence of the offense on trial (Martin,
Revised Rules on Evidence, p. 290 citing 20 Am. Jur. 288-289

GIVE THE RULE ONUNACEPTED OFFER.

An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money to deliver a written instrument or

specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (Sec. 35, Rule 130)
IN GENERAL, TO WHAT FACTS MAY A WITNESS TESTIFY?

A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that
is, which are derived from his own perception, exception as otherwise provided in these rules.
(Sec. 36, Rule 130)

WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

Hearsay evidence is that which derives its value, not solely from the credit to be given to
the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity and competency of some other person.
(Clement vs. Packer, 125 U.S. 309) It is not limited to oral testimony; it also includes writings.
(Nuevas, Ibid., p. 576 citing 20 Am. Jur. 400)?

IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE? WHY?

Hearsay evidence is not admissible because it knows of his own knowledge a witness can
testify only on facts which he knows of his own knowledge (Sec. 36, rule 130); and,
furthermore, to preserve the right of parties ot cross-examine the original witness or person
claiming to have knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. (People vs. Pagkaliwagan, 76
Phil. 457) The right to cross-examine the adverse party’s witnesses is essential in the
administration of justice for it is the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their
testimony, and this right is not available in respect of hearsay evidence since the declarant is
not in court. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 576 citing Donnelly vs. United States, 228 U.S. 243)

GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE.

The following:

a) Dying declaration;
b) Declaration against interest;
c) Act or declaration about pedigree;
d) Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
e) Common reputation;
f) Part of the res gestae;
g) Entries in the course of business;
h) Entries in official records;
i) Commercial lists and the like;
j) Learned treatises; and
k) Testimony or disposition at a former proceeding.

GIVE THE RULE ON DYING DECLARATION

The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (Sec. 37, Rule 130, Revised Rules on
Evidence)

WHEN IS DYING DECLARATION ADMISSIBLE?

 When the following requisites concur:
a) The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death;
b) The declaration was made under consciousness of impending death;
c) The declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the subject of inquiry is the
declarant’s death. (Sec. 37, Rule 130; People vs. Sagrario, L-18659, June 29, 1965)

WHAT IS A DYING DECLARATION?

A dying declaration is that made by a person at the point of death, concerning the case
and circumstances of the injury from which he thereafter dies. (Moran, Remedial Law Review,
p. 619)

WHY IS A DYING DECLARATIN ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

A dying declaration is admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity and (b)
trustworthiness. Necessity, because the declarants’s death makes it impossible to obtain his
testimony is the best evidence of the crime. (U.S. vs. Virrey, 37 Phil. 618) Trustworthiness,
because it is made at the point of death, a situation so solemn and awful as creating an
obligation equal to that created by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. (U.S. vs.
Gil, 13 Phil. 530)

WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A DYING DECLARATION?

It must be received with utmost care and given the same weight as the testimony of a
living witness. (People vs. Almendralejo, 48 Phil. 268)

IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE DECLARANT STATE EXPLICITY THAT HE HAD GIVEN HOE
OF LIVING?

No. it is not necessary to the validity or admissibility of a declaration that the declarant
expressly state that he has lost all hope of recovery; it is sufficient that the circumstances are
such to lead inevitably to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant did not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. (Peole vs. Serrano,
58 Phil. 669)

IS THE INSTANTEOUS DEATH OF DECLARANT SHOULD FOLLOW IMEDIATELY AFTER

MAKING HIS DYING DECLARATION?

No. The force of dying declaration is not affected by the circumstances that the declarant
did not die until many hours or days afterwards provided he finally did die from the wound,
whose gravity did not diminish from the time he made his declaration until the hour of his death.
(Ruperto Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, Vol. IV, Premium Book Store, 1989 Ed., pp. 311-
312 citing Moore vs. State, 96 Ten. 209 and U.S. vs. Mallari, 29 Phil. 14)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF RECOVERY OF DECLARANT FATAL WOUND INFLICTED

UPON HIM ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATION?
 The admissibility of the dying declaration of a deceased person with respect to the person
who inflicted the fatal injury depends upon whether at the time the declaration was made the
deceased believed that the injury receive would be fatal. The circumstances that he thereafter
recovered sufficiently to engender the belief that he was going to live, does not render the
declaration inadmissible, where death in fact resulted from the same injury. (People vs. Lara,
54 Phil. 96).

IS THE OPINION CONTAINED IN A DYING DECLARATION ADMISSIBLE?

Opinions in dying declarations are inadmissible. Dying declarations should consist solely
of facts, and not of conclusions, mental impressions or opinions. Thus, a dying statement that
the deceased thought or believed the accused had shot him, or that he expected the accused
would try to kill him, is inadmissible where the deceased did not see his assailant, but based
his declaration wholly upon threats which had been made by the accused. (Ruperto Martin,
Ibid., p. 318 citing state vs. Horn, 204, No. 528, 103 S.W. 96)

EXPLAIN BRIEFLY THE MEANING OF “CONSCIOUSNESS OF AN IMPENDING DEATH.”

The declarant’s belief must be that death was inevitable, not merely possible, nor even
probably, but sure. In other words, the declarant, at the time he makes his declaration, must
have no hope of recovery. If at the time he had an expectation, even only a little hope of
recovery, the declaration would be inadmissible. Fear, or even belief, that illness end in death,
if consistent with hope, is not sufficient. There must be a settled hopeless expectation. (Mora,
Ibid., p. 621)

GIVE THE RULE ON DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST.

The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of
the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors in interest and against third person. (Sec. 38, Rule 130)

WHY IS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

It is admissible on two grounds, name, (a) necessity, and (b) trustworthiness. Necessity,
because the declarant is dead or not available as witness, and trustworthiness, because it is
against the declarant’s interest, and therefore, a guarantee of its truth. (Jaime R. Nuevas,
Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971 Ed., A & J Publishing, p. 581 citing Fitch vs. Chapman, 10
Conn. 11; Smith vs. Moore, 142 N.C. 277)

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIN OF DECLARATION AGAINST

INTEREST?

To render a statement admissible as a declaration against interest the following

requirements must be met:

1. Declarants must be unavailable as a witness

2. The declaration must have related a fact against the apparent pecuniary or proprietary
or moral interest of declarant when his statement was made.
 3. The declaration must have concerned a fact personally cognizable by declarant.
4. That circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed .
(Ruperto Martin, Ibid., p. 327 citing C.J.S. 959)

GIVE THE RULE ON ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE.

The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the

pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence
where it occured before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word “pedigree” includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, 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 pedigree. (Sec. 39, Rule 130)

WHEN IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

1. The declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is in question;

2. Such relationship is shown by evidence other than the act or declaration;
3. The act or declaration was made ante litem motam; and
4. The declarant is dead or unable to testify. (Sec. 39, Rule 130)

WHY IS AN ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS

BRIEFLY?

It is admissible on two grounds, namely (a) necessity and (b) trustworthiness. Necessity,
because facts about pedigree are usually those which occurred long before the trial and known
to only a few persons, and trustworthiness, because those facts are matters which members of
the family are presumed to be interested in ascertaining the truth. ([Link], Ibid., p. 582
citing Fulkenson vs. Holmes, 117 U.S. 389; III Wigmore 218; Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p. 259

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE TERM “PEDIGREE”?

The word “pedigree” includes:

1. Relationship;
2. Family genealogy;
3. Birth;
4. Marriage;
5. Death;
6. Dates when the places where these facts occurred;
7. Names of relatives; and
8. Facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Sec. 39, Rule 130)

GIVE THE RULE ON FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE.

 The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family
bibles or other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may
be received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, rule 130)

WHEN IS FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION REGARDING PEDIGREE ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

1. the reputation or tradition must refer to the pedigree of any member of such family;
2. the reputation or tradition must have been formed previous to the controversy, i.e.,
ante litem motam and
3. the witness testifying thereto must be a member of the familiy. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 340)

MAY FACTS OF PEDIGREE BE PROVED BY COMMON REPUTATION?

No; fact of pedigree, if provable by reputation, can be proved only by reputation in the
family, but not by reputation in the community, except marriage which is provable by both
family and common reputation. (Sison vs. Amblada, 30 Phil. 118)

GIVE THE RULE ON COMMON REPUTATION

Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or

general interest more than thirty years old or respecting marriage or moral character, may be
given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence
of common reputation. (Sec. 41, Rule 130)

WHEN IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

1. The reputation refers to a matter of public or general interest more than thirty (30)
years old; or to marriage or moral character;
2. The reputation is ancient:
3. The reputation was formed ante litem motam; and
4. The reputation is one formed in the community interested. (Sec. 41, Rule 130)

WHY IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

It is admissible on two ground, namely, (a) necessity and (b)trustworthiness. Necessity,

because the fact to be proved is of too ancient a date such that eye-witnesses are no longer
available, and trustworthiness, because if the reputation had existed for so long a time, there
be some truth to it. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 584 Mc Kinnon vs. Bliss, 21 N.Y. 206; Reg. vs
Bedforshire, 4E. 535)

WHEN IS EVIDENCE OF COMMON REPUTATION NOT HEARSAY? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.

It is not hearsay if common reputation is the fact in issue, or part thereof. Thus, in a
prosecution for maintenance of a house of ill-fame, a gambling house, or an opium joint, the
reputation of the house itself is the issue, so that testimony of witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
(U.S. vs. Choa Chick, 36 Phil. 831)

GIVE THE RULE ON RES GESTAE.

Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately

prior to subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res getae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae.

WHAT STATEMENTS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS PART OF THE RES

GESTAE?

They are of two classes:

1. Spontaneous statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place

or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof;
and
2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it legal
significance.
3. The former is referred to as spontaneous exclamations, while the latter as verbal acts.

DEFINE RES GESTAE

Res gestae literally means, “thing done,” and includes the circumstances, facts and
declarations incidental to the main fact or transaction necessary to illustrate its character. It is
so connected therewith as to constitute a part of the transaction. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 349 citing
Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, p. 348)

WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE?

What is admissible as part of the res gestae is not the details of an occurrence, but the
human assertions or statements about those details.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS?

The requisites for the admissibility of this kind of evidence as an exception to the rule
excluding hearsay are the following:

1. Statements must have been made while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequently thereto;
2. Such statements must be spontaneous; and
3. Such statements must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. (R.
Martin, Ibid., p. 350- 351 citing 32 C.J.S. and People vs. Ricaplaza, 23 SCRA 374)

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE ON RES GESTAE?

The principle rests upon the common experience that utterances made under such
circumstances are devoid of self-interest, and are in the same category as exclamations. The
probability of falsehood is so remote as to be negligible. (People vs. Gondayao, 30 SCRA 226)

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF VERBAL ACTS?

The requisites of verbal acts are:

1. The res gestae is an equivocal act;

2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
3. The statement in question must be necessary for the understanding of the equivocal
act; and
4. The statement must accompany the equivocal act. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 587 citing
Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p 22).

WHY ARE SPONTANEOUS EXCLAMATIONS AND VERBAL ACTS ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS

BRIEFLY.

They are admissible on two ground, namely, (a) necessity and (b) trustworthiness.
Necessity, because such natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the
testimony of the same person on the stand; and trustworthiness, because those statements are
made instinctively. (Jaime Nuevas, Ibid., p. 587 citing Mobile vs. Ascraft, 48 Ala. 31 and
Wesley vs. State, 53 Ala. 182)

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DYING DECLARATION AND A DECLARATION AS PART OF

THE RES GESTAE.

If the requsites of a dying declaration do not concur, the declaration may be admitted as
part of the res gestae. (People vs. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533)

WHAT IS AN EQUIVOCAL ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON VERBAL ACTS?

An equivocal act is one susceptible of various interpretations. (Allen vs. Duncan, 11 pick
308)

WHAT ARE VERBAL ACTS? ILLUSTRATE.

Verbal acts are statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and
giving it legal significance. Such declarations are called verbal acts, because they are
considered as verbal parts of the equivocal or ambiguous acts which they explain. For
example, when one delivers money to another, such act does not by itself show whether the
money is intended, say as a gift or as a payment of a debt. But if the act of delivery is
accompanied by the statement that the money is for payment of a debt, or is a birthday gift, the
statement gives legal significance to the act.

MAY AN EQUIVOCAL ACT EXTEND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME? MAY THE
STATEMENTS NECESSARY FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUCH EQUIVOCAL ACT BE
ADMISSIBLE AS VERBAL ACTS?

The equivocal act may extend over a long period of time, and during that period, those
statements that are necessary for an understanding of the meaning of said equivocal act, are
admissible as verbal acts. If a man and a woman are cohabiting together and for a certain
period of time they have been appearing in public together, there is here an equivocal conduct
which may be interpreted either as licit or illicit. According to the present rule, any statements
made by the parties during such equivocal conduct showing it to be matrimonial, meretricious
or otherwise, are admissible as verbal acts. (Morann, Ibid., p. 636 citing Matter of Taylor, 9
Paige (N.Y.), 611)

GIVE THE RULE ON ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.

Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to known the facts therein stated, maybe
received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in h is professional capacity
or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty (Sec. 43,
Rule 130)

WHEN ARE ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

1. The entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction to which
they refer;
2. The person who made the entry must be, at the time the entry is presented as
evidence, deceased, outside of the Philippines or unable to testify;
3. The person who made the entry must be in a position to know the facts there in
stated at the time he made the entries;
4. The entries must have been made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty; and
5. The entries must have been made in the ordinary or regular course of business.
(Ruperto G. Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, vol. IV. 1989 Ed., p. 363)

WHY ARE ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

They are admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity, and (b trustworthiness.
Necessity, because the entrant is dead or not available as witness, and no equally satisfactory
proof of the entry can be had; and trustworthiness, because a man who makes regular entries
for purposes of business or duty usually makes them with accuracy. As these entries are relied
upon by businessmen everyday they can be relied upon the courts. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 589
citing Welsh vs. Barret, 15 Mass. 380 and Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p. 276)

IN SHORT, TO WHAT KIND OF ENTRIES DOES THIS RULE REFER?

It refers to an entry made by a person whose business or duty it was to make the entry,
and which appears to be part of a regular system of entries kept in that establishment. (Jaime
Nuevas, Ibid., p. 590 citing O’Day vs. Spencer, 189 Pac. 394; Kibbe vs. Bancraft, 77 III. 19)

IF THE ENTRANT IS ALIVE WOULD HIS ENTRY BE RECEIVABLE AS INDEPENDENT

EVIDENCE?

No; the entrant must be presented as witness. However, while on the stand, he can
refer to his entry as memorandum to refresh his memory. (Cang Ui vs. Gardner, 34 Phil. 376).
But, if notwithstanding the aid of his entry as a memorandum, the entrant cannot recollect the
facts stated therein, and then his entry is admissible as independent evidence, provided all the
other requisites for its admissibility are present. (Shove vs. Wiley, 18 Mass. 558)

GIVE THE RULE ON OFFICIAL ENTRIES.

Entries in official records made in the performance of h is duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined bylaw, are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Sec. 44, Rule 130)

WHEN ARE ENTRIS IN OFFICIAL RECORDS ADMISSIBLE?

To render such entries admissible the following requisites concur:

1. The entry must be made by a public officer or by another person especially

enjoined by law to do so;
2. It must be made by a public officer in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law; and
3. The entrant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated by him. (Ruperto
Martin. Ibd., p. 370 citing V. Wigmore on Evidence, p.

WHY ARE ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS ADMISSIBLE? DISCUSS BRIEFLY.

They are admissible on two grounds, namely, (a) necessity, and (b) trustworthiness.
Necessity, because litigations are numberless in which the testimony of public officials is
required, and trustworthiness, because the law reposes a particular confidence in public
officials such that is presumes that they will discharge their duties with fidelity and accuracy.
(Antillon vs. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148)

WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS?

They are prima facie evidence of the fact therein entered. (Sec. 44, Rule 130)

GIVE THE RULE ON COMMERCIAL LISTS.

Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation

contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending
to proved the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.
(Sec. 45, Rule 130).

WHEN ARE COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

1. such statements are contained in a list;

2. the compilation is published for use by person engaged in that occupation; and
3. it is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (Ruperto Martin, ibid., p.
378)
WHEN ARE THESE COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE ADMISSIBLE?

They are admissible if published for use by persons engaged in that occupation, and is
generally used and relied upon by them. (Sec. 45, Rule 130)

GIVE THE RULES ON LEARNED TREATISES.

A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art

is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise
periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. (Sec.
46, Rule 130)

WHEN ARE LEARNED TREATISES ADMISSIBLE?

They are admissible if the fact therein stated can be judicially noticed, or if another
expert testifies that the author is a recognized expert on the subject. (Sec. 46, Rule 130).

GIVE THE RULE ON TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING.

The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a

former caser of proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject
matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him. (Sec. 47, Rule 130)

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION OF A

WITNESS AT A FORMER PROCEEDING MAY BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING?

There are five requisites:

1. That the testimony was rendered in a former case;

2. Between the same parties;
3. Relating to the same matter;
4. That the witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or unable to testify in the
subsequent proceeding; and
5. That the adverse party has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
(Moran, Ibid., p. 645)

IS THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE A LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINSITRATIVE COMMITTEE

ADMISSIBLE IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING?

No, because they are not judicial in character. Besides, in legislative and
administrative investigations, the rules of evidence are not binding. (Moran, Ibid., p. 645)

DISCUSS BRIEFLY THE OPINION RULE.

As a rule, a witness must confine his testimony to matters within his actual knowledge.
He cannot be asked questions calling for his opinion or conclusions upon facts, which are for
the court to make. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p 595 citing 20 Am. Jur. 635). Hence, the opinion of a
witness is not admissible. (Sec. 48, Rules 130)

GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPINION RULE.

The following are admissible:

a) The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or

training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (Sec. 49, Rule
130)
b) The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding.
1. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
2. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
3. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
c) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition
or appearance of a person. (Sc. 50, Rule 130)

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE?

When the following requisites concur:

a) The fact to be proved is one requiring expert knowledge; and

b) The witness is really an expert. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 595 citing 20 Am. Jur. 647-649)

WHAT IS MEANT BY “QUALIFYING THE WITNESS”? HOW IS IT DONE?

“Qualifying the witness” means proving that the witness presented is an expert, and this
is done by asking him preliminary questions as to his education, training, experience, and the
like. (Nuevas, Ibid., p. 596 citing Tracy’s Handbook, 62 Ed., p. 207)

WHAT IS MEANT OF OPINION EVIDENCE?

“Opinion evidence” as the term is used in law, means the testimony of a witness, given
or offered in the trial of an action, that the witness is of the opinion that some fact pertinent to
the case exists or does not exists, offered as proof of the existence or non-existence of the fact.
(R. Martin, Ibid., p. 396 citing 20 Am. Jur. 634)

WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY?

Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy of meeting consideration

although not exclusive on questions of a professional character. Courts of justice, however,
are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony. They are free to weigh,
them, and they can give or refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even counter-
balance such evidence with the other elements of conviction which may have been adduced
during the trial. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 409 U.S. vs. Trono, et. al., 3 Phil. 219-220).

DEFINE EXPERT EVIDENCE.

Expert Evidence may be defined as the testimony of one possessing in regard to a

particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other
persons. (U.S.A vs Gil, 13 Phil. 530)

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSARY?

Expert evidence is necessary when there are certain matters which do not come within
the knowledge of ordinary witnesses. (Moran, Ibid., p. 650)

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSSARY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF

HANDWRITING?

When the genuineness of handwriting is to be proven by comparison expert evidence

is necessary. Whether or not the handwriting in questions is similar to other writings of the
same person is a matter which requires the testimony of a man who has been trained, or has
actual skill or knowledge on the same. (U.S. vs. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793,802)

WHEN IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE MENTAL INSANITY?

Mental insanity may be proven by the opinion of ordinary witnesses, but when the
mental disease is to be inferred from an examination and observation of its symptoms, the
opinion of an expert is necessary. (Torres vs. Lopex, 48 Phil. 772)

IS EXPERT EVIDENCE NECESSSARY IN THE IDENTIFICAITON OF FINGERPRINTS?

Yes, because it is a science requiring close study. (People vs. Medina, 59 Phil. 330)

GIVE THE RULES GOVERNING CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES.

The following:

a) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
involved in the offense charged.
b) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
c) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. (Sec. 51, Rule 130).

DEFINE CHARACTER

Character is defined s that “combination of properties, qualities or peculiarities which

distinguishes one person from others.” (Martin, Ibid., p. 420 citing The Cmaberlayne Trial
Evidence, p. 578)

IS EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED ADMISSIBLE IN CRIMINAL

CASES?
 The good character of an accused is admissible in evidence to show that improbability
of his doing the act charged. The principle upon which good character may be proven is, that it
affords a presumption against the commission of crime. This presumption arises from the
improbability, as a general rule, as proven by common observation and experience that a
person who has uniformly pursued an honest and upright course of conduct will depart from it
and do an act so inconsistent with it. Such a person may be overcome by temptation and fall
into crime, and cases of that kind often occur, but they are exceptions; the general rule is
otherwise. (Moran, p. 656 citing Cancemi vs. People, 16 N.Y. 501)

MAY THE PROSECUTION PROVE THE BAD MORAL CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED?

The prosecution is not permitted to impeach the character of an accused, if the latter
does not put it in issue by giving evidence in his support. (People vs. Hodges, 48 Phil. 592).
The reason for the rule is that evidence of bad character may create an unfair prejudice against
the acused who may be convicted not because he is guilty of the crime charged, but because
of his being a crooked man. (Moran, Ibid., p. 657 citing People vs. Shen, 147 N. Y. 78, 41 N.E.
508)

WHAT IS BURDEN OF PROOF?

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (Sec.
1, Rule 131)

DEFINE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE.

“Burden of Evidence” is defined as “that logical necessity which rests on a party at any
particular time during a trial to create a prima facie case in his own favor, or to overthrow one
when created against him. The burden of evidence is determined by the progress of the trial,
and shifts to one party when the other party has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as
a matter of law to a ruling in his favor. (R. Martin, Ibid, p. 431 citing 2 Jones on Evidence. 2 nd
Ed., 355)

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES? WHY?

In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution
(People vs. De Reyes, 82 Phil. 130), because the accused has in his favor the presumption of
innocence.

WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL

INTENT?

When it has been proven that the accused committed the unlawful acts alleged, it is
properly presumed that they were committed with full knowledge and with criminal intent, and it
is incumbent upon them to rebut such presumption. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 441 citing State vs.
Sullivan, 34 Idaho 68, 199 p. 647, 17 A.L.R. 902)

GIVE THE RULE ON CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION.

The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

 a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be
permitted to falsify it;
b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of the landlord and tenant between them. (Sec. 2
Rule 131)

WHAT IS A PRESUMPTION?

A presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising

from its usual connection with another which is known. (Jaime Nuevas, Ibid., p. 602 citing III
C.R. Co. vs. Interstate Co., 206)

WHAT ARE THE CLASSES OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW?

There are two classes of presumptions of law: (a) conclusive presumptions or

presumptions juris et de jure and (b) disputable presumption or presumption juris tantum.
Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not
allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66
Phil. 216) Disputable presumptions are those presumptions which may be disputed, opposed,
refuted or rebutted. Such presumptions continue until overcome by proof to the contrary or by
some stronger presumption. (R. Martin, Ibid., p 447 citing Annotation: Ann. Cas. 1917 E.
11221).

IS PRESUMPTION EVIDENCE?

No. The effect of a presumption is to do away with evidence. It is not evidence, even
though it takes the place of it in the trial of causes. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 448 citing The
Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, p. 732)

WHAT IS ESTOPPEL IN PAIS?

Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(Sec. 2, par. (a)Rule 131)

WHAT IS THEREASON FOR THE RULE ON ESTOPPEL IN PAIS?

The doctrine of estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel is said to be dictated by the

principles of morality and fair dealing and it intended to subserve the ends of justice. It
concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud and falsehood and imposes silence on a party only
when in conscience and honesty he should not be allowed to speak. (R. Martin, Ibid., p. 449
citing 19 Am. Jur. 641). Through estoppel an admission or presentation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon. (Art. 1431, New Civil Code of the Philippines)

WHO MAY INVOKE ESTOPPEL?

 An equitable estoppel can only be invoked by one who is in a position to be misled by
the misrepresentation with respect to which the estopped is invoked; and under circumstances
where damage would result to him from the adoption by the person estopped of a position
different from that which has been held out to be true. (Cristobal vs. Gomez, 50 Phil 810)

GIVE THE INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS.

The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted

and overcome by other evidence:

1. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

2. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
3. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
6. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones
is produced;
10. That a person found in possession of a thing in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and the doer of the whoe act; otherwise, that things which a person
possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the
money, or the delivery of anything, has paid, the money, or the delivery of anything,
has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere
was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court
and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a
dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
16. The private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
20. That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
21. That a writing is truly dated;
22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the
mail;
23. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

 A person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved and
this presumption remains with him throughout the trial until it is overcome by proof of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is founded upon the first principles
of justice and is not a mere form, but a substantial part of the law.

The presumption of innocence is a conclusion of law in favor of the accused, whereby

his innocence is not only established but continues until sufficient evidence is introduced to
overcome the proof which the law has created – namely, his innocence. When a doubt is
created, it is the result of proof, and not the proof itself. The courts will not impute a guilty
construction or inference compatible with innocence arises therefrom with equal force and
fairness. In fact, it si always the duty of the court to resolve the circumstances of evidence upon
a theory of innocence rather than upon a theory of guilt where it is possible to do so. The
accused is not to be presumed guilty because the facts are consistent with his guilt; this will be
done where the facts are inconsistent with his innocence. (Vicente J. Francisco, The Revised
Rules of Court in the Philippines (Evidence), Vol, VII, Part I, 1990 Ed., p. 79-80 citing Wharton’s
Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed., Sec. 72).

DISTINGUISH PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FROM REASONABLE DOUBT.

In making the distinction between the terms “presumption of innocence” and of

“reasonable doubt”, it has been stated that “presumption of innocence” is a conclusion drawn
by law in favor of a citizen , while “reasonable” doubt” is a condition of mind produced by proof
resulting from evidence in the case. The former is regarded as evidence, introduced by the law
to be considered by the court, while the latter is the result of insufficient proof. (Vicente J.
Francisco, Ibid., 81 citing 10 Encyclopedia of Evidence, 625).

EXPLAIN THE PRESUMPTION “THAT AN UNLAWFUL ACT WAS DONE WITH AN

UNLAWFUL INTENT.”

The general rule is that, if it is proved that the accused committed an unlawful act
charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with a criminal intention, and it is for the
accused to rebut this presumption. The act in itself is evidence of the intent. (Vicente J.
Francisco, Ibid., p. 82 citing 16 C.J. 81)

EXPLAINT EH PRESUMTION “THAT A PERSON INTENDS THE ORDINARY

CONSEQUENCES OF HIS VOLUNTARY ACT.”

Though it is maxim of law, as well as the dictate of charity, that every person is to be
presumed innocent until he is proved to be guilty, yet it is a rule equally sound that every sane
person must be supposed to intended that which is the ordinary and natural consequences of
his own purposed act. (V.J. Francisco, Ibid., p. 84 citing 3 Green Evidence, 15 th ed., 13)

EXPLAIN THE PRESUMPTION “THAT A PERSON INTENDS THE ORDINARY

CONSEQUENCES OF HIS VOLUNTARY ACT”.

Men of sound mind are presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of
acts which they intentionally perform. (Ruperto G. Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence, Vol. IV
1989 ed., p. 465 citing 1 Jones on Evidence, 2 nd Ed., 210). It is said that man intends that
consequence which he contemplates and which he expects to result from his act, and he,
therefore, must be taken to intend every consequence which is the natural and immediate
result of any act which he voluntarily does. (Ibid).

IN ORDER THAT THE ADVERSE PRESUMPTION FROM SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

MAY ARISE, WHAT ARE THERE REQUISITES?

The following must concur:

a) The suppression is willful; (Sec. 3, Rule 131)

b) The suppression is not in the exervcise of a privilege; (U.S. vs.
Melchir, 2 Phil. 588)
c) The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative or
cumulative; (People vs. Tuazon, 56 Phil. 649) and
d) The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party.
(People vs. Otero, 51 Phil 201)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY A PARTY?

Non-production of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an honest and,
therefore,, fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party’s
cause. (Marvel Corp. vs. David, 94 Phil. 376)

IN ORDER THAT THE ADVERSE PRESUMPTION FROM POSSESSION OF STOLEN

GOODS MAY ARISE, WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES?

The following must concur:

a) The crime of theft or robbery was committed; (U.S. vs. Carreon,

12 Phil.) 51).
b) It was committed recently; (U.S. VS. Carlipio,, 18 Phil. 421)
c) The property object ofthecrime was found in accused’s
possession; (U.S. vs. Ungal, 37 Phil. 835) and
d) The accccused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily;
(U.S. vs. Espia, 16 Phil. 506) anmd, or for the application of the presumption of doer of
the whole act.
e) It must be shown that the goods were looted at the same time,
in the ssame place and on the same occasion. (People vs. De Jose, CA-G-R. No.
02352- CR, Jan. 31, 1963)

WHAT PRESUMPTION ARISES FROM FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE?

The presumption arises that the case is groundless and affects the whole mass of
evidence presented by the party. (De Leon vs. Layco, 73 Phil. 588)

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICAL ACTS?

It includes regularity of appointment and performance of duty (Tolentino vs Catoy, 82

Phil. 300) and applies to corporate officers. (J. Nuevas, Remedial Law Reviewer, 1971 ed., p.
605)
IN THOSE CASES WHERE DEATH MAY BE PRESUMED, IS THERE A PRESUMPTION AS
TO THE EXACT DATE OF DEATH?

None, the exact date of death is a matter of proof. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p 607 citing Davis
vs. Briggs, 97 U.S. 628)

WHEN ARE PRESUMPTIONS ADMISSIBLE?

They are admissible when the facts from which they may be deduced are fully proven;
a presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption. (Cuaycong vs. Rius, 86 Phil.
170)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS?

Presumptions do not constitute evidence and have no weight as such, but only
determined the party who has the duty of presenting evidence, and when that duty is met,
presumptions recede. (Nuevas, Ibd., p. 608 citing Anno. 15 A.L.R. 881) In other words,
presumptions merely aid in establishing a prima facie case and have no probative effect when
countervailing proof is offered. (J. Nuevas, Ibid., p. 608 citing 20 Am. Jur. 171)

GIVE THE RULE ON THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY OR ILLEGITIMACY OF A

CHILD.

There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred

days following the dissolution of the marriage of the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleged the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. (Sec. 4, Rule
131)

HOW MAY THE EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS BE DONE?

The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open

court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witnesses shall be given
orally. (Sec. 1)

MUST A WITNESS ANSWER ANY QUESTION ASKED?

Yes, a witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him (Sec. 3)

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A WITNESS?

The rights of a witness are:

a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or

insulting demeanor;
b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
c) Not to be examined exception as to matters pertinent to the issue;
d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
 unless otherwise provided by law; or
e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
very fact at issued to a fact from which the fact in issue would presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for offenses. (Sec. 3)

STATE THE ORDER OF EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS

The order in which individual witnesses may be examined is as follows:

a) Direct examination by the proponent;

b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
d) Re-cross-examination by the opponents. (Sec. 4)

GIVE THE CONCEPTS AND PURPOSES OF DIRECT EXAMINATION; CROSS

EXAMINATION; REDIRECT EXAMINATION AND RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him

on the facts relevant to the issue. (Sec. 5)

Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated
in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (Sec. 6)

Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. – After the cross-examination pf the
witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (Sec. 7)

Re-cross-examination. – Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse

party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and
also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sec. 8)

WHEN MAY A WITNESS BE RECALLED?

After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interest of justice may require.

WHAT IS A LEADING QUESTION?

A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. (Sec. 10)

ARE LEADING QUESTIONS ALLOWED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?

As a general rule, they are not allowed, except in the following cases
a) On cross examination;
 b) On preliminary matters;
c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind or a deaf-mute;
d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e) Of a witness who is an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party. (Sec. 10)

WHAT IS A MISLEADING QUESTION?

A misleading question is one which assumed as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed (Sec. 10)

HOW MAY THE ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS BE IMPEACHED?

A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by

contradictory evidence,by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense. (Sec. 11)

WHAT IS IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS?

It is simply an attack on the credibility of a witness. (J. Nuevas, Remedial Law

Reviewer, 1971 Ed., P. 611 citing Ballentines’s Law Dict. 2 nd Ed., p. 610)

MAY A PARTY IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS?

As a rule, no, except, if the witness is an unwilling or hostile witness or if the witness is
an adverse party of an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or
a partnership or association which is an adverse party. (Sec. 12)

WHEN MAY A WITNESS MAYBE CONSIDERED AS UNWILLING OR HOSTILE?

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court

upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify of his having
misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. (Sec. 12)

HOW MAY A WITNESS BE IMPEACED BY EVIDENCE OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS?

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with
the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked
whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.
(Sec. 13)

MAY EVIDENCE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER OF AN ACCUSED BE PRESENTED?

 As a rule, no. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached. (Sec. 14)

STATE THE RULES ON THE EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESSES

On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the
time under examination sot that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. The judge
any also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one
another until all shall have been examined. (Sec. 15)

WHEN MAY A WITNESS REFER TO A MEMORADUM AND STATE THE PROCEDURE?

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written
or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the
same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be
produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-examined
the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a
writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear
that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must
be received with caution. (Sec. 16)

STATE THE RULE WHEN PART OF AN ACT, DECLARATION OR WRITING IS GIVEN IN

EVIDENCE BY ONE PARTY.

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 the other, and when a
detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other ct
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in
evidence. (Sec. 17).

GIVE THE RULE ON THE RIGHT TO INSPECT WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS.

Whenever writing is shown to witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (Sec.
18)

DEFINE AND CLASSIFY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence refers to any tangible object capable of expressing a fact, or

which tend to establish the truth or untruth of matters at issue, and includes all kinds of
documents, records and writings. (Nuevas, Ibid., p 614 citing Curtis vs. Bradley, 65 Conn 99)
It may be classified into public and private documents. (Sec. 19).

WHAT ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS? PRIVATE DOCUMENTS?

Public documents are:

a) The written official acts, or records of official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country.
 b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.

WHAT IS THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT?

It must be authenticated, which means that its due execution and authenticity must first
be proved. (Sec. 20)

HOW MAY A PRIVATE DOCUMENT BE AUTHENTICATED?

In any of the following modes:

a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. (Sec.
20)

WHAT IS AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT?

A document is ancient if the following requisites concur:

a) The document is more than thirty years old;

b) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
c) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. (Sec. 21).

HOW MAY THE HANDWRITING OF A PERSON PROVED?

The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because he ahs seen the person write or has seen writing
purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge. (Sec. 22)

WHAT DOES A PUBLIC DOCUMENT PROVE?

Document consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by

a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents
are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of
the date of the latter. (Sec. 23)

HOW MAY AN OFFICIAL RECORD BE PROVED?

The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose may be evidenced by an official publication thereof of by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record or by his deputy and accompanied
if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If
the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec. 24)

WHEN A COPY OF A WRITING IS ATTESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE, WHAT

MUST THE ATTESTATION STATE?

Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific
part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
court. (Sec. 25)

WHAT IS MEANT BY IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD?

It means that any public record an official copy of which is admissible in evidence must
not be removed from the office in which it is kept except upon order of a court where the
inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. (Sec. 26)

HOW MAY THE AUTHORIZED PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT BE

PROVED?

An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:

a) By the original record; or

b) By a coy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody. (Sec. 27)

GIVE THE RULE ON PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD.

A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by

his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
evidence that the records of his office contain no such records or entry. (Sec. 28).

HOW MAY A JUDICIAL RECORD BE IMPEACHED?

Any judicial record may be impeached be impeached by evidence of:

a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;

b) collusion between the parties or
c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
(Sec. 29)

STATE THE RULE ON PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS.

Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved an certified as provided by law, may

be presented in evidence without further proof the certificate of acknowledgement being prima
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument of document involved. (Sec. 30)
HOW MAY THE ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT BE EXPLAINED BY THE PARTY
PRODUCING IT?

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 dispute, must account
for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it or was otherwise
properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of
the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (Sec.
31)

GIVE THE RULE ON SEALED AND UNSEALED PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.

There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar
as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (Sec. 32).

WHEN MAY DOCUMENTS WRITTEN IN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE BE ADMISSIBLE?

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless

accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings,
parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (Sec. 33)

WHAT IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE FOR THE OFFER OF EVIDENCE?

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purposes for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Sec. 34)

WHEN SHALL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BE MADE?

As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a
party’s testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing. (Sec. 35)

WHEN SHALL OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE OFFERED BE MADE?

Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.

Objection to a question propounded in the coursed of the oral examination of a witness

shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.

An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (Sec. 36)

WHEN IS OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE UNNECESSARY?

When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness

that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has
been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection
to such class of questions. (Sec. 37)

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTION.

An objection is general when the grounds thereof are not stated, or are generally
stated. An objection that the evidence offered is irrelevant, incompetent, or inadmissible is a
general one. (Moran, Remedial Law Reviewer, p. 690 citing Rush vs. French, 1 Ariz., 99, 25
Pac. 819) An objection is specific where it states wherein or how or why the evidence is
irrelevant or incompetent. (Moran, Ibid., Rush vs. French, supra) The general rule is that an
objection must be specified. (Sec. 36)

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A GENERAL OBJECTION?

A general objection is sufficient, if on the face of the evidence objected to units relation
to the rest of the case, there appears no purpose whatever for which it would have been
admissible. Thus, it has been held that where there is a general objection to evidence and it is
overruled, and the evidence is received, the ruling will not be held erroneous unless the
evidence, in its essential nature, is inadmissible. Where the general objection is sustained, and
the evidence excluded, the ruling will not be upheld, unless any ground in fact existed for the
exclusion (6 Moran, Comments, p. 128, 1963 ed.)

WHEN SHALL THE COURT RULE ON THE OBJECTIONS TO THE OFFER OF EVIDENCE?

The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented by the
ruling (Sec. 38)

SHOULD THE COURT STATE THE REASON FOR ITS RULING IN CASE OF OBJECTION
TO EVIDENCE?

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, 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. (Sec. 38)

WHEN MAY THE COURT STRIKE OUT AN ANSWER OF A WITNESS DURING THE TRIAL?

Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court
shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be striken off the record.

On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant or otherwise improper. (Sec. 39)

STATE THE PROCEDURE IF THE COURT EXCLUDES DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.

If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may
have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the
offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
the substance of the proposed testimony. (Sec. 40)

WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES?

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)

WHAT IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in uprejudiced mind. (Sec. 2)

WHAT DEGREE OF PROOF IS NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A defendant in a criminal action shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is

proved, and in case of reasonable doubt that his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he shall be
entitled to an acquittal. (People vs. Bequino, 77 Phil. 629) Therefore, the guilt of the accused
must be established by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE?

In determining where the superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case including the following:

a) the witness’ manner of testifying;

b) the intelligence of the witnesses, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
which they are testifying;
c) the nature of the facts to which the witnesses testify;
d) the probability or improbability of the testimony of witnesses;
e) the interest or want of interest of the witnesses;
f) the personal credibility of the witnesses so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial, and
g) the number of witnesses. (U.S. vs. Lasada, 18 Phil. 90)

WHEN IS THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF AN ACCUSED SUFFICIENT TO

CONVICT?

An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for

conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Sec. 3)

WHAT IS THE CORPUS DELICTI?

It is the fact of specific loss or injury. In homicide, the fact of death, whether or not
feloniously caused is the corpus delicti (Cortez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-32246, June
2, 1988)
WHAT MANNER OF PROOF IS REQUIRED IN SELF-DEFENSE?

Accused who claims self-defense has the burden to prove its elements by clear and
convincing evidence. That evidence must be clear, satisfactory and convincing. (People vs.
Macariola, 120 SCRA 92)

WHEN IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION?

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a) There is more than one circumstance;

b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4)

GIVE THE RULE ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed

established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Sec. 5)

WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidenced as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (Berenguer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-60287, Aug. 17, 1988)

WHEN MAY THE COURT STOP THE PRESENTATION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE?

The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when
the evidence upon it 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. (Sec. 6)

GIVE THE RULE ON THE EVIDENCE ON MOTION

When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter
on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that
the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (Sec. 7)

HOW MAY A PERSON PERPETUATE HIS OWN TESTIMONY?

A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person
regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines, may file a verified
petition in the court of the province of the residence of any expected adverse party. (Sec. 1)

WHAT SHALL BE ALLEGED IN THE PETITION?

The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show (a) that the
petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable
to bring it or cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected action and his
interest therein; (c) the facts which is he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his
reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of the persons he expects
will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known; and (e) the names and addresses
of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit
from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the
persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony.
(Sec. 2)

WHAT SHALL THE NOTICE OF PETITION CONTAIN, AND UPON WHOM, WHEN AND HOW
SHALL IT BE SERVED?

The petitioner shall thereafter serve a notice upon each person named in the petition
as an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition, stating that the petitioner will
apply to the court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the petition. At
least twenty (20) days before the date of hearing the notice shall be served in the manner
provided for service of summons. (Sec. 3)

WHAT SHALL THE COURT DO IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE PERPETUATION OF

TESTIMONY MAY PREVENT A FAILURE OR DELAY OF JUSTICE?

If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or
delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose deposition
may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the examination, and whether the deposition
shall be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then be
taken in accordance with Rule 24 before the hearing (Sec. 4)

For the purpose of applying Rule 24 to depositions for perpetuating testimony, each
reference therein to the court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the
court in which the petition for such deposition was filed. (Sec. 5)

GIVE THE RULE ON THE USE OF DEPOSITION.

If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule, or if, although not so
taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the same
subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of
Rule 24. (Sec. 6)

IN SUCH A CASE, HOW AND WHERE SHALL THE PETITION BE FILED?

If an appeal has been taken from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court or before the
taking of an appeal if the time therefore has not expired, the Regional Trial Court in which the
judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their
testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party
who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the said Regional Trial Court for
leave to take the depositions, upon the same notice and service thereof as if the action was
pending therein. (Sec. 7)
WHAT SHALL THE MOTION SHOW?

The motion shall show (a) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined
and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each; and (b) the reason for
perpetuating their testimony. (Sec. 7)

WHAT SHALL BE ORDERED BY THE COURT?

If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or
delay of justice, it may make an order allowing is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it
may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may
be taken and used in the same manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed in
these rules for depositions taken in actions pending in the Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 7)

…oΩo…