Manila Law College

College of Law

EVIDENCE
Final Requirement
Melanie T. Manatad Atty. Rodolfo Rabaja

Summary of Rule 132 and 133

Rule 132
Section 1 of Rule 132 provides for the examination of the witnesses to be done
in open court and under oath or affirmation unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, questions calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall
be given orally. Sec. 2 of this rules also provides the record of the proceeding which
state that the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the
statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with
reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or by
other means of recording found suitable by the court. The official stenographer,
stenotypist or recorder shall make a transcript of the record of the proceedings and
shall be certified by him as correct. The transcript so prepared and certified shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.
The rights and obligation of a witness provides under Sec. 3 of Rule 132 states
that a witness has an obligation answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. However, a witness has certain right which are to be
protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor; not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require; not to be
examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue; not to give an answer which
will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness
must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
The kinds and order of examination as provided in Sec. 4 of this Rule are the
following:
(a) Direct examination as defined in Sec. 5 of Rule 132, is the examination-in-
chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
(b) Cross-examination as stated in Sec. 6 of Rule 132, that upon the termination
of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse
 party as to many 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.
(c) Re-direct examination under Sec. 7 of this Rule, that after the cross-
examination of 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. On re-direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
(d) Re-cross-examination the rules provide that 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.
If a witness has been examined by both sides has been concluded, the witness
cannot be recalled without leave of the court. In the exercise of its discretion, the court
shall be guided as the interests of justice may require.
Sec. 10 of this Rule provides that leading question is a question indicates to the
witness the answer desired by the examining party asking the question. Leading
questions are allowed in the following instances: on cross examination; on preliminary
matters; when there is a difficulty is 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;
of an unwilling or hostile witness; or 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.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by
the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed.
The Rules provide that a witness may be impeached by the following: the
impeachment of the witness is to be done by the party against whom he was called.
The following modes that a witness may be impeached: by contradictory evidence, by
evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, 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. By way of exception to the immediately preceding rule, 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, or his having
misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. The unwilling or hostile witness
so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by the party
presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the
adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.
A witness may be impeached by prior inconsistent statements. In Sec. 13 of this
Rule provides 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. Also, the Rules that bar evidence of the
good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.
The judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under
examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses and the judge
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing
with one another until all shall have been examined as provided in Sec. 15 of this Rule.
The witness may refer to a memorandum, according to Sec. 16 of this Rule, 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
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 examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a
witness may testify from such 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.
In Rule 132- B. Authentication and proof of documents explained the classes of
documents, how to proof private documents, authenticity of private documents, the
genuineness of handwriting, proof of official records, public records of private
document, proof of lack of records, proof of notarial documents and alteration in
documents.
The classes documents for the presentation evidence, documents are either
public or private. Public documents are: the written official acts, or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; documents acknowledge before a
notary public except last wills and testaments; and public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein. All other
writings are private.
The manner of authenticity of a document requires by Sec. 20 of Rule 132,
applies only in any private document is offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved either: by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
The requirement of authentication is not required where a private document is
more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion,
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given of Sec. 21 of Rule 132. This also
known be as Ancient Documents.
In Sec. 22 of Rule 132 provides how the genuineness of handwriting maybe
proved: a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person because (1) he has seen the person write, or (2) 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 or (3) 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.
Under Sec. 23 of Rule 132 when a public officer, in the performance of his duty
make of entries in public records, the document of such entry is deemed 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. 24 of Rule 132 that the record of public documents may be evidenced: by
an official publication thereof or 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 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.
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 as required by Sec. 25 of this Rule. The
certificate and attestation are required because of the general rule on the irremovability
of public record as provide in Sec. 26 of Rule 132.
Proof of lack of record of a document consists of 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 record or entry. Sec. 29 of this rule authorizes
the impeachment of any judicial record if there be evidence of the existence of any of
the following grounds: (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.
Under Sec. 30 of Rule 132 provides that every instrument duly acknowledged or
proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of
the instrument or document involved.
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears
to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration, he may show an of the following: that the alteration
was made by another, without his concurrence, or; that the alteration was made with
the consent of the parties affected by it; or that the alteration was otherwise properly
or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument. Failure to do any of the above will make the document shall inadmissible in
evidence. And there shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned.
The Rule provides that the 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.
In Rule 132 – C Offer and objection covers the following: offer of evidence,
When to make offer, objection, repetition of objection, ruling, striking out answer,
tender of evidence.
According to Sec. 34 of Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified. The testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify which provides in Sec. 35 of this rule. And 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.
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds
for the objections must be specified.
 In Sec. 37 of this rule, the repetition of objection is unnecessary, it becomes
reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question
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.
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; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented
by the ruling. 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.
The witness should 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
stricken off the record. On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of
answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Sec. 40 of Rule 132 provides that 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.
RULE 133
In Rule 133, it discussed the weight and sufficiency of evidence:
In civil cases, the part having burden of proof must be establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, is the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and usually considered to “greater weight of the evidence or greater
weight of the credible evidence”. In determining where the preponderance or superior
weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of
the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
 In a criminal case, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the
prosecution because of the presumption that the accused is presumed innocent until
contrary is proven Sec. 2 provides for the quantum of evidence in criminal cases states
that the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
In Sec. 3. of this Rule provides that an extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence
of corpus delicti.
The pertinent rule on circumstantial evidence is found in Sec. 4 of Rule 133. The
provisions states that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
a) There is more than one circumstances;
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.
Under Sec. 5 of Rule 133, that 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.
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 as provided in Sec. 6 of this Rule.
The Rules of Court stated that 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.