REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma.

Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

probability or improbability of the fact in

REMEDIAL LAW issue.
Evidence 2. Competent: When it is not excluded by the
Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis Constitution, the law or these Rules. [Section 3,
Rule 128]
a. Note Sections 2, 3, 12 and 17 of the Article
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
III of the 1987 Constitution, which may be
considered as exclusionary rules of
Concept evidence.
EVIDENCE: The means, sanctioned by the Rules, of b. Other provisions of law which provide for
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a exclusionary rules: NIRC, Bank Secrecy
matter of fact. [Section 1, Rule 128] Act, Anti-Wiretapping Law.
FACTUM PROBANDUM: Ultimate fact or proposition to WHEN DETERMINED: At time it is offered to the Court.
be established.
WHEN TO OBJECT: Immediately after it is offered, or as
FACTUM PROBANS: Evidentiary fact which establishes soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.
the proposition. [Section 36, Rule 132]
• Failure to do so is equivalent to a waiver of such
Proof is not the same as evidence. Proof is the result of objection.
evidence. • Two pronged approach in objection: (1) as to the
purpose; and (2) as to the question asked or the
Scope answer itself.
Rule 128
SECTION 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be In case of documentary evidence, after formal offer of
the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except evidence.
as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2)
Conditional Admissibility
Kinds of evidence Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be
1. Real evidence (Object evidence) – Evidence of the immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other
thing or object produced in court, or evidence facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be
furnished by things. received on condition that the other facts will be proved
2. Documentary evidence – consists of written thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already given shall be
instruments offered as proof of their contents. stricken out.
3. Testimonial evidence – testimony in court or the
deposition of one who has observed that to which Multiple Admissibility
he is testifying (percipient witness) or of one who is Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or
nevertheless qualified to give an opinion even more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any
though he has not observed the facts (expert or all the purposes for which it is offered, provided it satisfies
witness). all the requisites of law for its admissibility therefor.

Admissibility Curative Admissibility

Rule 128 The right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in
SECTION 3. Admissibility of Evidence. — Evidence is his behalf where the court has admitted incompetent
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not evidence adduced by the adverse party.
excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.
Direct and circumstantial evidence
REQUISITES
DIRECT CIRCUMSTANTIAL
1. Relevant: When it is relevant to the issue;
Proves the fact in dispute Proof of facts from which,
a. Evidence must have such a relation to the
without the aid of any taken collectively, the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its
inference or presumption existence of a particular
existence or non-existence. [Section 4,
fact in dispute may be
Rule 128]
inferred as a necessary or
b. GENERAL RULE: Evidence on collateral
probable consequence.
matters shall not be allowed.
c. EXCEPTION: When it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 1
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Upon mature deliberation, however, we are unanimously of Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule exculpated
the opinion that the position taken in the Moncado case the accused from liability. First, the inventory and taking of
must be abandoned. Said position was in line with the photographs were not immediately conducted at the place
American common law rule, that the criminal should not be of arrest. Second, the arresting officers did not conduct the
allowed to go free merely "because the constable has inventory and take photographs of the seized items in the
blundered," upon the theory that the constitutional presence of a DOJ representative and a media
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is representative. Finally, the prosecution did not present any
protected by means other than the exclusion of evidence justification for these procedural lapses on the part of the
unlawfully obtained. police officers.

Ganaan v. IAC (1986) Dean Mawis: Prior to this, more often than not, as long as
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same there was substantial compliance, the evidence was
category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices admitted. But now there must be strict compliance.
enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof
cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a Presumptions
telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not Two kinds
installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for 1. Presumption of law
ordinary office use. 2. Presumption of fact

Burden of proof and burden of evidence Conclusive Presumptions

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence Rule 131
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim SECTION 2. Conclusive Presumptions. — The
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
Burden of proof never shifts. (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own
• Generally with the plaintiff, with respect to the declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
complaint. deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift falsify it; and
from one party to the other in the course of the (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case. his or her landlord at the time of the
[Section 1, Rule 131] commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (2a)
General rule: if a criminal charge is predicated on a
negative allegation, or that a negative averment is an These are the two conclusive presumptions. The basic facts
essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the constituting a presumption must first be proved.
burden to prove the charge.
In presumptions, the proponent still has to introduce the
Exceptions: Onus probandi rests on accused when: evidence of the basis of the presumptions. He has to prove
1. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of that the facts exist or not exist from which the court may
direct proof, or draw an inference on the facts in issue. While in judicial
2. Where the facts are more immediately within the notice and judicial admissions, no need to introduce
knowledge of the accused evidence on the factual assertions.

In civil cases, party making assertions has the burden of The following need not be proved:
proving them with preponderance of evidence. 1. Allegations in the complaint and answer that are
immaterial to the issues;
State of equipoise – if the evidence in a case is evenly 2. Facts already admitted or not denied in the answer,
balance, it must be decided against the party who has the provided they have been sufficiently alleged;
burden of proof, for the case is found in exactly the same 3. Stipulated facts;
position at the conclusion as it was at the beginning. 4. Facts subject of judicial notice;
5. Facts that may be legally presumed;
Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and 6. Facts that are peculiarly within the knowledge of
not the weakness of the prosecution’s own witness. the adverse party.

People v. Refe (2019) Estoppel as conclusive presumption

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 2

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Estoppel is a bar which precludes a person from denying or equal weight, neither presumption applies. [Section
asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in 5, Rule 131]
contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either 2. Presumption against an Accused in Criminal
by the acts of judicial or legislative officers or by his own Cases. — If a presumed fact that establishes guilt,
deed or representation, either express or implied. is an element of the offense charged, or negates a
defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
Three kinds of estoppel: proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
1. Estoppel in pais: By act or omission, intentionally presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond
leading another to believe that a particular thing is reasonable doubt. [Section 6, Rule 131]
true and act upon such belief, he cannot by such
act or omission be permitted to falsify it. Quantum of Evidence
2. By deed: Barring the party and his privies from Rule 133
asserting any right or title in derogation of the deed SECTION 1. Preponderance of Evidence, How
or from denying the truth of any fact asserted in it Determined. — In civil cases, the party having the
a. A person who rents a property from burden of proof must establish his or her case by a
another is not permitted to deny the preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
latter’s title at the time the lease begun. As preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the
tenant, lessees know fully well that the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts
land or property rented is not their own. and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner
3. By record of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
Disputable Presumptions testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
GENERAL RULE: The disputable presumptions under the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
Rules are satisfactory if uncontradicted. But if they are interest or want of interest, and also their personal
merely disputable, they may be overturned by evidence to credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
the contrary. upon the trial. The court may also consider the number
of witnesses, though the preponderance is not
Presumption of innocence: Where two alternatives or necessarily with the greater number.
probabilities arise from evidence, that which is compatible
with the presumption of innocence will be adopted. SECTION 2. Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt. — In
a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
Adverse presumption of suppression of evidence unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Does NOT arise when suppression is not willful, evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative, exercise of degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
privilege. produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces
Presumption of recently stolen goods: The following conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
facts have to be first proven: crime was committed,
committed recently, property is found in possessed of JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL
accused, and he cannot explain the possession.
ADMISSIONS
Presumption of survivorship: The death must occur in a
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED:
calamity, no circumstances from which it may be inferred,
1. Judicial Notice
and two persons perish in the same calamity.
2. Judicial Admissions

Two new provisions on presumptions:

Judicial Notice
1. Presumptions in Civil Actions and
• The cognizance of certain facts that judges may
Proceedings. — In all civil actions and
properly take and act on without proof because
proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law
these facts are already known to them.
or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the
• Must be exercised with caution, and doubt must
party against whom it is directed the burden of
be resolved in the negative.
going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the
presumption.
REQUISITES:
1. The matter must be one of common and general
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption
knowledge;
that is founded upon weightier considerations of
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not
policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of
doubtful or uncertain;
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 3
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

3. It must be known to be within the limits of the Where made: Must be in the same case in which it is
jurisdiction of the court. offered.
• If made in another, it must be proved.
Rule as to ordinances are different. First level courts should
have knowledge of local legislation. Admissions which are later withdrawn or superseded by
another pleading are considered as extrajudicial admissions
Courts are required to take judicial notice of decisions of the which must be proved by the party who relies thereon
appellate courts, but not of coordinate trial courts, even if it through formal evidence.
is with the same facts as the case itself unless the same are
introduced in evidence and the court, for reasons of GR: A person cannot contradict his or her own judicial
convenience, may decide to do so. admission, once made.

Knowledge of the judge does not mean that it is a matter HOW CONTRADICTED:
capable of judicial notice. 1. By showing that it was made through palpable
mistake
Foreign Laws 2. By showing that no such admission was made.
GENERAL RULE: Have to be proven. [PLDT v. Pingol (2010)]
EXCEPTION: When the same is generally known and have Note: Provision on actionable document in the Rules of Civil
been ruled upon in the cases before it, and none of the Procedure.
parties claim otherwise.
Failure to file an answer is not equivalent to an admission of
Cases pending in same court the allegations in the complaint.
GR: Courts should not take judicial notice of cases tried or • Even if defendant is declared in default, the plaintiff
are pending in the same court or before the same judge. still has to prove his or her allegations by evidence.
Exceptions:
(1) Parties do not object Judicial admissions may be made in
(2) Close connection with the matter in controversy 1. the pleadings filed by the parties,
2. in the course of the trial, either by verbal or written
When hearing necessary [Section 3, Rule 129] manifestations or stipulations, or
1. During pre-trial and trial: The court, motu proprio, 3. in other stages of the judicial proceeding
or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the
propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
[Sec. 3, Rule 129] OBJECT EVIDENCE (RULE 130)
2. After trial and before judgment or on appeal: The
court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take Rule 130
judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the SECTION 1. Object as Evidence. — Objects as
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
material issue in the case [Sec. 3, Rule 129] When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
Genesis Transport Service v. Unyon ng Malayang
Manggagawa Genesis Trannsport (2010) OBJECT EVIDENCE: Evidence which is addressed to the
A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, senses of the court.
is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of
which the court has no constructive knowledge. Object Demonstrative
Required foundation is Foundation does not
Judicial Admissions [Rule 129] relative to proving that the involve the showing that
Rule 129 object used is the one that the object is the one used
it is used in the event. in the underlying event.
SECTION 4. Judicial Admissions. — An admission,
oral or written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. Why important: Required foundation is different.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
it was made through palpable mistake or that the REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT
imputed admission was not, in fact, made. EVIDENCE:
1. Evidence must be relevant;
Effect: Dispenses with presentation of proof, becomes 2. There must be a logical nexus on the evidence and
established facts. point for which it is offered.
3. Evidence must be authenticated.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 4

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

AUTHENTICATION: To show that the object is the very reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
thing that is either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
very one involved to prove an issue in the case. [E.g. Chain a. If outside jurisdiction of the country, then
of Custody Rule] secondary evidence is available.
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts
Chain of custody (Section 21 of RA 9165) or other documents which cannot be examined in
FOUR LINKS: court without great loss of time and the fact sought
1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal to be established from them is only the general
drug recovered from the accused by the result of the whole;
apprehending officer; 4. When the original is a public record in the custody
2. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by of a public officer or is recorded in a public office;
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; and
3. third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the 5. When the original is not closely-related to a
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory controlling issue.
examination; and a. This refers to a collateral matter [See
4. fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked previous discussion].
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. [People v. Gayoso (2017)] What are original documents?
• An "original" of a document is the document itself
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE or any counterpart intended to have the same
effect by a person executing or issuing it. An
Rule 130 "original" of a photograph includes the negative or
SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence. — Documents any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer
as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or similar device, any printout or other output
or any material containing letters, words, sounds, readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect
numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other the data accurately, is an "original.” [Section 4, Rule
modes of written expression offered as proof of their 130]
contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (2a) DUPLICATE: A counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
The definition embraces in the broadest possible language means of photography, including enlargements and
every written or memorial language. miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or
by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
Documentary Evidence: Consist of writings, recordings, techniques which accurately reproduce the original. [Id.]
photographs, or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or Can a photocopy be an original?
other modes of written expressions offered as proof of • Dean Mawis says it may be argued as such
their contents. [Sec. 2, Rule 130] If offered for some other because the counterparty was intended to have
purpose, they constitute object evidence. the same effect by the one issuing it.
• BUT this has to be read in relation to Section 4(a)
Original Document Rule (Section 3, Rule 130) of Rule 130. If the duplicate is done by another
DOCTRINE: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of person, it may be argued as well that it is not an
a document, writing, recording, photograph or other original since the original issuer did not intend it to
record, no evidence is admissible other than the original have the same effect.
document itself.
A printout is already the original of what was stored. The
The doctrine of the original document rule simply requires Amended Rules adopted the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
that the original has to be produced when the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of the document except when People v. Enojas (2014)
secondary evidence is allowed by the Rules or statute. Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the same or has personal
EXCEPTIONS: knowledge of them.
1. When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of Tegimenta v. Oco (2013)
the offeror; The court shall not receive any evidence that is merely
2. When the original is in the custody or under the substitutionary in nature, such as a photocopy, as long as
control of the party against whom the evidence is the original evidence of that document can be had.
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 5
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Secondary Evidence (b) The failure of the written agreement to express

1. When the original is unavailable [Section 5, Rule the true intent and agreement of the parties
130] thereto;
a. Prior proof of existence, execution, loss, contents (c) The validity of the written agreement; or (d) The
(EELC) is essential. existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
b. How to prove contents of document (by or their successors in interest after the execution
order): By a copy, recital of contents in some of the written agreement.
authentic document, by the testimony of witnesses
in the order stated. The term "agreement" includes wills. (9a)
c. Due execution, besides loss, has to be proven.
Loss is not sufficient. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: When the terms of an
2. When the original is in the custody or control of agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered
the adverse party OR original cannot be obtained as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
by local judicial processes or procedures [Section as between the parties and their successors in interest, no
6, Rule 130] evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
a. Requisites: 1) Said document is under the written agreement.
custody/control of adverse party; 2) Proponent of
secondary evidence gave the adverse party It is very important to relate this to Article 1403 of the New
reasonable notice to produce the original Civil Code.
document; 3) Original exists; 4) Failure of adverse
party to produce it in court. Thus, evidence of prior or contemporaneous verbal
3. When the contents of documents, records, agreement is not admissible to modify, contradict, or add
photographs, or numerous accounts are to the terms of the agreement.
voluminous and cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time, and the fact sought to PAROL EVIDENCE: Any aliunde, whether oral or written,
be established from them is only the general which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete
result of the whole (“Summaries”) [Section 7, Rule and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
130] • Evidence which varies the terms of the contract is
a. You have to make sure that you can present the inadmissible.
basis of the summaries if so required by the
adverse party. The rule is not applicable when one of the parties is not privy
b. If supporting documents not made available: to the agreement in question. It cannot be invoked against
Presentation of secondary evidence may be strangers to a contract.
objected to.
4. When the original is a public record in the custody Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule
of a public officer or is recorded in a public office 1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
[Section 8, Rule 130] the written agreement;
a. Mistake refers to mistake of fact that is mutual
A party who calls for the production of a document and to the parties.
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. b. Imperfection includes an inaccurate
[Section 9, Rule 130] statement in the agreement or incompleteness
in the writing, or the presence of inconsistent
Parol evidence rule provisions.
Rule 130 c. Latent or intrinsic ambiguity is where the
SECTION 10. Evidence of Written Agreements. — writing admits of two constructions, both of
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to which are in harmony with the language used.
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed d. Extrinsic or patent ambiguity is that which
upon and there can be, as between the parties and their appears on the very face of the instrument, and
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other arises from the defective, obscure or insensible
than the contents of the written agreement. language used. It requires something to be
added to ascertain the meaning of the words.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, a. In this case, parol evidence will not be
explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he allowed.
or she puts in issue in a verified pleading: e. Intermediate ambiguity: Partakes of the
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in nature of both patent or latent ambiguity. The
the written agreement; language admits of two interpretations. Parol

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 6

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

evidence is admissible but the matter must be evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
put in issue by the pleader. documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the
2. Failure of the written agreement to express fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
the true intent and agreement of the parties latter. [Section 23, Rule 132]
thereto;
a. Must be raised in the Answer. Proof of Official Record [Section 24, Rule 132]
3. Validity of the written agreement Public documents in Section 19(a), Rule 132 may be
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the proved by:
parties or their successors-in-interest after 1. (1) Original copy
the execution of the written agreement. 2. (2) Official publication thereof, or
3. (3) A copy attested by an officer having the legal
Oral evidence cannot prevail over the written agreement of custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
the parties to ensure that it is removed from the temptation accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
to commit perjury. Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
the custody.
Parol evidence is not admissible to validate a void contract.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
How waived: which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to
1. Failure to object to the introduction of parol which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public
evidence; document under such treaty or convention pursuant to
2. If the party, by his cross-examination, the witness paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its
testified to the contents of the contract. equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or
convention subject to reciprocity granted to public
Canuto v. Mariano (1918) documents originating from the Philippines.
The rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic For documents originating from a foreign country which is
evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument not a contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to
does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made
of an agreement between the parties to a writing, entered by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
into subsequent to the time when the written instrument consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in
was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
the effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as the seal of his or her office.
evidenced by the writing; for the parol evidence does not in
any way deny that the original agreement of the parties was A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its
that which the writing purports to express, but merely goes equivalent may be presented in evidence without further
to show that the parties have exercised their right to change proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
or abrogate the same, or to make a new and independent evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
contract. document involved. The certificate shall not be required
when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and
Enriquez v. Ramos (1962) the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
when the terms of an agreement had been reduced to exempted the document itself from this formality.
writing it is to be considered as containing all that has been
agreed upon and that no evidence other than the terms If a certified true copy is used instead, there must be a
there can be admitted between the parties. This only holds certification or attestation of the true copy under Sections
true if there is an allegation that the agreement does not 24-25, Rule 132, apart from the requisite of a documentary
express the intent of the parties. stamp tax, unless specifically exempted therefrom.

Yu Tek v. Gonzales (1915) Proof of lack of record: A custodian’s certificate to the

While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to effect that after diligence search, no record or entry of a
explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office.
purpose of incorporating into the contract additional [Section 28]
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at
all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. Impeachment of judicial record: May be impeached on
ground of
Public Documents as Evidence 1. want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in 2. collusion between the parties; or
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 7

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

3. fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the
the proceedings. [Section 29] admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest
when she and her counsel signed and attested to the
Alteration of document veracity of the text messages between her and
The party producing a document as genuine which has complainant. It is also well to remember that in
been altered and appears to have been altered after its administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to
account for the alteration. He or she may show that the the probative value of the text messages as evidence in
alteration was made by another, without his or her determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties case.
affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocently
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud (2005)
language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do that, the The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text
document shall not be admissible in evidence. [Section 31] messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of
his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been
Documents in unofficial language classified as "ephemeral electronic communication" under
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a and "shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof."
proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is
such translation prepared before trial. [Section 33] now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well
as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of
For purposes of communication and instruction, the official the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone.
languages of the Philippines are Filipino and English, until
otherwise provided by law. [Section 7, Article XIV of the
1987 Constitution] TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Electronic Evidence
Electronic document: information or the representation of Qualifications
information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of Rule 130
written expression, described or however represented, by SECTION 21. Witnesses; Their Qualifications. — All
which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
signed documents and any print- out or output, readable case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided
by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. (20)
electronic data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" All persons who can perceive and can make known their
may be used interchangeably with "electronic data perception to others, can be witnesses.
message". [Sec. 1(h), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
Ephemeral electronic communication— telephone 1. He is capable of perceiving;
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, 2. He can make his perception known.
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic a. Loss of the perceptive sense after the
forms of communication the evidence of which is not occurrence of the fact does not affect the
recorded or retained. [Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic admissibility of his testimony.
Evidence]
Competency: Presence of those characteristics, or the
Nuez v. Cruz Apao (2005) absence of those disabilities, which render a witness legally
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic fit and qualified to give testimony in a court of justice.
Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall be • Credibility is different.
proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this PRESUMPTION: A witness is competent. The burden is
case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages on the other party objecting to the competency of a witness
and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on to establish the ground.
their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted • When to object: As soon as the incompetency
that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s becomes apparent.
cellphone from which the messages originated was hers.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 8
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

• Partial incompetency: Witness will be allowed to SECTION 37. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other
testify but it can be objected to in matters where he than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial
is incompetent. or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted
therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or
Failure to object: Tantamount to waiver. The evidence (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by
stays in the records and will be judged according to its him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
merits. inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these
Rules.
When acts of a party may be considered a waiver:
When the party fails to raise the objection regarding the A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the
insanity or intellectual weakness of a witness. But this is not trial or hearing and is subject to cross- examination
a valid objection as to his competency if at the time, he has concerning the statement, and the statement is (a)
the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, so far as the inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was
facts and his testimony are involved, understands the given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial
nature of an oath, and can give an intelligent and reasonable hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b)
narrative of the matters in which he testifies. consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered
to rebut an express or implied charge against the
People v. Mendoza (1996) declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after
competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can perceiving him or her. (n)
make known his perception to others and of relating
truthfully facts respecting which he is examined.
Hearsay is a statement other than the one made by the
Requirements for a child to be a competent witness: declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
1. Capacity of observation; prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. [See Section
2. Capacity of recollection; 37]
3. Capacity of communication.
Doctrine of independently relevant statement: A
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE RULE witness may testify to the statements made by a person if
SECTION 22. Testimony Confined to Personal for instance, the fact that such statements were made by
Knowledge. — A witness can testify only to those facts the latter would indicate the latter’s mental or physical state
which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; or condition. Independent of whether the facts stated are
that is, which are derived from his or her own perception. true, they are relevant since they are the facts in issue or
(36a) they are circumstantial evidence thereof.

The testimony generally must be confined to one’s personal Two classes of independently relevant statements
knowledge. 1. Statements which are the very facts in issue
a. Establish the utterance of the words and
This is the old Section 36 of Rule 130, which has been not in their truth. Not used in determining
treated as the hearsay rule. the issue of their truth.
2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of
HEARSAY RULE the facts in issue
a. From which the facts in issue may be
inferred may be testified to by a witness
without violating the hearsay rule.
b. E.g. Statements showing a person’s state
of mind, physical condition, ill will, etc.

Hearsay has no probative value and is always prevailed over

by direct, primary evidence.

Affidavits
Generally not prepared by the affiant themselves. Thus, they
are generally rejected as hearsay, unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify on the
matters therein.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 9

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Adoptive Admission: A party’s reaction to a statement or Declaration to a third person referencing the accused
action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the spouse’s guilt should not be received against the accused
partys reaction as an admission of something stated or where it is not made in his or her presence or by his or her
implied by the other person. [Estrada v. Desierto (2001)] authority. Although the rule is different if the declaration is
• Jones explains that the basis for admissibility of made in his or her presence.
admissions made vicariously is that arising from the
ratification or adoption by the party of the Alvarez v. Ramirez (2005)
statements which the other person had made. To When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally
use the blunt language of Mueller and Kirkpatrick, impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception
this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the
common sense. other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime
committed by one against the other.
People v. Quidato (1998) • In this case, the husband and wife relations were
The failure to present the two gives these affidavits the already strained. They have been de facto
character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that unless the separated for 6 months so the prohibition under
affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the Section 23 no longer applies.
averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded
from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. People v. Castañeda Jr.
The voluntary admissions of an accused made Wife is a complaining witness in a criminal case for
extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co- falsification committed by the husband, who allegedly
accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity forged his wife’s signature in a deed of sale of their conjugal
to hear him testify and cross-examine him. house and lot. The Supreme Court ruled that the case is an
exception to the marital disqualification rule since the
Disqualification by reason of marriage criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed
Rule 130 against herein private respondent may be considered as a
SECTION 23. Disqualification by Reason of criminal case for a crime committed by a husband against
Marriage. — During their marriage, the husband or the his wife, and, therefore, an exception to the rule on marital
wife cannot testify against the other without the consent disqualification.
of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime People v. Francisco (1947)
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct Wife is rebuttal witness
descendants or ascendants. (22a) 1. The policy of the law deems it necessary to guard
the security and confidences of private life even at
Applies to a testimony against the affected spouse. Limited the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and
to adverse spousal testimony. which rejects such evidence because its admission
would lead to domestic disunion and unhappiness.
REQUISITES: Where a want of domestic tranquility exists, there
1. Spouses are legally married; is danger of punishing one spouse through the
a. Applies if the marriage is voidable. hostile testimony of the other.
2. Other spouse is party to the case. 2. The accused waives his or her privilege by calling
the other spouse as a witness for him or her,
Objection may be waived. thereby making the spouse subject to cross-
examination in the usual manner. It is well
Exceptions: established that where an accused introduces his
1. In a civil case instituted one against the other; or wife as a witness in his behalf, the state is entitled
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one to question her as to all matters germane and
against the other or the latter's direct pertinent to her testimony on direct examination. It
descendants/ascendants [Sec. 23, Rule 130] is also true that objection to the spouse's
3. When an offense directly attacks, or directly and competency must be made when he or she is first
vitally impairs, the conjugal relation. [Alvarez v. offered as a witness, and that the incompetency
Ramirez] may be waived by the failure of the accused to
make timely objection to the admission of the
Note: Article 215 of Family Code. spouse's testimony, although knowing of such
• What is prohibited is when the descendant is incompetency, and the testimony admitted,
compelled. especially if the accused has assented to the
admission, either expressly or impliedly.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 10

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Lezama v. Rodriguez (1968) Dying declaration of the husband to the wife as to who his
Wife is an adverse party witness assailant is, which was obviously intended to be reported to
Whether her testimony will turn out to be adverse or the authorities, the rule obviously does not apply.
beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be
to pit her against her husband. The interests of husband Wife cannot be compelled to disclose a letter written to her
and wife in this case are necessarily interrelated. Testimony by her husband.
adverse to the wife's own interests would tend to show the
existence of collusive fraud between the spouses and Conduct and acts may be covered by this prohibition.
would then work havoc upon their common defense that
the loan was not fictitious. There is the possibility, too, that Rule if overheard by third party: The third party can
the wife, in order to soften her own guilt, if guilty she is, may consequently testify thereon. But there must be no collusion
unwittingly testify in a manner entirely disparaging to the by the spouse, because otherwise, the third party becomes
interests of the husband. an agent of such spouse and the rule applies.
• If overheard and not intended by parties to be
Disqualification by reason of privileged overheard, communication does not cease to be
communications confidential.
Husband and wife. Section 24(a), Rule 130
SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of People v. Carlos (1925)
Privileged Communication. — The following persons The numerical weight of authority is, however, to the effect
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the that where a privileged communication from one spouse to
following cases: another comes into the hands of a third party, whether
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the legally or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby
of the other as to any communication received in extinguished and the communication, if otherwise
confidence by one from the other during the competent, becomes admissible.
marriage except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by For documents of communication coming into the
one against the other or the latter's direct possession of a third person, a distinction should obtain,
descendants or ascendants. analogous to that already indicated for a client's
xxx communications (ante, par. 2325, 2326); i. e., if they were
obtained from the addressee by voluntary delivery, they
Objections can only be invoked by persons protected should still be privileged (for otherwise the privilege could by
thereunder and may be waived expressly or impliedly. collusion be practically nullified for written communications);
but if they were obtained surreptitiously or otherwise
REQUISITES: without the addressee's consent, the privilege should
1. Valid marital relation; cease. [Wigmore]
2. Confidential communication between the spouses
during the marriage; Attorney-client privilege. Section 24(b), Rule 130
3. Absence of consent from the spouse against SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of
whom the testimony is given. Privileged Communication. — The following persons
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
Who can claim: Held and may be claimed only by the following cases:
spouse or spouses regardless of their relationship to the xxx
action. (b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the
client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law
It can be claimed whether the other spouse is a party to the cannot, without the consent of the client, be
action or not, and can be claimed even if the marital relation examined as to any communication made by the
is subsequently dissolved. client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon
in the course of, or with a view to, professional
Exceptions: Spouse may testify for or against the other employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the
even without the consent of the latter
attorney be examined without the consent of the
4. In a civil case by one against the other, or
client and his or her employer, concerning any fact
5. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one
the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants
capacity, except in the following cases:
or ascendants. [Sec. 24(a), Rule 130]
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services
or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained
to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 11
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

commit what the client knew or reasonably This provision does not only apply to a lawyer, but also
should have known to be a crime or fraud; applies to a person on whom the client had a reasonable
(ii) Claimants through same deceased belief is licensed to practice law.
client. As to a communication relevant to an
issue between parties who claim through the Physician-patient privilege. Section 24(c), Rule 130
same deceased client, regardless of whether the SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of
claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos Privileged Communication. — The following persons
transaction; cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to following cases:
a communication relevant to an issue of breach xxx
of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by (c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably
the client to his or her lawyer; believed by the patient to be authorized to practice
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
a communication relevant to an issue without the consent of the patient, be examined as
concerning an attested document to which the to any confidential communication made for the
lawyer is an attesting witness; or purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
(v) Joint clients. As to a communication physical, mental or emotional condition, including
relevant to a matter of common interest between alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and
two or more clients if the communication was his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege
made by any of them to a lawyer retained or also applies to persons, including members of the
consulted in common, when offered in an action patient's family, who have participated in the
between any of the clients, unless they have diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the
expressly agreed otherwise. direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
xxx A "psychotherapist" is:
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged
EXCEPTIONS in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or
1. Furtherance of crime or fraud emotional condition, or
a. The communications between attorney (b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the
and client having to do with the client's government while similarly engaged.
contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or xxx
furtherance thereof, are not covered by the
cloak of privileges ordinarily existing in The amendments removed the phrase “that would blacken
reference to communications between the reputation of the patient”.
attorney and client. [People v.
Sandiganbayan (1997)] This Rule is likewise expanded to include a
2. Claimants through same deceased client psychotherapist-patient privilege rule.
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client
a. If lawyer and client become involved a It is not necessary that the physician-patient relationship
dispute between themselves as to the was created through the patient’s voluntary act.
services provided by the lawyer, the
privilege does not apply. The privileged communication rule does not apply where:
b. Client is deemed to have impliedly waived 1. Communication is NOT given in confidence;
the privilege by making allegations of 2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional
breach. employment;
4. Document attested by the lawyer 3. Communication is made for an unlawful purpose;
a. Dean Mawis: This should not be an 4. Communication is intended to be made public;
exception because the privilege has never 5. There is a waiver.
arisen.
5. Joint clients Lim v. CA (1992)
a. If the joint clients have a falling out, the rule This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to
does not apply as to a dispute among facilitate and make safe full and confidential disclosure by
them, unless they have agreed otherwise. the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and
b. Joint clients do not intend their symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their
communication to be privileged among subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the
each other. witness stand, to the end that the physician may form a
correct opinion, and be enabled safely and efficaciously to
treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for the general
interest of the community. Since the object of the privilege
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 12
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

is to protect the patient, it may be waived if no timely court shall take such protective measure as the interest
objection is made to the physician’s testimony. of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and
the furtherance of justice may require. (n)
Priest-penitent privilege. Section 24(d), Rule 130
SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of TRADE SECRET: A a plan or process, tool, mechanism or
Privileged Communication. — The following persons compound known only to its owner and those of his
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the employees to whom it is necessary to confide it.
following cases: • Any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of
xxx information that is (1) used in one’s business (2)
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an
be so cannot, without the consent of the affected advantage over competitors who do not possess
person, be examined as to any communication or the information.
confession made to or any advice given by him or • The definition also extends to a secret formula or
her, in his or her professional character, in the course process not patented, but known only to certain
of discipline enjoined by the church to which the individuals using it in compounding some article of
minister or priest belongs. trade having a commercial value. [Air Philippines v.
xxx Pennswell, infra.]

This is not only limited to penitential communications, this Air Philippines v. Pennswell (2007)
is expanded to include communications the nature of which The privilege is not absolute; the trial court may compel
is non-penitential. disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice.

Public officer. Section 24(e), Rule 130 BIR v. Ombudsman (2002)

SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of The records do not show how the production of the
Privileged Communication. — The following persons subpoenaed documents would necessarily contravene
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the Sec. 269 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) on
following cases: unlawful divulgence of trade secrets and Sec. 277 of the
xxx same Code on procuring unlawful divulgence of trade
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after secrets. The documents sought to be produced were only
his or her tenure as to communications made to him the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to Limtuaco
or her in official confidence, when the court finds that and La Tondeña which are public records, and the
the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. subpoena duces tecum were directed to the public officials
xxx who have the official custody of the said records. No valid
reason why the trade secrets of Limtuaco and La Tondeña
When does the privilege apply? During or after his would be unnecessarily disclosed if such official records,
tenure. subject of the subpoena duces tecum, were to be
produced by the petitioner BIR to respondent Office of the
This is based on J. Malcolm’s dissenting opinion in Barton Ombudsman.
v. Leyte Ashpalt.
Admissions and confessions
Parental-filial privilege SECTION 27. Admission of a Party. — The act,
Rule 130 declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
SECTION 25. Parental and Filial Privilege. — No may be given in evidence against him or her. (26a)
person shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct Offer of Compromise
descendants, except when such testimony is SECTION 28. Offer of Compromise Not Admissible.
indispensable in a crime against that person or by one — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
parent against the other. (25a) admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of
This incorporates Article 215 of the Family Code. conduct nor statements made in compromise
negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise
Trade Secrets discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as
Rule 130 proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
SECTION 26. Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets. — contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 13

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused BUT if a statement forming part of the compromise is made
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of in the course of negotiations to effect a settlement is an
guilt. admission of a fact pertinent to the issue being resolved by
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of the parties then that admission is admissible, unless it is so
a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in closely connected with the offer of compromise as to be
evidence against the accused who made the plea or inseparable therefrom.
offer. Neither is any statement made in the course of plea • E.g. Express admission of liability is admissible.
bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in
a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later People v. Godoy (1995)
withdrawn, admissible. In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is generally
An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or admissible as evidence against the party making it. It is a
other expenses occasioned by an injury, is not legal maxim, which assuredly constitutes one of the bases
admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability of the right to penalize, that in the matter of public crimes
for the injury. (27a) which directly affect the public interest, no compromise
whatever may be entered into as regards the penal action.
An offer of compromise is NOT admissible. It is not an It has long been held, however, that in such cases the
admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made
against an offeror. under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the
inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason
In criminal cases which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to
General rule: An offer of compromise by the accused may compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt or an
be received as an implied admission of guilt. attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would
ordinarily ensue therefrom.
Exception: In cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by the law to be People v. De Guzman (1996)
compromised. A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to
an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those
Pleas of guilty involving quasi-offense (criminal negligence) or those
Not admissible against the accused who made the plea or allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise
offer: by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
1. Plea of guilty later withdrawn; admission of guilt. No one would ask for forgiveness unless
2. Unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser he had committed some wrong, for to forgive means to
offense; or absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resentment against on
3. Statement made in the course of plea bargaining account of wrong committed; give up claim to requital from
with the prosecution which does not result in a or retribution upon (an offender).
plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later
withdrawn People v. Prades (1998)
In addition, and virtually foreclosing further chicanery by
Offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other appellant, it is conceded that after the rape, he sent
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in complainant two letters in which he implored her
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the forgiveness and offered to leave his wife so that he could
injury [Sec. 28, Rule 130]. be with her. In fine, appellant sealed his own fate by
admitting his crime under the seal of a virtual confession in
If quasi-offenses: Offer of compromise does not involve an fact, if not in law.
admission of guilty.
Admissions by a third party
An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal SECTION 29. Admission by Third Party. — The rights
complaint be first filed in order that it may be received in of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)
the crime, the accused or his representative makes an offer
to compromise and such is proved. Two branches of res alios inter acta rule:
1. First branch: Admission by a third party [Sec. 29,
In civil cases Rule 130]
An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability 2. Second branch: Similar acts as evidence [Sec.
and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror 35, Rule 130]

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 14

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

General rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
an act, declaration, or omission of another [Sec. 29, Rule jointly interested with the party. (29a)
130]
Requisites:
Admission by a third party is inadmissible as against 1. The partnership, agency, or joint interest is
another. The act, declaration or omission of another is established by evidence other than the act or
generally irrelevant, and that in justice, a person should not declaration;
be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers. 2. The act or declaration must have been authorized
by the party to make a statement concerning the
The rule is well-settled that a party is not bound by any subject; or within the scope of his/her authority.
agreement of which he has no knowledge and to which he 3. Such act or declaration is made during the
has not given his consent and that his rights cannot be existence of the partnership or joint interest.
prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission of another,
except by virtue of a particular relation between them. The word “joint” must be construed according to its
meaning in the common law system, that is, in solidum for
Exceptions: the whole.
1. Admission by Co-Partner (Section 30)
2. Admission by Agent (Section 30) Admissions by a conspirator
3. Admission by joint owner, debtor, or other person SECTION 31. Admission by Conspirator. — The act
jointly interested with the party or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the
4. Admission by a co-conspirator (Section 31) conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
5. Admission by privies (Section 32) evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy
is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
People v. Alegre (1979) (30a)
As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an
accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and “In furtherance of conspiracy” means that it should advance
does not have probative value against his co- accused. It is the ends of the conspiracy rather than simply relate to the
merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are conspiracy.
concerned. 3 While there are recognized exceptions to this
rule, the facts and circumstances attendant in the case at This only applies to extrajudicial acts or statements and not
bar do not bring it within the purview of such exceptions. to witness testimony given on trial.

People v. Raquel (1979) An admission by a conspirator is admissible against another

The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party conspirator if:
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of 1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
another. An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the a. The conspiracy must be shown by
confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. evidence other than such act or
The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith declaration.
and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding 2. Admission was made during existence of the
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conspiracy
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly 3. It is in furtherance of the conspiracy itself.
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should
be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and General rule: Extrajudicial admissions AFTER termination
if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, of conspiracy, BEFORE trial are not admissible.
neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence
against him. Exceptions
1. Made in the presence of the co-conspirator who
Admissions by a co-partner, agent, joint owner, expressly/impliedly agreed (tacit admission)
debtor, other person jointly interested 2. Facts in admission are confirmed in the
SECTION 30. Admission by Co-Partner or Agent. — independent extrajudicial confessions made by the
The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by co-
the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or 3. conspirators after apprehension
within the scope of his or her authority, and during the 4. As a circumstance to determine credibility of a
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in witness
evidence against such party after the partnership or 5. Circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or the latter’s participation
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
Direct proof is not needed to prove conspiracy.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 15
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Proving conspiracy:
1. Independent evidence to prove conspiracy; EXCEPTIONS:
2. Admissions relate to a common objective or in 1. Those made subsequent to the transfer;
furtherance of a common objective; 2. Where the transferee acquiesces;
3. Made while declarant was engaged in carrying out 3. Prima facie case of fraud established;
the conspiracy. 4. Evidence which shows continuing evidence to
defraud.
People v. Cabrera
Where the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the Via Crucis v. CA (1972)
conspiracy is made after such conspiracy has ceased and Petitioners have no reason whatsoever to object to the
the conspirator is already in the hands of the authorities, consideration in favor of Orais of said admission, the same
such act or declaration can no longer be given in evidence having been made in 1936, more than five (5) years before
against the co-conspirator. their (petitioners) predecessor in interest, Balentin Ruizo,
had entered into the picture, when Orais and Castelo were
People v. Yatco (1955) the only parties who had any interest in the object of said
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the admission. Such admission "may be received in evidence,"
conspiracy and during its existence may be given in not only against the party who made it "or his successors
evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is in interest," but, also, "against third persons."
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Manifestly, the rule refers to statements made by one Alpuerto vs Pastor (1918)
conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprises Article 1225 declares that a private document legally
("during its existence") and in furtherance of its object, and recognized shall have, with regard to those who sign it and
not to a confession made, as in this case, long after the their privies (causahabientes), the same force as a public
conspiracy had been brought to an end. instrument.

People v. Cenon Serrano (1959) The said word denotes the idea of succession, not only be
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the right of heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in succession by singular title, derived form acts inter vivos,
evidence other than such act or declaration," applies only and for special purposes; hence, an assignee of a credit,
to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but not to testimony and one subrogated to it, etc., will be privies; in short, he,
given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the who by succession is placed in the position of one of those
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. And while the who contracted the juridical relation and executed the
testimony of accomplices or confederates in crime is always private document and appears to be substituting him in his
subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it does from a personal rights and obligations, is a privy.
polluted source," and should be received with great caution
and doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible and Admission by silence
competent. SECTION 33. Admission by Silence. — An act or
declaration made in the presence and within the hearing
Admissions by privies or observation of a party who does or says nothing when
SECTION 32. Admission by Privies. — Where one the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action
derives title to property from another, the latter's act, or comment if not true, and when proper and possible
declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is for him or her to do so, may be given in evidence against
evidence against the former if done while the latter was him or her. (32a)
holding the title. (31a)
REQUISITES:
REQUISITES 1. Hearing and understanding of the statements of
1. There must be a relation between the party and the party;
declarant 2. The party had an opportunity and necessity of
2. Admission was made by declarant as predecessor denying the statements
in interest 3. That the statement was about a matter affecting his
3. Admission is in relation to the property. rights or in which he was interested and which
naturally calls for a response;
Privity: Mutual successions of relationship to the same 4. Facts within the knowledge of the party;
rights in the property. 5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material
to the issue.
To be admissible, it is important that the title must be with
the declarant at the time he or she said something about No admission when silence of the accused is made under
the title of the property. custodial investigation.
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 16
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Not tantamount to an admission when failure to answer is

caused by a restraint, or when he believed that he had no REQUISITES:
interest. 1. Express and categorical acknowledgement of guilt
2. Facts admitted constitutes a criminal offense
People v. Paragsa (1978) 3. Given voluntarily
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an 4. Intelligently made realizing the importance or legal
implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in significance of the act
his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before the 5. No violation of Secs. 12 and 17, Art. III of the
silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is Constitution.
said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood the
statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial; (3) Confessions are PRESUMED voluntary. Defense has the
that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting onus of proving it is involuntary.
his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling,
naturally, for an answer; (4) that the facts were within his [T]he basic test for the validity of a confession is – was it
knowledge; and (5) that the fact admitted or the inference voluntarily and freely made.
to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue.
Indicia of voluntariness of confession
People v. Alegre (1979) 1. Has details which police could not have been
The better rule is that the silence of an accused under supplied by police;
custody, or his failure to deny statements by another 2. Has details that may only be known by the
implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is excused;
neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or 3. Has details exculpatory in nature;
accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of 4. Has corrections by the accused in his own
his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an handwriting;
inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure 5. Made in the presence of impartial witnesses;
to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the 6. Lack of motive on the part of authorities to extract
right of an accused against self-incrimination. a confession;
7. Accused only questioned the confession for the
Confessions first time in trial;
SECTION 34. Confession. — The declaration of an 8. Contents were affirmed by the accused;
accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense 9. Facts were confirmed by subsequent acts.
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein,
may be given in evidence against him or her. (33a) Entire confession should be admitted in evidence. But the
court may reject some portions.
CONFESSION: An acknowledgment of his/her guilt of the
truth of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily GR: The confession of an accused only binds himself and
included therein. is not admissible against his co-accused.

Take note of the following provisions: XPN:

1. Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution; 1. Co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted
2. Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution; the confession by not questioning its truthfulness
3. Rule 115(e), Rules of Court; as when it was made in his presence.
2. Interlocking confessions: Extrajudicial statements
A confession from a person who has not been informed of of co-accused may be taken as circumstantial
his right to silence and counsel is inadmissible. This likewise evidence against the person implicated to show the
applies to admissions. probability of the latter’s actual participation
3. Where the accused admitted the facts after being
Confession must be EXPRESS. There is no such thing as apprised of such confession
an implied confession. 4. They are charged as co-conspirators and is
confessed by one of the accused and is used to
Confession Admission corroborate the evidence or is only circumstantial
Categorical A statement of fact (there is evidence used to show the probability of
acknowledgment of guilt or a justification) participation by the co-conspirator or
liability 5. When the confessant testified in court;
6. When the confession is corroborated by other
It may be in writing or oral. If written, need not be under evidence in record.
oath. It may be judicial or extrajudicial.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 17

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

Confessions procured through trick and fraud are found "not in the particular specific types of action
admissible for the use of such means as do not tend to prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps alive in the
induce the making of a false confession. public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not
unlimited.
Confession under influence of parental authority is
admissible. People v. Endino (2001)
The interview was recorded on video and it showed
Confessions made while intoxicated are admissible accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly
provided that he was able to recollect the facts and to state and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession
them truly. It depends on the level of inebriation. does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not
given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to
REQUISITES OF CONFESSION OF CONSPIRATOR elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if
AGAINST CO-CONSPIRATOR: he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have
1. Conspiracy must be proved by evidence other than easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all
the confession; likelihood, would have been symphatetic with him.
2. Confession be made after, not before the formation
of such unlawful agreement and before, not after A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never
it has not come to an end; presume that all media confessions described as voluntary
3. That it is made in furtherance of conspiracy. have been freely given. This type of confession always
remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly
GR: The confession of an accused may be given in examined and scrutinized. Detection of coerced
evidence against him but is not competent evidence against confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the
his co-accused. courts to make. It requires persistence and determination in
separating polluted confessions from untainted ones. We
XPN: Where several accused are tried together for the have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights
same complaint, the testimony made by one during the trial guaranteed by the Constitution.
is competent evidence against the latter.
People v. Abulencia (2001)
People v. Compil (1995) A confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was
"[T]he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an not shown that said reporter was acting for the police or
investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask that the interview was conducted under circumstances
questions to elicit information and/or confessions or where it is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing
admissions from respondent/accused. At such point or out of fear.
stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting forced People v. Malngan (2006)
or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the Accused-appellant's confession to Barangay Chairman
person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the Remigio Bernardo was made in response to the
offense." 'interrogation made by the latter ' admittedly conducted
without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under
People v. Wong Chuen Ming (1996) the Constitution or done in the presence of counsel. For this
The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given to
preclude application of the "exclusionary rule" because the Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the
constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are lighter found by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in
given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens. evidence against her as such were obtained in violation of
her constitutional rights. But this does not automatically
People v. Maqueda (1995) lead to her acquittal.
The extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor
Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa stand on a different People v. Lauga (2010)
footing. These are not governed by the exclusionary rules Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of
under the Bill of Rights.. Maqueda voluntarily and freely watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are
made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an recognized by the local government unit to perform
investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at
utilized as a state witness; and as to the other admission, it the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the
was given to a private person. The provisions of the Bill of actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific
Rights are primarily limitations on government, declaring the scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay
rights that exist without governmental grant, that may not bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
be taken away by government and that government has the investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-
duty to protect; or restriction on the power of government related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 18
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under

Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known CSC v. Belagan (2004)
as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally
irrelevant in determining a controversy. One statutory
Similar Acts Rule exception is that relied upon by respondent, i.e., Section 51
SECTION 35. Similar Acts as Evidence. — Evidence (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do When the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached
the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the reputation
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, shown should be that which existed before the occurrence
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the of the circumstances out of which the litigation arose, or at
like. (34a) the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period
remote from the commencement of the suit. This is because
Second branch of res alios inter acta rule. a person of derogatory character or reputation can still
change or reform himself. Here, it happened 20 years ago.
General rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he/she did
or did not do the same or similar thing at another time Section 30 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
witness (Sexual Abuse Shield Rule0
Exceptions: Said evidence may be received to prove a: (a) Inadmissible evidence. - The following evidence is not
1. specific intent or knowledge admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child
2. identity sexual abuse:
3. plan, system, or scheme (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim
4. habit engaged in other sexual behavior; and
5. custom or usage and the like [Sec. 35, Rule 130] (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition
of the alleged victim.
Evidence of collateral offense must not be received as
substantive evidence of the offenses on trial. (b) Exception. - Evidence of specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
Former conduct may be received to prove a specific intent, than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other
knowledge, identity, plan, etc. physical evidence shall be admissible.

Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution for A party intending to offer such evidence must:
robbery where it has the tendency to identify the accused (1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before
or show his presence at the scene of the crime but not to trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating the
purpose for which it is offered, unless the court, for
prove that he committed a wholly independent crime for
good cause, requires a different time for filing or permits
which he is on trial.
filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad
US v. Pineda (1918)
litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the
What the appellant is here relying on is the maxim res inter
motion.
alios acta. As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses
committed by a defendant is inadmissible. But appellant
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a
has confused this maxim and this rule with certain
hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad
exceptions thereto. The effort is not to convict the accused
litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be
of a second offense. Nor is there an attempt to draw the
heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be
mind away from the point at issue and thus to prejudice
sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective
defendant's case. The purpose is to ascertain defendant's order set forth in section 31(b). The child shall not be
knowledge and intent, and to fix his negligence. required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with
his consent.
People v. Irang (1937)
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible
in a prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is
otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant GR: When there is a child victim and the defense is that the
as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show child engages in sexual behavior, it is inadmissible in
his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at evidence.
the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance
connected with the crime.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 19

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

XPN: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by that he was not there during that time à Want of personal
the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the knowledge.
accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical • If he testifies that his brother told him that he came
evidence shall be admissible. on the flight and arrived on time à then not
• But a written motion must be filed 15 days before objection on personal knowledge because he is
trial specifically describing the evidence and stating testifying his firsthand knowledge about the report.
the purpose for which it is offered. Unless, the He is testifying to the fact that his brother told him
Court for good cause shown requires it to be filed as such.
at a different time. • If it is later offered to prove the time of the arrival
and they make it appear that he knew of this
Unaccepted Offer personally à HEARSAY.
SECTION 36. Unaccepted Offer. — An offer in writing
to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written It all depends on the purpose for which the testimony is
instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected offered.
without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (35) The distinction is one of the forms of testimony,
whether the witness purports to give facts directly upon his
The evidentiary effect of an unaccepted offer supplements own credit (even if he is later speaking on the faith of report
the rule on tender of payment under NCC 1256. from others) or whether he purports to give an account of
what another has told him and this is offered to evidence
If refused, tender of payment does not extinguish an the truth of the other’s report.
obligation unless completed by or followed by consignation.
But the effect of such tender, without consignation is to Hearsay is a statement other than the one made by the
exempt the debtor for payment of interest and/or damages. declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
Hearsay Rule
SECTION 37. Hearsay. — Hearsay is a statement other Exceptions:
than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial 1. Dying declaration [Section 28]
or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted a. The declaration concerns the cause and
therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or the surrounding circumstances of the
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by declarant’s death;
him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is b. It is made when death appears to be
inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these imminent and the declarant is under a
Rules. consciousness of an impending death;
i. Interval of time is not necessarily a
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the factor, unless ambiguous.
trial or hearing and is subject to cross- examination c. The declarant would have been
concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) competent to testify had he or she
inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was survived;
given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial i. Thus if insane, or child too young
hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) to be a competent witness à not
consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered competent.
to rebut an express or implied charge against the ii. The statement must be complete
declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or in itself.
motive; or (c) one of identification of a person made after d. The dying declaration is offered in a case
perceiving him or her. (n) in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarant’s death.
Section 22 used to be the hearsay rule. Now, it is the lack 2. Statement of decedent or person of unsound
of firsthand knowledge limitation. mind [Section 29]
a. This is different from the OLD Dead Man’s
Hearsay v. Rule requiring firsthand knowledge Statute.
This is the rule that a witness qualified to testify to a fact b. Applicability: Actions against an
susceptible of observation, only it appears that he had a executor or administrator or other
reasonable opportunity to observe the fact. representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind upon a
Example: If witness testified that Flight 450 arrive at the claim or demand against the estate of
airport at X on time and from his other evidence it appears

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 20

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

such deceased person or against such where it occurred before the controversy,
person of unsound mind and the relationship between the two [(2)]
c. Where a party or assignor of a party or a persons is shown by evidence other than
person in whose behalf a case is such act or declaration.
prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact b. Requisites
occurring before the death of the i. The actor or declarant is dead or
deceased person or before the person unable to testify;
became of unsound mind, any statement ii. The actor or declarant is related to
of the deceased or the person of unsound the subject either by birth,
mind, may be received in evidence if the adoption, or marriage, or in the
statement was made upon the personal absence thereof, with whose
knowledge of the deceased or the person family he or she was so intimately
of unsound mind at a time when the matter associated as to be likely to have
had been recently perceived by him or her accurate information concerning
and while his or her recollection was clear. his or her pedigree;
d. Exception: The statement is inadmissible iii. Proof of relationship between the
if made under circumstances indicating its declarant or actor and the subject
lack of trustworthiness. is established by evidence other
3. Declaration against interest [Section 40] than by such act or declaration;
a. A statement tending to expose the and
declarant to criminal liability and offered to iv. The act or declaration was made
exculpate the accused is not admissible ante litem motam, or previous to
unless corroborating circumstances the controversy.
clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the 5. Family reputation or tradition regarding
statement. pedigree [Section 42]
b. Admission against interest vs. a. The reputation or tradition existing in a
Declarations against interest: In family previous to the controversy, in
admissions, they are those made by a respect to the pedigree of any one of its
party to a litigation. Declarations are those members, may be received in evidence if
made by a person who is neither a party to the witness testifying thereon be also a
the suit, nor in privity with one. Admission member of the family, either by
is admissible whether declarant is a consanguinity[,] affinity, or adoption.
witness or not while declarations are b. Requisites
admissible only when the declarant is NOT i. There is a controversy in respect
available as a witness. to the pedigree of any member of
c. Requisites the family;
i. Declarant is dead or unable to ii. The reputation or tradition or the
testify; pedigree of the person concerned
ii. Declaration relates to a fact existed prior to the controversy;
against the interest of the iii. The witness who testifies is
declarant; related to the subject either by
iii. At the time he made said consanguinity, affinity or
declaration, declarant was aware adoption.
that the same was contrary to the 6. Common reputation [Section 43]
declarant’s own interest; and a. Common reputation existing previous to
iv. Declarant had no motive to falsify the controversy, as to boundaries of or
and believed such declaration to customs affecting lands in the community
be true and reputation as to events of general
4. Act or declaration about pedigree [Section 41] history important to the community, or
a. The act or declaration of a person respecting marriage or moral character,
deceased or unable to testify, in respect to may be given in evidence. Monuments and
the pedigree of another person related to inscriptions in public places may be
him or her by birth[,] adoption, or marriage received as evidence of common
or, in the absence thereof, with whose reputation.
family he or she was so intimately b. Requisites
associated as to be likely to have accurate i. Common reputation existing
information concerning his or her previous to the controversy, as to
pedigree, may be received in evidence boundaries of or customs
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 21
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

affecting lands in the community e. The statement relates

and reputation as to events of to the circumstances
general history important to the of the startling event or
community occurrence
1. Established by Spontaneous Verbal act must have been
testimonial evidence, exclamations may have made at the time, and not
monuments or been made before, during after, the equivocal act was
inscriptions in public or immediately after the being performed
spaces, or documents startling occurrence
containing statements of equivocal act
reputation
ii. Matters of general interest are 8. Records of regularly conducted business
those affecting inhabitants of a activity [Section 45]
local community a. A memorandum, report, record or data
c. Character refers to the inherent qualities of compilation of acts, events, conditions,
a person, while reputation is the opinion of opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing,
him by others. typing, electronic, optical or other similar
7. Part of the res gestae [Section 44] means at or near the time of or from
a. “Under the stress of excitement transmission or supply of information by a
caused by the occurrence” – designed person with knowledge thereof, and kept
to underscore the rationale for the hearsay in the regular course or conduct of a
exception: the elimination of the business activity, and such was the regular
declarant’s reflective capacity because the practice to make the memorandum,
statement was made under the stress of report, record, or data compilation by
excitement. electronic, optical or similar means, all of
b. Res gestae – things done; those which are shown by the testimony of the
circumstances which are the undesigned custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
incidents of a particular litigated act and excepted from the rule on hearsay
much are admissible when illustrative of evidence.
such act. b. There is no overriding necessity to bring
c. Test of admissibility: whether the act, into the court all the clerks, or employees
declaration, exclamation is so intimately who individually made the entries. It is
interwoven or connected with the principal sufficient to bring in the person who
fact or event that it characterizes as to be supervises the work.
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, c. Requisites
and also whether it clearly negatives any i. It was made at or near the time of
premeditation or purpose to manufacture or from transmission or supply of
testimony. information by a person with
d. Spontaneity per se does not determine res knowledge thereof;
gestae. They must be unequivocal, cannot ii. The memorandum, report, record
be ambiguous. or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or
Spontaneous Verbal acts diagnoses was made by writing,
statements typing, electronic, optical or other
b. There is startling a. An equivocal principal similar means;
occurrence as the act; iii. The making of the memorandum,
principal act; b. A statement material report, record, or data
c. It must be to the issue; compilation by electronic, optical
spontaneous. A c. The statement must or similar means is regular
statement was made accompany the main practice and in the regular and
while the event is act; and ordinary course of business or
taking place, or d. The utterance must profession;
immediately prior to, or provide legal iv. All of the above are shown by the
subsequent thereto; significance or testimony of a custodian or other
d. There is no elucidate the act. qualified witness.
opportunity to contrive 9. Entries in official records [Section 46]
and misrepresent;

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 22

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

a.
Entries in official records made in the recognized in his/her profession
performance of his or her duty by a public or calling as expert in the subject
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in c. Scientific studies or articles and websites
the performance of a duty specially which were culled from the internet
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence attached to the Petition, and were not
of the facts therein stated. testified to by an expert witness are
b. Requisites basically hearsay in nature and cannot be
i. Entries in official records were given probative weight. [Paje v. Casiño,
made by a public officer in the (2015)]
performance of his/her duties or 12. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
by a person in the performance of [Section 49]
a duty specially enjoined by law [ a. Requisites
ii. Personal cognition of the facts i. Witness is dead, out of the
stated on the entry or such were Philippines or with due diligence
acquired from official information; cannot be found therein,
[Peralta] unavailable, or unable to testify;
iii. Entries were duly entered in a ii. The testimony or deposition was
regular manner in the official given in a former case or
records proceeding, judicial or
c. The written entries in the clinical case administrative, between the same
record showing the date of her admission parties or those representing the
in the hospital on April 22, 1973, her same interests;
complaint of vaginal bleeding and the iii. Former case involved the same
diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 subject as that in the present case
o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima although on different causes of
facie evidence of the facts therein stated, action;
the said entries having been made in iv. Issue testified to by the witness in
official records by a public officer of the the former trial is the same issue
Philippines in the performance of his duty involved in the present case; and
especially enjoined by law, which is that of v. Adverse party had the opportunity
a physician in a government hospital. to cross-examine the witness in
[People v. Leones (1982)] the former case
d. If made in excess of official duty, not b. The inability of the witness to testify must
admissible in evidence. proceed from a grave cause, almost
e. Entries in a police blotter are not amounting to death, as when the witness
conclusive proof of the truth of such is old and has lost the power of speech.
entries [People v. Cabuang (1993)] Mere refusal shall not suffice. [Tan v. C.A.,
10. Commercial lists and the like [Section 47] (1967)]
a. Evidence of statements of matters of 13. Residual exception [Section 50]
interest to persons engaged in an
occupation Opinion Rule
b. Such statements are contained in a list, Opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn from facts
register, periodical, or other published observed.
compilations
c. Compilation is published for use by General rule: The opinion of witness is not admissible
persons engaged in that occupation; and [Sec. 51, Rule 130]
d. It is generally used and relied upon by
them. Exceptions:
11. Learned treatises [Section 48] a. Expert witness [Sec. 52, Rule 130]
a. Published treatise, periodical or pamphlet The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
is on a subject of history, law, science, or special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
art; and education, which he/she shown to possess, may
b. Court takes either: be received in evidence [Sec. 52, Rule 130]
i. judicial notice of it, or
ii. a witness expert in the subject The competence of an expert witness is a matter
testifies that the writer of the for the trial court to decide upon in the exercise of
statement in the treatise, its discretion.
periodical or pamphlet is
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 23
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

a. Evidence of the moral character of a party

REQUISITES: in a civil case is admissible only when
1. Subject under examination must be one that pertinent to the issue of character involved
requires that the court has the aid of in the case.
knowledge and experience that cannot be 3. Civil and criminal cases
obtained from ordinary witnesses; a. Evidence of the good character of a
2. Witness must possess the special knowledge, witness is not admissible until such
experience and practical training that qualify character has been impeached.
him/her to explain the matter to the Court
3. Expert testimony is not admissible as to the In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
matter NOT in issue. character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by
testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of
How to impeach: an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into
1. Assail qualifications; relevant specific instances of conduct.
2. Show bias;
3. Confront about inconsistent statements. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a
person is an essential element of a charge, claim or
b. Ordinary witness [Sec. 53, Rule 130] regarding: defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of
a. The identity of a person about whom he or she that person's conduct.
has adequate knowledge;
b. A handwriting with which he or she has Note: The amended rules now allow character to be proved
sufficient familiarity; and by the opinion of a witness in recognition of the fact that
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he or reputation evidence is often nothing more than “opinion in
she is sufficiently acquainted. disguise.” Amended rules also allow cross-examination
on relevant prior specific instances of conduct.
Admissible if:
1. If proper basis is given, and Examination of witness
2. Regarding: Rule 132
a. Identity of a person about whom he/she SECTION 1. Examination to be Done in Open Court.
has adequate knowledge; — The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
b. Handwriting with which he/she has hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
sufficient familiarity; affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
c. Mental sanity of a person with whom or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
he/she is sufficiently acquainted; and answers of the witness shall be given orally.
d. Impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition Right to counsel and self-incrimination have been held to
or appearance of a person [Sec. 53, Rule extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law, and where the
130] witness may be sanctioned.

Character Evidence IMMUNITY STATUTES:

GENERAL RULE: Evidence of a person's character or a 1. Grants Use Immunity: Prohibits the use of the
trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving testimony of the witness or any evidence derived
action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. from it against the witness. This kind of immunity,
[Section 54] however, does not prevent the prosecution from
presenting independent evidence against the
Exceptions: witness.
1. Criminal cases 2. Grants Transactional Immunity: Grants
a. The character of the offended party may immunity to the witness from prosecution for an
be proved if it tends to establish in any offense to which his compelled testimony relates.
reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. Galman v. Pamaran (1985)
b. The accused may prove his or her good The said law belongs to the first type of immunity statutes.
moral character, pertinent to the moral trait It grants merely immunity from use of any statement given
involved in the offense charged. However, before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by
the prosecution may not prove his or her reason or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or
bad moral character unless on rebuttal. producing evidence do not render the witness immuned
2. Civil cases from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 24

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

against self- incrimination. He is merely saved from the use How to impeach own witness: Only if by evidence contrary
against him of such statement and nothing more. Stated to testimony, evidence of prior inconsistent statement.
otherwise ... he still runs the risk of being prosecuted even
if he sets up his right against self- incrimination. The dictates But in case of hostile, voluntary, adverse party witnesses,
of fair play, which is the hallmark of due process, demands they can be impeached through other modes.
that private respondents should have been informed of their
rights to remain silent and warned that any and all Prior inconsistent Contradictory Evidence
statements to be given by them may be used against them. statement
This, they were denied, under the pretense that they are not Relates to oral or Involves oral or
entitled to it and that the Board has no obligation to so documentary evidence documentary evidence
inform them. from the same witness from the same witness in
during an occasion other the same case
Entire proceedings have to be recorded. [Section 2, Rule than the trial in which he is
132] testifying

Rights and obligations of a witness Laying of the predicate: A witness cannot be impeached by
A witness must answer questions, although his or her the proof of contradictory statements until the proper
answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her. foundation or predicate has been laid by the impeaching
However, it is the right of a witness: party.
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting Laying the predicate rule does not apply to the deposition
demeanor; of the adverse party.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require; Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he
pertinent to the issue; or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in
him or her to a penalty for an offense unless excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved moral
otherwise provided by law; or turpitude, regardless of the penalty. However, evidence of
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the
his or her reputation, unless it be to the very fact subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction.
[Section 12, Rule 132]
at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to
Impeachment by Evidence of Inconsistent
the fact of his or her previous final conviction for an
Statements
offense. [Section 3, Rule 132]
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or
she has made at other times statements inconsistent with
Order of examination of a witness
his or her present testimony, the statements must be
1. Direct examination by the proponent;
related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times
a. Direct examination is the examination-in-
and places and the persons present, and he or she must
chief of a witness by the party presenting
be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if
him or her on the facts relevant to the
so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing,
issue.
they must be shown to the witness before any question is
2. Cross-examination by the opponent;
put to him or her concerning them. [Section 14, Rule 132]
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent;
4. Re-cross examination by the opponent.
Exclusion and separation of witnesses
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order
Impeachment of witnesses witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony
GR: A party who offers the testimony of a witness is as a of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion
rule bound by the testimony of that witness. of (a) a party who is a natural person, (b) a duly designated
representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the
XPN: Hostile witness, adverse party witness, witness is not case, (c) a person whose presence is essential to the
voluntary offered but required by law to testify. [Section 13, presentation of the party's cause, or (d) a person authorized
Rule 132] by a statute to be present. The court may also cause
witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
How to impeach: Contradictory evidence, evidence of bad conversing with one another, directly or through
character, bias, prejudice, incompetent.

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 25

REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

intermediaries, until all shall have been examined. [Section Private document: Any other writing, deed or instrument
15, Rule 132] executed by a private person without the intervention of a
notary or other person legally authorized by which some
There must be an order of exclusion first before the witness disposition or agreement is proved or set forth à requires
who was present will be barred. authentication in the manner allowed by law or the ROC
before its acceptance as evidence in court.
Witness referring to memorandum [Section 16, Rule
132] Authentication of private document; when excused:
1. Revival of Present Memory 1. Document is an ancient one;
a. If witness remembers the facts re: entries 2. Authenticity and due execution has been explicitly
2. Revival of Past Recollection or impliedly admitted by the adverse party by failure
a. Witness does not recall the facts and is to deny the same under oath, as in the case of an
entitled to less weight. actionable document under Section 8, Rule 8
3. Not being offered as genuine.
The memorandum is NOT the evidence.
Defective notarization: Reduces the document into a
When Part of Transaction, Writing or Record Given in private document.
Evidence, the Remainder Admissible.
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or Proof of private document
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the General rule: Before any private document offered as
same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record authenticity must be proved. [Section 20, Rule 132]
is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its How to Prove Due Execution and Authenticity
understanding may also be given in evidence. [Section 17, 1. By anyone who saw the document executed or
Rule 132] written;
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
Authentication and Proof of Documents handwriting of the maker; or
Public documents 3. By other evidence showing its due execution and
1. The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authenticity. [Id.]
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign When evidence of authenticity not necessary [Section
country; 21]
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public Where a private document is more than thirty (30) years old,
except last wills and testaments; is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be
3. Documents that are considered public documents found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
under treaties and conventions which are in force circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its
between the Philippines and the country of source; authenticity need be given.
and
4. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private Requisites for Section 21, Rule 132 to apply
documents required by law to be entered therein. 1. the private document is more than 30 years old
2. it is produced from a custody in which it would be
All other writings are private. [Section 19, Rule 132] naturally found if genuine; and
3. It is unblemished by any alteration or circumstance
Effect of notarization of private document: If notarized, of suspicion.
then the act of notarization will lend to the private document a. Extrinsic validity of the document itself.
a public character. Meaning, you no longer have to prove
due execution and authenticity. Notary public already Genuineness of handwriting
attested to the due execution and authenticity of the 1. By any witness who believes it to be the
document. handwriting of such person because:
a. He/she has seen the person write; or
Public document: Official or sovereign character, or b. He/she has seen writing purporting to be
because it has been acknowledged before a notary public his/hers upon which the witness has acted
or a competent public official or because it is a public record or been charged, and has thus acquired
of a private writing à self authenticating. knowledge of the handwriting of such
person [Sec. 22, Rule 132]
2. A comparison by the witness or the court of the
questioned handwriting, and admitted genuine
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 26
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

specimens thereof or proved to be genuine to the 1. The name, age, residence or business address,
satisfaction of the judge and occupation of the witness
3. Expert witness. 2. The name and address of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination of the
IBM v. NLRC (1999) witness and the place where the examination is
The computer print-outs, which constitute the only being held
evidence of petitioners, afford no assurance of their 3. A statement that the witness is answering the
authenticity because they are unsigned. The decisions of questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
this Court, while adhering to a liberal view in the conduct of does so under oath, and that he may face criminal
proceedings before administrative agencies, have liability for false testimony or perjury
nonetheless consistently required some proof of 4. Questions asked of the witness and his
authenticity or reliability as condition for the admission of corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
documents. that
a) Show the circumstances under which the
Judicial affidavit rule witness acquired the facts upon which he
This was discussed in relation to direct examination. testifies
b) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant
SCOPE: This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, to the issues that the case presents; and
and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
c) Identify the attached documentary and object
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
evidence and establish their authenticity in
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
accordance with the Rules of Court
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name
Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims
cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
2. The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized
Courts;
3. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the by law to administer the same [Sec. 3]
Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate Courts; 7. A sworn attestation at the end, executed by the
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by lawyer who conducted or supervised the
the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including examination of the witness, to the effect that:
the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and a. He faithfully recorded or caused to be
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, recorded the questions he asked and the
whose rules of procedure are subject to corresponding answers that the witness gave;
disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their and
existing rules of procedure contravene the b. Neither he nor any other person then present
provisions of this Rule. [Section 1] or assisting him coached the witness regarding
the latter's answers.
How filed: Under the amendments under the rules of civil
procedure, the judicial affidavit must be appended to the A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to
complaint or answer. But with respect to motions and disciplinary action, including disbarment. [Sec. 4]
incidents, it can be submitted before the hearing.
If the government employee or official, or the requested
What will be filed: witness, who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
take the place of such witnesses' direct affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant
testimonies; and books, documents, or other things under his control
2. The parties' documentary or object evidence, if available for copying, authentication, and eventual
any, shall be marked and attached to the judicial production in court, the requesting party may avail himself
affidavits. [Section 2] of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. [Section 5]
Remedy for failure to submit: Make a reservation in
accordance with Rule 18. Offer: At the start, state the direct testimony of the witness.
[Section 6]
Contents [Section 3]
Shall be prepared in the language known to the witness Objection: The adverse party may move to disqualify the
and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers
translation in English or Filipino [Sec. 3] found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 27
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets malversation, estafa, or other crimes where the culpability
under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without or innocence of the accused can be established through
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence. [Id.] documents, the testimonies of the witnesses shall be the
duly subscribed written statements given to law
Examination on judicial affidavit: The adverse party shall enforcement or peace officers or the affidavits or counter-
have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavits submitted before the investigating prosecutor,
affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party and if such are not available, testimonies shall be in the form
who presents the witness may also examine him as on re- of judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross-
direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examination questions.
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as • This refers to form of testimony with respect to
the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it second level courts, the Sandiganbayan, and the
needs for resolving the issues. [Section 7] CTA.

Oral and offer of objections:

1. Upon the termination of the testimony of his last OFFER AND OBJECTION
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral Rule 132
offer of evidence of his documentary or object SECTION 34. Offer of Evidence. — The court shall
exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological consider no evidence which has not been formally
order, stating the purpose or purposes for which offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered
he offers the particular exhibit. must be specified.
2. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse
party shall state the legal ground for his objection, SECTION 36. Objection. — Objection to offer of
if any, to its admission, and the court shall evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer
immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit. is made.
3. Since the documentary or object exhibits form part
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a
of the judicial affidavits that describe and
formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits
to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the
are simply cited by their markings during the offers,
course of the oral examination of a witness must be
the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the
made as soon as the grounds therefor become
description of each exhibit. [Section 8]
reasonably apparent.
Not applicable to adverse party witnesses, child witnesses,
The grounds for the objections must be specified.
hostile witnesses.
General rule: The court shall consider no evidence which
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal
has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
Cases (AM 15-06-10-SC) has a direct correlation with
evidence is offered must be specified [Sec. 34, Rule 132]
JA Rule when it comes to criminal cases.
With respect to criminal cases, this amended the JAR.
Exceptions
1. Must have been identified by testimony duly
In all criminal cases, including those covered by the Rule on
recorded;
Summary Procedure, the testimonies of witnesses shall
2. Must have been incorporated in the records of the
consist of the duly subscribed written statements given to
case.
law enforcement or peace officers or the affidavits or
The rule is that the court shall not consider any evidence
counter-affidavits submitted before the investigating
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which
prosecutor, and if such are not available, testimonies shall
the evidence is offered must be specified. The offer of
be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional
evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to
direct and cross examination questions.
rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly
• This refers to form of testimony with respect to first
upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until
level courts.
admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
purposes for which such document is offered, the same is
In criminal cases where the demeanor of the witness is not
merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. Mere
essential in determining the credibility of said witness, such
identification of documents and the markings thereof as
as forensic chemists, medico-legal officers, investigators,
exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight on documents
auditors, accountants, engineers, custodians, expert
unless formally offered.
witnesses and other similar witnesses, who will testify on
the authenticity, due execution and the contents of public
Specific offer: The purpose for which the evidence is
documents and reports, and in criminal cases that are
offered must be specified since evidence may be
transactional in character, such as falsification,
UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 28
REMEDIAL LAW | Evidence | Prof. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis

admissible for a special purpose but not admissible The trial court need not make an express ruling admitting
generally; or for one purpose but not for another; or against the exhibits if there is no objection interposed to their
one joint defendant but not against another. admission.
• Except: If the exceptions are anchored on two or
Introduction of evidence is distinct from formal offer. While more grounds, in which event the court must
evidence may have been marked and introduced, it may be specify the reason for its rulings.
withdrawn and it may or may not be formally offered in the
exercise of a proponent’s or opponent’s discretion on the Striking out of Answer
matter. SECTION 39. Striking out of Answer. — Should a
witness answer the question before the adverse party
That a particular document is marked as an exhibit does not had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the
mean that it has been formally offered as evidence. same, or where a question is not objectionable, but the
answer is not responsive, or where a witness testifies
Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at without a question being posed or testifies beyond limits
the time it is offered, not earlier. set by the court, or when the witness does a narration
instead of answering the question, and such objection is
KIND OF OFFER OBJECTION found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
EVIDENCE objection and order such answer, testimony or narration
Testimonial At the time the At the to be stricken off the record.
witness is called commencement
to testify of testimony or On proper motion, the court may also order the striking
when the out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
grounds are otherwise improper.
reasonably
apparent. Grounds
Documentary After the After offer 1. the witness answers the question before the
and object presentation of a thereof or adverse party had the opportunity to object;
party’s following the 2. a question is not objectionable, but the answer is
testimonial party’s not responsive;
evidence presentation of 3. the witness testifies without a question being
all testimonial posed;
evidence. 4. the witness testifies beyond limits set by the court;
or
Repetition of Objection 5. the witness does a narration instead of answering
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the the question; AND
examination of a witness that the questions being 6. such objection is found to be meritorious.
propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was Remedy if evidence denied admission: Tender of
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat excluded evidence.
the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to
record his or her continuing objection to such class of Tender of Excluded Evidence
questions. [Section 37] SECTION 40. Tender of Excluded Evidence. — If
documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
A court may, motu proprio, treat the objection as a the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or
continuing one. made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record the name and other
Ruling of the court on the objections personal circumstances of the witness and the
General rule: The ruling of the court must be given substance of the proposed testimony.
immediately after the objection is made.

Exception: 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. [Sec. 38, Rule 132]

UP Law Center – Bar Review Institute 29