1

EVIDENCE PRIMER

BASIC CONCEPTS

Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

2 Kinds of Facts:

1. Ultimate fact (factum probandum)- principal, determinate and constitutive facts upon
the existence of which the plaintiff’s cause of action rests.
 does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which
these material elements are to be established
 proposition to be established, necessarily hypothetical

2. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts which are necessary for the determination
of the ultimate facts
 Premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
 Brought forward as a reality to convince the tribunal that the factum probandum is also
real

Factum probandum Factum probans

"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts"
Proposition to be Material evidencing
established the proposition
Hypothetical Existent

Corroborative evidence - It is additional evidence of a different kind and character

tending to prove the same point.

Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence of the same kind and character tending to
prove the same proposition.

Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence has no probative value

Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is excluded by some rule of evidence

Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is not qualified under the rules of testimonial
evidence

Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum
which is not proper in issue. The rule of substantive law and of pleading are what
determines immateriality

Conditional Admissibility – evidence is admissible only in dependence upon other facts. It

is received on the express assurance of counsel, when objection is manifested, that other
facts will be duly presented at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed.

Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far
as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
some other rule which would be applicable to it offered for another purpose does not
exclude it.

Curative Admissibility - A party has the right to introduce incompetent evidence in his
behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse
party. This is to prevent manifest injustice.

Collateral Matters – matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
 2

2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational probative value are admissible
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless prohibited by some
specific rule.

INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE DISPENSED WITH

Instances when proofs can be dispensed with:

1. Res ipsa loquitur
2. Presumptions
3. Judicial notice
4. Judicial admissions

Kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be controverted
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be contradicted
and overcome by other evidence

Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts by the court w/o proof because they are facts,
which, by common experience, are of universal knowledge among intelligent persons w/in
a country or community

Requisites of Judicial notice

1. matter of common knowledge
2. well & authoritatively settled and not doubted or uncertain
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court

Matters that are judicially noticed (mandatory)

1. existence & territorial extent of states
2. forms of gov’t and symbols of nationality
3. law of nations
4. admiralty & maritime courts of the world & their seals
5. political constitution & history of the Philippines
6. laws of nature
7. measure of time
8. geographical divisions and political history of the world
9. facts which are of public knowledge
10. facts which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
11. facts which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions

Discretionary Judicial Notice

1. matters of pubic knowledge
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions

Occidental Land Transportation v CA

FACTS : A Ford Fiera and a Carina passenger bus collided. The driver of the Ford died
and 2 passengers were injured. The owner of the bus sued the owner of the Ford. CFI
found the driver of the bus negligent. Nine years later, in a separate civil case, the CFI
ordered the bus owner to pay damages based on facts of the earlier case “as adopted by
reference.”
HELD : As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in adjudication
of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases.
Exception > in the absence of objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, or at
the request or with the consent of the parties, records of previous case may be admitted
as part of the present case.

State Prosecutors v Muro

Facts: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. Marcos for violation of CB Circular 960 or
the CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The dismissal was based solely on newspaper
 3

reports concerning the announcement of the president of the Philippines of the lifting of all
foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in the circular. Judge said that the
announcement had the effect of repealing CB 960.
HELD: Matters of judicial notice have 3 requisites: matter of common knowledge; it must
be authoritatively settled; and known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the
court. Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized
to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis
of his action. Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. A
law not yet in force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge capable of
unquestionable demonstration.

Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case; does not require proof.

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

Object Evidence

Object (Real) Evidence – that which is addressed directly to the sense of the court without
the intervention of a witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or
touch. A.K.A autoptic proference.

Documentary Evidence

Documentary Evidence – documents as evidence consist of writings or any material

containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions
offered as proof of their contents

Original of a document
1. the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry
2. when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
identical contents
3. when an entry is repeated in the regular course of the business

Exceptions to the rule that only original documents may be admissible:

1. when the original has been lost or destroyed
2. when the original is in the custody or control of the party against whom it is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it
3. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office
4. when the original consists of numerous accounts or cannot be examined by the court
without great loss of time

Best Evidence Rule

 only original of the document is admissible.
 Merely assures presentation of the original document and bars non-original
documents, etc.. BUT not evidence aliunde or parol evidence
 Refers only to the factum probandum but not to the interpretation of the document.
 Original must be presented first before evidence aliunde may be presented

 Secondary Evidence- that which shows that better or primary evidence exists as to
the proof of the fact in question.
 It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown
that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable

When Secondary Evidence is Admissible

1. original has been lost or destroyed
 4

2. prove the existence or execution of the original

3. prove the cause of the unavailability of the original, is not due to the bad faith of the
offeror.

3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be presented:

1. copy of the writing
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document
3. recollection of witnesses in the order stated

 Authentic document – merely means that the document should be genuine. It need
not be a public document

Parol Evidence Rule

 Forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by
testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing, of the document, other or
different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties

Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule

(must be alleged in the pleadings) [F-I-V-E]
1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent & agreement of the parties
2. Intrinsic ambiguity
3. Validity of the written agreement
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties

To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake, the
concurrence of three things is necessary:
1. mistake should be one of fact
2. mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence

2 kinds of ambiguities
1. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is unintelligible
2. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument are clear but their application to the
circumstances is doubtful

 the rule permits parol evidence to explain an intrinsic ambiguity

Rules governing admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity

1. where the instrument itself seems clear and certain on its face, and the ambiguity
arises from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity may be helped by parol
evidence (latent ambiguity)
2. where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designing the person or
subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for
the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used
(intermediate ambiguity)
3. where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows plainly that
something more must be added before the reader can determine what of several
things is meant, the rule is inflexible that parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply
the deficiency (patent ambiguity)

Difference between best evidence rule and parol evidence rule

Best Parol Evidence
Evidence
Documents All kinds Agreements,
contracts, wills

What is Secondary Any oral,

excluded evidence; written
copies evidence to
prove contents;
prior/
 5

contempora-
neous with the
contract
What is Only originals
included
Exceptions Lost or Ambiguity;
destroyed; Does not
in the express the
possession of true intent of
the adverse the parties;
party; or Validity is in
in the question;
possession of Subsequent
a public changes
officer
Procedure Existence Exception must
Execution be put in issue
Loss in the complaint
Contents or answer ( as
*objection an affirmative
should be defense)
made ASAP
Purpose To compel To preserve
litigants to agreements
present only
the originals. Draft the
contract
For the carefully
parties to
always keep Go into the
the originals interpretation
of the contents
of the contract
Issue Contents of No issue as to
the writing the contents of
the writing
Secondary The purpose of
evidence is the offer of
offered to parol evidence
prove the is to change,
contents of a vary, modify,
writing which qualify or
is not allowed contradict the
unless the terms of a
case falls complete
under any of written
the agreement
exceptions which is not
allowed unless
the case falls
under any of
the exceptions

Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA (263 SCRA 736)

Facts : In 1949, the officers of the National Airport Corporation informed the owners of
various lots surrounding Lahug Airport that the government will purchase their lands or
expropriate it. They assured the owners that the properties will be returned when it is no
longer being used by the airport. O hesitantly sold her lot and she was reassured that it
will be returned. V, before signing the deed of sale, asked for a rider or certification that
 6

the land will be returned to him. The rider was issued. Later, O’s grandchildren wanted to
repurchase their grandmother’s property. Their request on the ground that the deed of
sale to O did not contain any condition relating to the right to repurchase (no rider like that
of V.)
Held : The Os can repurchase. The right to repurchase can be sufficiently established by
parol evidence. Where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the moving cause of
the written contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on the faith of
the parol contract or representation, such evidence is admissible. Proof is admissible if
any collateral parol agreement that is not consistent with the terms of the written contract
although it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule excluding parol evidence to
vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of existing
evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the
parties, but such evidence may be received regardless of WON the written agreement
contains any reference to such collateral agreement and WON the action is at law or
equity. Besides the petitioner made no objection when the respondent introduced
evidence to show the right to repurchase.

Classes of Documents

(1) Public, consisting of:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of
a foreign country;

Note: These documents are evidenced by either:

(1) official publication thereof; or

(2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original copy, or a specific part thereof, and must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer or his court.

If the record is not kept in the Philippines, in addition to the foregoing requirements,
there must be a certificate that such officer has the custody.

(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and
testaments; and

Note: Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof.

The certificate of acknowledgement is prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to
be entered therein.

Note: These documents may be proved by:

(a) the original record, or

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

(2) Private, consisting of all other writings.

Note: Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must be proved either by:

(1) Anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

 7

(2) Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:

(1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(2) Collusion between the parties; or
(3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings

Documents that do not need to be authenticated:

(1) Public documents;
(2) Notarial documents;
(3) Ancient documents

Ancient Document Rule - Where a private document is:

(1) more than 30 years old,
(2) is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
(3) is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21)

In what Instances must alterations in documents be accounted for by the producing

party?

(1) The document being produced as genuine has been altered;

(2) The alteration appears to have been done after the execution of the document;
(3) The alteration appears to have been in a part material to the question in dispute.

What explanations are satisfactory so as to make the altered document admissible in

evidence?

The producing party must show that the alteration was:

(1) made by another;

(2) made without his (the producing party’s) concurrence;
(3) made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
(4) otherwise properly or innocently made; or
(5) such that it did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.

Interpretation of Documents
 Construction is the process or the art of determining the sense, real meaning, or
proper explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written
instrument or oral agreement, or the application of such subject to the case in question
 Interpretation is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning of a
statute, will, contract or other written document

Rules in the interpretation of documents

(1) legal meaning the writing bears in the place of its execution;
(2) all provisions must be given effect;
(3) intention of the parties must be pursued;
(4) a particular intent will control a general intent inconsistent with it;
(5) circumstances of execution may be shown;
(6) terms are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation; but
evidence is admissible to show an otherwise peculiar signification;
(7) written words control printed;
(8) experts & interpreters can be used to explain characters difficult to be deciphered or
language not understood by the court;
(9) when terms were intended in different senses, that sense is to prevail against either
party in which he supposed the other understood it;
 8

(10) when different constructions are otherwise equally proper, the one most favorable to
the party in whose favor the provision was made will be taken;
(11) construction in favor of natural right;
(12) instrument may be construed according to usage

Testimonial Evidence

GENERAL RULE: The following are not grounds for disqualification:

(1) Religious belief;

(2) Political belief;
(3) Interest in the outcome of the case; and
(4) Conviction of a crime

Exception: When provided for by law.

Grounds for disqualification enumerated in the Rules on Evidence:

Disqualification by reason of:
(1) Mental incapacity
(2) Immaturity
(3) Marriage
(4) Death or insanity of adverse party
(5) Privileged communication

Distinguish between the marital disqualification rule and the privileged marital
communication rule.

Marital Privileged
Disqualification Marital
Disqualification

Extent of Total. All Only

prohibition testimony, confidential
whether communication.
adverse or not,
regardless of
source.

Should YES. Not

either necessarily.
spouse be
a party?

Marriage YES. Not

subsisting necessarily.
at time of
testimony?

Who can The affected The other

invoke spouse spouse

Operability Ceases upon Continues even

of the rule death of either after the
spouse, or termination of
termination of the marriage.
the marriage.

Privileged Communications
 9

1. Marital Confidential communication

Requisites:
a. spouses are legally married
b. privilege is claims with regard to a communication, oral or written, made during the
marriage
c. said communication was made confidentially
d. action or proceeding where the privilege is claimed is not by one against the other

3. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication

Requisites:
a. legal advice of any kind is sought
b. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
c. the communications relating to that purpose
d. made in confidence
e. by the client
f. are at his instance permanently protected
g. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser
h. except that the protection may be waived

4. Physicians and clients

Requisites:
a. civil case
b. person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics
c. such information was acquired while he was attending to the patient in his professional
capacity
d. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and if disclosed,
shall blacken the reputation of the patient

5. Priest and penitent

Requisites:
a. clergyman or priest and a penitent
b. confession of a penitential character
c. made to the priest in his professional character
d. confession is sanctioned by the church to which the priest or religious officer belongs

6. Public officers
Requisites:
a. confidential communication
b. made to or obtained by a public officer
c. obtained in the exercise of his public function
d. disclosure of the communication would be detrimental to the public interest

Parental and Filial privilege - No person may be compelled to testify against his parents,
other direct ascendants, children, or other direct descendants.
Notes:
 This provision does not apply to spouses.
 This provision means that you may testify if you want, but you may not be compelled
to testify.
 This provision is subject to the qualification in Sec. 215 of the Family Code, i.e. a
descendant may be compelled to testify against parents and grandparents IF the
testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against
the other.

Admissions and Confessions

Admission - It is an act, declaration or omission as to a relevant fact. It may be given by

a party (in which case Rule 130, Sec. 26 will be applicable) or by a third-party.
 10

Gen. Rule: Confessions of a defendant made to witnesses are admissible against him,
but are inadmissible against his co-defendant
Exception:
a. confessions on the stand
b. confessions not objected to
c. adopted confession
d. identical confession
e. corroborated confession
f. confession by conspirator (after conspiracy has been shown & proven)

Self-serving declaration - a declaration wherein:

(1) the testimony is favorable to the declarant;
(2) it is made extrajudicially; and
(3) it is made in anticipation of litigation.

Self-serving declarations are not admissible.

Requisites for the admissibility of an admission:

(1) must involve matters of fact and not of
law;
(2) must be categorical and definite;
(3) must be knowingly and voluntarily
made;
(4) must be adverse to the admitter’s
interest

Confession - It is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense

charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.

Differentiate an admission from a confession.

Admission Confession

Definition Statement of fact Declaration

which does not acknowledging
involve an one’s guilt of the
acknowledge- offense charged
ment of guilt or
liability

Form May be express Must be express

or tacit

Made by Party or Party himself

3rd person

Cases in Both criminal Usually criminal

which and civil cases cases
applicable

Differentiate an admission and confession in criminal cases.

Admission Confession

Definition Statement by the Acknowledgment

accused, direct or in express terms
implied, of facts by a party in a
pertinent to the criminal case of
 11

issue and tending, his guilt of the

in connection with crime charged
proof of other
facts, to prove his
guilt

Sufficiency Insufficient. Tends Sufficient

to autho- only to establish
rize a the ultimate fact of
conviction guilt.

Differentiate the effects of judicial and extrajudicial confessions.

A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to sustain a conviction, even in capital

offenses. On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to sustain
a conviction. It must be corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti

Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions?

(1) Must involve an express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
(2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal offense (US v. Flores);
(3) Must have been given voluntarily (People v. Nishishima);
(4) Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan v. Cusi)
(5) Must have been made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (Art
III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution)

Rules governing extrajudicial confessions:

General Rule: :The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only upon himself
and is not admissible against his co-accused.

Exceptions:

(1) Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial confessions independently made without

collusion which are identical with each other in their material respects and
confirmatory of the other (People v. Encipido);

(2) If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said confession by not

questioning its truthfulness (People v. Orenciada);

(3) Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being apprised
of such confession (People v. Narciso);

(4) If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by
one of the accused and said confession is used only as corroborative
evidence (People v. Linde);

(5) Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator (People v. Condemena);

(6) Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant (People v. Villanueva);

(7) Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence

of record (People v. Paz)

Rules on offer of compromise

Civil cases: Not admission of liability; not

admissible in evidence against offeror
Criminal cases: Admissible against
accused as implied admission of guilt
 12

Exceptions:
(1) Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)
(2) Those offenses allowed by law to be compromised (e.g., Sec. 204, NIRC of
1977)

The following are not admissions of liability or guilt and are therefore not admissible in
evidence:

(1) Plea of guilty later withdrawn;

(2) Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser offense;
(3) Offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned
by an injury

res inter alios acta rule - the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration
or omission of another (i.e. a non-party), except in the following instances:

1. by partner, agent or other person jointly interested with the party

Requisites:
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is proven by evidence other than the act or
declaration sought to be admitted
b. the admission is within the scope of the partnership, agency or joint interest
c. admission was made while the agency, p’ship or joint interest was in existence

2. by conspirator
Requisites:
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
b. admission relates to the common object
c. that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy

3. by privies
Requisites:
1. Relation of privity between party and declarant;
2. Admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest, while holding title to
the property;
3. The admission was in relation to said property.

Requisites for admission by silence:

(1) Hearing and understanding of the statement by the party;
(2) Opportunity and necessity of denying the statements;
(3) Statement must refer to a matter affecting his right;
(4) Facts were within the knowledge of the party;
(5) Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the
issue (Regalado)

Distinguish :
Self-serving Declaration against
declaration interest
Not admissible since Admissible
introduction would notwithstanding its
open door to frauds hearsay character
and perjuries

Admission Declaration against

interest
Not necessarily Always a declaration
against the interest against self-interest
of person who
made the admission
 13

May be used Refers to declaration

although person made by a deceased
making the person
admission is still
alive
May be used only Admissible against
against the admitter 3rdpersons
& those identified
with him in legal
interest

Hearsay Evidence rule - A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge.

Independently relevant statement - It is a statement whose probative value is independent

of its truth or falsity. The mere fact of its utterance is relevant,

2 kinds of independently relevant statements:

(1) Statements which are the very facts in issue;
(2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue (Francisco)

Reasons for Excluding Hearsay

1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
2. depreciation of truth in the process of repetition
3. opportunities for fraud would open
4. tendency of such evidence to protect legal inquiries, and encourage the substitution
of weaker for stronger proofs.

Exceptions to Hearsay Rule

1. Dying declaration
Requisites:
a. death is imminent
b. declarant is conscious of his impending death
c. declaration refers to material facts which concern the identity of the deceased or the
accused, the cause & circumstances of the killing
d. declarant would be competent to testify had he survived
e. any case wherein the subject is his death

2. Declaration against interest

Requisites:
a. declarant would not be available to testify (dead, mentally incapacitated incompetent
etc..)
b. declaration must concern a fact cognizable by declarant
c. circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed

3. Act or declaration against pedigree

Requisites:
a. declarant is dead or unable to testify
b. pedigree must be in issue
c. declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question
d. declaration must be made before the controversy occurred – ante-litem motam
4. family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
Requisites:
a. tradition or reputation is one existing in the family
b. reputation or tradition was formed ante-litem motam
c. witness testifying to the reputation or tradition is a member of the family

5. Common reputation
Requisites:
a. that the matter to which the reputation refers to is of public or general interest and
more than 30 years old
 14

b. that the reputation is one formed in the community interested

c. it existed ante litem motam

6. Part of the res gestae

a. spontaneous exclamations
Requisites:
1) the principal fact, the res gestae, must be a startling occurrence
2) statements must have been made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise
3) statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances

b. Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts

Requisites:
1) conduct characterized by the words must be independently material to the issue
2) conduct must be equivocal
3) words must aid in giving legal significance to the conduct
4) words must accompany the conduct

Spontaneous Contemporaneous
exclamations or verbal act
Res gestae is the Res gestae is the
startling occurrence equivocal act
Exclamation may be Verbal act must be
prior to, contemporaneous
simultaneous with or with or must
subsequent to the accompany the
startling occurrence equivocal act
7. entries in the course of business
Requisites:
a. entrant made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty
b. entrant is dead, outside of the Phils. or unable to testify
c. entries were made in the ordinary course of business or duty
d. entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which it relates
e. entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entry
f. there must be more than one entry

8. Entries in official records

Requisites:
a. entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to
do so
b. made in the performance of his duties or by another person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law
c. the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, acquired by him either personally or thru official channels connected with the
exercise of his public functions

9. Commercial lists and the like

10. Learned treatises

11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

Requisites:
a. testimony was rendered in a former case
b. identity of parties
c. identity of subject matter
d. adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine the witness
e. witness is dead, outside of the Phils., pr unable to testify in the subsequent trial

The Opinion Rule

The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except in the following cases:

 15

(1) On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he

possesses, that is, when he is an expert thereon;

(2) Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a person, when he has knowledge of
the person or handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert witness;

(3) On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with the
former or if the latter is an expert witness;

(4) On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person which he has

observed; and

(5) On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such as the value of
ordinary household articles (Galian v. State Assurance Co., Ltd.)

Rules on Character Evidence

GENERAL RULE: Not admissible.

Exceptions:

(a) In criminal cases:

(1) Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.

(2) Prosecution may only prove accused’s bad moral character pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged during rebuttal.

(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.

(b) In civil cases

Evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case.

(c) Evidence of a witness’ good moral

character is admissible only once such character has been impeached.

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

 matters which need not be proved by a party to an action are:

1. allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues
2. facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have
been sufficiently alleged
3. those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between parties, as well
as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case
4. those subject to judicial notice
5. facts which are legally presumed
6. facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the opposite party

What are the rules on impeachment of witnesses?

GENERAL RULE: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
 16

Exceptions:

(1) Unwilling or hostile witness;

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

court upon adequate showing of:

(a) his adverse interest,

(b) unjustified reluctance to testify; or
(c) his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. (Rule
132, Sec. 12)

(2) Witness who is an adverse party;

(3) Officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a

partnership or association which is an adverse party.

In these instances, such witnesses may be impeached by the party presenting him in
all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his
bad character.

How may an adverse party’s witness be impeached?

(1) By contradictory evidence;

(2) By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad;

(3) By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony (a.k.a. “prior inconsistent statements”)

Laying the predicate -

(a) Confronting the witness with the prior inconsistent statements with the
circumstances under which they were made;

(b) Asking him whether he made such statements; and

(c) Giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency. (Rule 132, Sec. 13)

A witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts.

Except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been
convicted of an offense.

Leading question - It is a question which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires. It is not allowed, except:

1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble-mind, or a deaf-mute
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party

Misleading question - A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not
allowed.

What are the rights of a witness?

 17

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or

(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.

Exceptions to the rule against repetition of objections

1. where the question has not been answered, it is necessary to repeat the objection
when the evidence is again offered or the question again asked
2. evidence of the same kind as that previously admitted over objection
3. incompetency is shown later
4. objection refers to preliminary question it must be repeated when the same question
is again asked during the introduction of actual evidence
5. objection to evidence was sustained but reoffered at a later stage of the trial
6. evidence is admitted on condition that its competency or relevance be shown by
further evidence and the condition is not fulfilled, the objection formerly interposed
must be repeated or a motion to strike out the evidence must be made
7. where the court reserves the ruling on objection, the objecting party must request a
ruling or repeat the objection

Distinction between presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt

Presumption of Reasonable Doubt
Innocence
Conclusion drawn by Condition of mind
law in favor of produced by proof
citizens resulting from
evidence in the case
Evidence introduced Result of insufficient
by law to be proof
considered by the
court

OFFER AND OBJECTION

Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

When to make offer:

Testimony of a witness - at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence - after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.

Objections:
- Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
- Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
- An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
- The grounds for the objections must be specified.

When repetition of objection unnecessary. - When it becomes reasonably apparent in the

course of the examination that the questions asked are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made (whether sustained or overruled), it shall not be necessary
to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions.
 18

Ruling:

The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. If the objection is
based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.

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

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

Tender of excluded evidence:

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

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Preponderance of evidence - In determining where the preponderance or superior weight

of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt - does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

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

conviction - unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances' is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

Substantial evidence - that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Power of the court to stop further evidence. - The court may stop the introduction of further
testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.
But this power should be exercised with caution.
 19

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