1

LEC NOTES EVIDENCE RULE 130, SECTIONS 1 TO 10

Atty. Jay Nakao

OBJECT AS EVIDENCE (s.1)

1. Definition: Addressed to the senses of the court
2. Requisites for admissibility
 Must be relevant to the fact in issue
 It must be exhibited, viewed and examined in court

NOTES

1. In addition to the elements in section 1 – (a) the evidence must be identified by a

competent witness, and then (b) formally offered before it can be considered

2. Chain of Custody Rule in Section 21 – every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up for the first time from the accused to the time it was offered in
evidence should be accounted for.

 PEOPLE vs. JAY LORENA (G.R. No. 184954, January 10, 2011) in this case ,
the SC ruled that establishing the chain of custody is essential and ideal in all illegal
drugs cases. However, minor procedural lapses may be tolerated if justified and the
integrity of the evidence is preserved.

 Rationale for Chain of Custody Rule – ensure that integrity and evidentiary value
is preserved, such that the item recovered is the same item presented at the trial

 Methods of authenticating the evidence under the chain of custody rule – The
method of authenticating evidence in the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be, and must establish every link in the chain by
testimonies

 PEOPLE VS GUTIERREZ, GR 179213, September 3, 2009 – the SC emphasized

that the chain of custody required a detailed testimony about every link in the chain
from seizure at the crime scene whenever practicable to the presentation in trial.
This rigid rule provides those descriptions of how and whom the evidence was
received, its condition at each stage, and the precaution taken to prevent tampering.
These steps are to ensure the integrity of the evidence and to prevent potential
miscarriage of justice.

 PEOPLE vs. PAJARIN, GR 190640, January 12, 2011 In this case, the SC ruled
that the improper marking and sealing of evidence which were done in the police
station rather than the crime scene raises doubts on the authenticity of the evidence.

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

2

3. DNA EVIDENCE RULE (AM No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)

 Biological sample: Any organic material from the body, even if found in inanimate
objects, susceptible to DNA testing

 Application for DNA Testing Order (s.4, AM No. 06-11-5-SC): moto propio or
upon application – p. 237 – requires the existence of a biological sample

 BRAZA, et. al. vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, G.R. No. 181174, December
4, 2009 this case dealt with an improper course of action where petitioners’ main cause
of action was that of correction of entry in the birth certificate and resorting to DNA
testing to prove filiation. The court dismissed this action without prejudiced. This means
that a similar filing may be done in an appropriate family court where the parties’
substantial and contentious issues be threshed out.

 PEOPLE vs. MAGLENTE

 SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE (s.30, Child Witness Examination Rule, AM

004-07-SC)
a) To prove that the victim engaged in other sexual behaviour
b) To prove that victim has sexual predispositions
c) EXCEPTIONS: to prove that a person other than accused was the source of
SEMEN, INJURY or OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

4. DNA TESTING ORDER (s.5, AM 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)

 Order is immediately executory and not appealable – implementation cannot be
stayed absent an injunction
 Grant of DNA testing application does not result in automatic admission into
evidence of the results it has to be offered and proved

5. POST CONVICTION DNA TESTING (AM 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)

 Must have a biological sample which could probably result in REVERSAL of
conviction (s.6)
 WHERE FILED (s.10): a) court of origin, b) SC or CA, c) any justice of SC or CA

6. ASSESSMENT OF PROBATIVE VALUE OF DNA EVIDENCE (s.7, AM 06-11-

5-SC, October 15, 2007) – COURT MUST CONSIDER:
 Chain of custody
 Methodology
 The reliability of the forensic DNA laboratory

7. EVALUATION OF DNA RESULTS (s.9 AM 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)

 Court shall consider possibility of mismatching
 Court shall consider DNA testing results in totality with other evidence
 If probability is less than 99.9 percent – results are merely corroborative
 If probability is 99.9 or higher, there is disputable presumption of paternity

8. PEOPLE vs. UMANITO, GR 172607, October 26, 2007 the SC in this case used the
DNA testing rule in the first time. The accused denied having fathered a child from the

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

3

victim. The SC remanded the case for trial and admitted the DNA results which yield
99.999% as a proof that Umanito is the father.

9. Tainted DNA evidence – PEOPLE vs. PASCUAL, GR 172326, January 19, 2009 the
SC in this case still convicted the accused despite the contamination of sample from
which DNA was taken. The forensic chemist testified that the vaginal smear has
undergone serological testing before DNA was taken which likely contributed the
contamination, However, the decision of the court was based on the totality of the
evidence presented which convicted the accused.

10. PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE (s.12)

 In criminal cases – for the period of trial or if serving sentence, for the period of his
sentence

11. Paraffin testing – Inconclusive as the test alone cannot determine whether the source of
the nitrates was the discharge of the firearm. Hence the failure of the prosecution to
present the results is not indicative of his innocence. (Peralta vs People, GR 221991,
August 30, 2017)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (s.2)

- Recordings,
- Photographs – include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion
pictures or videos
- Any material containing letters, words, sounds, etc or their equivalent and other
modes of written expression offered as PROOF OF THEIR CONENTES

NOTES:

1. Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence, such as receipts, in

order to prove expenses incurred as a result of the death of the victim or the physical
injuries sustained by the victim (Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Vivian Lee, GR 166869,
February 16, 2010).

2. LETICIA TAN, ET. AL. vs. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO
ARAMBALA (GR 190521 January 12, 2011) the SC ruled the application of res ipsa
loquitor in establishing negligence in quantifying damages. It underscores the
importance of substantiating claims with evidence to prove a case.

3. RULES ON ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS (AM 01-7-01-SC)) –

 Electronic documents are considered functional equivalent of paper-based
documents. S.1, R.3, whenever any rule of evidence refers to the term: “writing,”
“document,” etc – it shall be deemed to include an electronic document
 There must be a retained record for it to be deemed electronic document
 Authenticity must be proved by (s.2, R.5, REE):
- Evidence that it was digitally signed – digital signatures

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

4

- Evidence that appropriate security procedures or devices were applied to the

document – i.e. biometrics, retina scans, PDF-8
- Other evidence to show its integrity or reliability - layman’s approach, i.e.
someone saw accused write his post on Facebook, similar to authenticating
paper-based document under traditional rules

 Ephemeral communication – If a post is deleted or when there is no longer any

record, it becomes ephemeral communication, i.e. deleted chat sessions, snapchat,
streaming videos, contents of deleted FB messenger posts/messages – all not
recorded
 How to prove ephemeral communication - authenticity proven by testimony of a
person who:
- Was a party
- Has personal knowledge
- Other competent evidence – if the 2 are unavailable

4. Pleading an actionable document (Sec 7, Rule 8) – the substance shall be set forth in
the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit

5. Contesting actionable documents (Sec 8, Rule 8) – The Answer must be verified if you
want to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document alleged in
the Complaint
- Oath not required if: a) defendant is not a party to the document; or b) order for
inspection of document is refused by plaintiff

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS RULE – formerly known as the Best Evidence Rule

When the subject of inquiry are contents of a document (incl. writing, recording,
photograph or other record) – NO OTHER EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE
other than the original itself

Exceptions:
1. Original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court w/o bad faith by offeror
2. Original is in the custody of party against whom it is offered – latter fails to produce
despite notice or original cannot be obtained by judicial processes
3. Original contains numerous accounts – fact sought to be established is only the general
result (and other documents cannot be examined without great loss of time)
4. Original is a public record or in custody of a public officer
5. When original is not a controlling issue

NOTES:

1. SKUNAC CORPORATION AND ALFONSO ENRIQUEZ vs. ROBERTO

SYLIANTENG AND CESAR SYLIANTENG, GR 205879, April 23, 2014
The SC in this case ruled that a signed carbon copy or duplicate executed at the same time as
the original is considered as a duplicate original. The Original Documents Rule was not

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

5

applied in this case for the reason that the controversy was not about the contents of the
document but rather its authenticity and due execution.
2. YOUNG BUILDERS CORPORATION v. BENSON INDUSTRIES, INC (G.R. No.
198998, June 19, 2019)
The SC ruled on the importance of producing original documents to establish authenticity and
probative value of the evidence.

3. Nature of photograph as evidence - The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs,

when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production
and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this
kind of evidence lies in it being a correct representation or reproduction of the original,
and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of
the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the
pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the
object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and
accuracy. (Sison, et. al., vs. People, et. al., GR 114931, November 16, 1995).

4. PO2 JESSIE FLORES vs. PEOPLE, GR 222861, April 23, 2018 the SC ruled the
admissibility of photocopies were admitted as public records and the non-presentation of
the original money did not invalidate the prosecution’s case due to corroborative witness
statements.

5. Section 1, Rule 4 – Rules on Electronic evidence – correlated with s.4.a, R.130

Section 4. Original of document. —

a) An "original" is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same
effect by a person executing or issuing it.
 It includes the negative or any print therefrom.
 If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or
other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately, is an "original."
b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original
 Or from the same matrix,
 or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or
 by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or
 by chemical reproduction, or
 by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine
question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it
is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)

NOTES:

1. SKUNAC case on carbon copies

2. MALIKSI vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203302, April 11, 2013)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

6

shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

Evidence other than the original document itself

BREAKDOWN OF SECTION 5, RULE 130:

1. When applicable: original has been: a) lost or destroyed, or b) cannot be produced in
court
2. Requisites: a) offeror proves existence or execution; b) offeror proves the cause of
unavailability; c) offeror acts without bad faith
3. How to prove contents (in the order stated): a) with a copy, b) recital of its contents in
some authentic document, c) testimony of witnesses

NOTES:

1. Section 5 is the exception cited in Sec. 3(a), R.130

2. Requisites before secondary evidence can be presented:

 Prove due execution of the original
 Prove the loss, destruction or unavailability of the originals
 Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or at least an attempt
to produce the original

3. How to prove due execution of a lost original:

 Testimony of the person who executed it
 Testimony of the person before whom the execution of the document was
acknowledged
 Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who, thereafter,
saw it and recognized the signature

4. How to prove the loss or destruction of the original:

 The loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss
 Anyone who has made sufficient examination in the place where the document or
papers of similar character are usually kept
 The person in whose custody the document was lost, and unable to find it
 Those who made any other investigation which sufficient to satisfy the court that the
instrument is indeed lost

5. PEOPLE vs. MABALO, GR 238839, February 27, 2019

6. Proving lost or destroyed Wills (s.6, R.76): no will shall be proved as lost or destroyed,
unless:
 Due execution and validity is established
 The will was in existence at the time of the death of the testator, OR that it was
fraudulently or accidentally destroyed during the testator’s lifetime without his
knowledge
 Provisions of the will is proven by at least 2 credible witnesses

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

7

 When a lost will is proved – it is stated and certified by the judge, whose certificate
should be filed and recorded as other wills which are filed and recorded

WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR

CONTROL (s.6, r.130) – requirements before secondary evidence can be presented:
1. Original is in adverse party’s possession
2. Adverse party has reasonable notice to produce it
3. There is satisfactory proof of its existence
4. If after such notice and after proof of its existence – he still fails to produce the
document

EDSA SHANGRILA HOTEL AND RESORTS, INC. vs. BF CORPORATION, GR

145842, JUNE 27, 2008
The SC ruled that the admission of photocopies as secondary evidence was proper since the
originals were in the opposing party’s custody and were not made available upon request.

SUMMARIES (Section 7)
When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are
voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact
sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such
evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse
party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in
court.

Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the
original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof. (7)

NOTES:
 Public documents can be proved by a certified true copy of the original (Republic vs
Imee Marcos-Manotoc, GR 171701, Feb 8, 2012)

Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (Section 10)

1. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement (or wills) have
been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

8

2. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement (or wills) if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:
 An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
 The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
 The validity of the written agreement; or
 The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.

NOTES:

1. Parol evidence rule forbids any addition or variation to the terms of a written agreement by
testimony or other evidence

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (Section 10)

1. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement (or wills) have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can
be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.
2. However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement (or wills) if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:
 An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
 The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
 The validity of the written agreement; or
 The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.

NOTES:

3. MANCOL vs DBP, GR 204289, November 22, 2017 the SC emphasized that the Parol
evidence rule prohibits any alteration of written agreements except when the same,
among others, failed to express the true intent of the parties.

4. Threshold of proof needed to overcome the Parol Evidence Rule – Clear and
Convincing Evidence

PNB vs. CUA (GR 199161, April 18, 2018)

The SC stressed the importance of written agreement which in this case a promissory
note in establishing the existence of a loan. The emphasis on pre-signing of documents
for future loans do not negate the binding nature of promissory notes.

5. FELIX PLAZO URBAN POOR SETTLERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION vs.

ALFREDO LIPAT, GR 182409, March 20, 2017 –
.

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

9

6. PLEADINGS RAISING EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

MUST BE VERIFIED –
(Paras Spouses vs. Kimwa Construction and Development Corp., GR 171601, April 8,
2015)
 A party must put in issue in its pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated in the
second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 10, "a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the agreement. Raising any of these items as an issue
in a pleading such that it falls under the exception is not limited to the party
initiating an action.
 In Philippine National Railways v. Court of First Instance of Albay (173 Phil. 5
(1978). "if the defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract mentioned
in the complaint does not express the true agreement of the parties, then parol
evidence is admissible to prove the true agreement of the parties[.]" Moreover, as
with all possible objections to the admission of evidence, a party’s failure to timely
object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained.
 In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted: first,
that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party’s
pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second, that the parol
evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed
by the presenting party.

7. INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY (first exception)

 Lord Bacon’s Rule – 3 kinds of ambiguities under the Lord Bacon’s Rule:
a) latent ambiguity: when on its face, the writing is clear and unambiguous but
there are collateral matters that make it uncertain (see the case of Paras vs.
Kimwa);
b) patent or extrinsic ambiguity: when the ambiguity is apparent on its face;
c) intermediate ambiguity: when the wordings are clear but offer 2 possible
interpretation (you can apply rules on interpretation of documents or rules on
contracts of adhesion)

 FALSA DEMONSTRATION NON NOCET –

- A rule applied where a description of something in a legal document (e.g. a will)
is made up of more than one part, and one part is true, but the other false: if the
part that is true describes the subject with sufficient legal certainty, then the
untrue part will not vitiate the document.
- Falsa demonstratio non nocet is latin term which means a false description does
not vitiate. A wrong description of an item in a legal document (such as a will)
will not necessarily void the gift if it can be determined from other facts.
- The first and fundamental principle is the principle of “falsa demonstratio non
nocet.” If there be a description of the property sufficient to render certain what
is intended, the addition of a wrong name, or of an erroneous statement as to
quantity, occupancy, locality, or an erroneous enumeration of particulars will
have no effect.

8. REFORMATION OF CONTRACT IF THERE IS FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE,

AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT (FAMI) –
 Art 1359 – meeting of minds but true intention us not expressed in document by
reason of FAMI. Note if FAMI prevented meeting of the minds – remedy is
annulment

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

10

 Other instances when party can seek reformation:

- Art 1361 – mutual mistake by both parties
- Art 1362 – one party was mistaken while other acted fraudulently or inequitably
- Art 1363 – one party was mistaken and other party knew but concealed that fact
- Art 1364 – ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith of person drafting the
instrument or clerk
- Art 1365 – when both party agree on mortgage or pledge but instrument state
that property is sold
 When reformation is not allowed:
- Simple donation where no condition is imposed - Art 1366
- Wills – Art 1366
- When real agreement is VOID – Art 1366
- When party seeking reformation has previous brought action to enforce the
previous contract – Art 1367

Interpretation of Documents

Section 11. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. — The language of a
writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. (10)

Section 12. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In the construction
of an instrument, where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. (11)

Section 13. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. — In

the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a
general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a
particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (12)

NOTES:
1. When general and particular provisions are inconsistent:
- Particular/specific provision is paramount to the general provision
- Particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it

Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper construction of an

instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position
of those whose language he or she is to interpret. (13a)

Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have
been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that
they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

11

understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed
accordingly. (14)

Presumption on the use of terms of a writing:

1. Presumed to be used in their general acceptation
2. Evidence is acceptable to show that they have a local or peculiar signification
3. It was so used and understood in the particular instance – in which case the agreement
must be construed accordingly

Section 16. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written
words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the
latter.

Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. — When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is
not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or
who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language. (16)

Section 18. Of two constructions, which preferred. — When the terms of an agreement have
been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he or she supposed the other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the
most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.

NOTES:
1. When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by different
parties – it shall be construed as follows:
- That sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other to
understood it
- When different constructions of a provision are possible – adopt the interpretation
which is favourable to the party in whose favour the provision was made
2. ARTICLE 1377 CIVIL CODE. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a
contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.
- Contracts of adhesion – An adhesion contract is a legal agreement that is drafted
by one party, but not the other. This means that the party signing the agreement had
no chance to bargain for the agreement's terms. Instead, it is a “take it or leave it”
situation
- Contra proferentem – It provides that where a promise or agreement is ambiguous, the
preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party
which provided the wording.

Section 19. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is equally

susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the
former is to be adopted. (18)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

12

Section 20. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be construed according

to usage, in order to determine its true character. (19)

Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Who can be witnesses

1. can perceive, and
2. while perceiving, can make known their perception to others

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification

NOTES:
1. Persons disqualified to testify due to previous conviction for the following:
 Perjury (Act No. 1697)
 Falsification of public or private documents
 False testimony (Act No. 1697)

2. Competency vs Credibility:
 Competency refers to qualification of a witness, whether he can perceive or make
known his perception
 Credibility refers to his propensity to tell the truth in any testimony

3. PEOPLE vs GOLAM SOTA & AMIDAL GADJADLI (GR 203121, November 29,
2017)

4. Two essential elements for determining the weight of a particular testimony :

 Credible witness
 Credible testimony - Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth
of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience
and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances
(People vs, Sota and Gadjadli, GR 203121, November 29, 2017)

5. PEOPLE vs. PINEDA, 473 Phil. 517, 2004 (Per J. Carpio, En Banc) cited in Nunez
Case
6. PEOPLE vs. RODRIGO (586 Phil. 515 (2008), cited in the Nunez Case

7. Totality of circumstances test in determining credibility of witnesses – Eyewitness

identification is affected by "normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences, thus
we have adopted the totality of circumstances test, namely:
 the witness' opportunity to view the criminal act at the time of the crime;
 the witness' degree of attention at that time;
 the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
 the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
 the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
 the suggestiveness of the identification procedure (People vs Nunez, GR 209342,
October 4, 2017)

8. PEOPLE vs. NUNEZ, GR 209342, October 4, 2017

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

13

9. OTHER POINTS RAISED IN NUNEZ:

 The United Kingdom has adopted the Code of Practice for the Identification of
Persons by Police Officers: It "concerns the principal methods used by police to
identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of
accurate and reliable criminal records" and covers eyewitness identifications. This
Code puts in place measures advanced by the corpus of research in enhancing the
reliability of eyewitness identification, specifically by impairing the suggestive
tendencies of conventional procedures. Notable measures include having a parade of
at least (9) people, when (1) suspect is included, to at least (14) people, when (2)
suspects are included and forewarning the witness that he or she may or may not
actually see the suspect in the line-up. Additionally, there should be a careful
recording of the witness' pre-identification description of the perpetrator and explicit
instructions for police officers to not "direct the witness' attention to any individual
(People vs Nunez, GR 209342, October 4, 2017)

 An eyewitness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors: (1)

the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime; (2) the
degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the extent of
time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be exposed to the
perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity.
 In People v. Pavillare, where both witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the
kidnappers and to remember their faces. The complainant had close contact with
the kidnappers when he was abducted and beaten up, and later when the kidnappers
haggled on the amount of the ransom money. His cousin met Pavillare face to face
and actually dealt with him when he paid the ransom money. The two-hour period
that the complainant was in close contact with his abductors was sufficient for him
to have a recollection of their physical appearance. Complainant admitted in court
that he would recognize his abductors if he s[aw] them again and upon seeing
Pavillare he immediately recognized him as one of the malefactors as he
remembered him as the one who blocked his way, beat him up, haggled with the
complainant's cousin and received the ransom money. As an indicium of candor the
private complainant admitted that he d[id] not recognize the co-accused, Sotero
Santos for which reason the case was dismissed against him.
 Apart from extent or degree of exposure, this Court has also appreciated a witness'
specialized skills or extraordinary capabilities . People v. Sanchez, concerned the
theft of an armoured car. The witness, a trained guard, was taken by this Court as
being particularly alert about his surroundings during the attack.

10. MENTAL RETARDATION – PEOPLE vs. JERRY OBOGNE, GR 199740, March

24, 2014

11. CHILD WITNESS EXAMINATION RULE (AM No. 04-07-SC, Dec 15, 2000)
 Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. (Section 6)
 Court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on
motion, if there are substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

14

perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate

the duty to tell the truth in court.
 Party challenging child’s competence has burden to rebut presumption of
competency
 Age of the child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination.
 Hearing on competency examination:
a) Examination conducted by judge only but counsels can submit questions
b) Questions should not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the
ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and
falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully
c) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child,
the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.

12. 5-YEAR OLD WITNESS – PEOPLE vs. ESUGON, GR 195244, JUNE 22, 2015 the
court that every child is a competent witness unless proven otherwise

First Hand Knowledge Rule

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. - A witness can testify only to those
facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his or her own perception.

NOTES:

1. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. ALBERTO, GR 194320, February 1, 2012

2. Independently relevant statements – hearsay testimony that are not offered to prove the
fact asserted but only for the fact such statement was made. Stated otherwise, regardless
of the truth or falsity of a statement, what is relevant is the fact that such statement has
been made

3. JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a. DANILO ESPINELI vs. PEOPLE, GR 179535, June 9, 2014
the SC in this case relied on the circumstantial evidence in convicting the accused. This
type of evidence refer to those which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference
from a proven fact which requires that (a) there be more than one circumstance, (b) facts
from which the inference were derive are proven, and (c) the combination of all
circumstance is sufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (1+Circ; F
fr inf Pro; and Combi)

DISQUALIFIED WITNESSES

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

15

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. - During their marriage, the

husband or the wife cannot testify AGAINST the other without the consent of the
affected spouse, except:
 in a civil case by one against the other, or
 in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants

SPOUSAL IMMUNITY

1. Applies when the testimony is against one spouse by the other – as against Section 24
when the spouse testifying may or may not be a party to the proceedings
2. REQUISITES FOR SEC 23:
 Marriage is valid and subsisting
 Other spouse is A PARTY to the action

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications. - The following

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

A) Disqualification by reason of marriage: Either spouses, during or after the marriage,

cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage EXCEPT in a (1)
civil case by one against the other, or in a (3) criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.

B) Attorney-Client Privilege: An attorney or someone reasonably believed by the client to

be a lawyer, cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any
communication or advice given. Privilege extends to attorney's staff without the consent
of the client or lawyer – EXCEPT:

o Future crime-fraud exception rule: If the services or advice were sought to

enable or aid anyone to commit a crime or fraud;

o Claims against same deceased client exception rule: Communication between

parties who claim through the same deceased client – lawyer of deceased
client may testify on these claims i.e. lawyer who drafted the will of the
testator will have to testify in the probate or other proceedings involving the
heirs

o Self defense exception rule: As to a communication by the lawyer to client, or

by the client to lawyer, in cases involving breach of duty of lawyer

o Lawyer-attesting witness exception rule: Lawyer can testify regarding

information relating to attesting documents for which he is an attesting witness

o Joint clients’ communication exception rule. When 2 or more clients have 1

retained lawyer as to communications made by 1 to this lawyer –
EXCEPTION, a previous agreement that says otherwise

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

16

C) Doctor-Patient Relation: A physician, psychotherapist or person (whom the patient

believed to be a doctor or psychotherapist), cannot be examined in a CIVIL CASE as to
any confidential communication relating to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
physical, mental or emotional condition (including alcohol or drug addiction).
 Privilege also applies to the patient’s family who participated in the diagnosis or
treatment under the direction of physician or psychotherapist
 A "psychotherapist" is: A licensed professional engaged in the diagnosis or
treatment of a mental or emotional condition, or a licensed psychologist while
similarly engaged

D) Priest and Penitent: A minister, priest or person believed to be so, cannot be

examined, without the consent of the affected person, as to any communication or
confession made to or any advice given by him, in his or her professional character

E) State secrets; disqualification by reason of privileged communication to a public

officer: A public officer cannot be examined during or after his tenure, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure. The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands
of a third person obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality

DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

BETWEEN SPOUSES
1. REQUISITES:
 Spouses are legally and currently married
 The communication was received in confidence during the marriage
 Spouse against whom such evidence is offered – did not consent
2. Privileged extends DURING and AFTER the marriage
3. EXCEPTIONS:
 Civil case by one against the other
 Criminal case by one against the other or the latter’s DIRECT descendants or
ascendants
 Communication PRIOR to marriage
 Communication NOT confidential
 Communication OVERHEARD by 3rd person
 Dying declaration of one spouse to another

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE:

1. REQUISITES:
 Attorney-client relationship
 Relating to confidential communication in the course of professional employment
 Client has not given his consent

2. SCOPE OF PRIVILEGE – DURING and AFTER relationship; extends to secretaries,

clerk, etc. of attorney

3. OTHER EXCEPTIONS:

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

17

 When communication was intended to be made public or communicated to others

 When the communication was not intended to be received pursuant to atty-client
relationship
 When communication was made in presence of 3rd persons
 Waiver or consent – there can be implied waiver such as failure to object at the first
instance or by giving of evidence relating to the privilege communication (he could be
cross-examined for it)
 In actions filed by client against lawyer
 Dying declarations made by client to lawyer

4. Doctrine of Absolute Privileged Communication: BELEN vs. PEOPLE, GR 211120,

February 13, 2017 The SC ruled that for communications to be absolutely privileged, it
must be relevant and pertinent to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Belen in this
case uttered defamatory remarks against the prosecutor who dismissed his complaint.

DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE:
1. Duration of privilege – During EXISTENCE OF relationship and beyond even AFTER DEATH of
patient
2. Common exceptions:
 Consent
 Criminal case by patient against doctor
 Pp. 371-372

OTHER MATTERS WHICH ARE PRIVILEGED:

1. Confidential Information Rule in Arbitration Proceedings – see RA 9285, ADR Law
-"Confidential information" means any information, relative to the subject of mediation or
arbitration, expressly intended by the source not to be disclosed, or obtained under
circumstances that would create a reasonable expectation on behalf of the source that the
information shall not be disclosed. It shall include (1) communication, oral or written,
made in a dispute resolution proceedings, including any memoranda, notes or work
product of the neutral party or non-party participant, as defined in this Act; (2) an oral or
written statement made or which occurs during mediation or for purposes of considering,
conducting, participating, initiating, continuing of reconvening mediation or retaining a
mediator; and (3) pleadings, motions manifestations, witness statements, reports filed or
submitted in an arbitration or for expert evaluation;
2. Deliberative Process Privilege Information Rule –
DFA vs. BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, GR 210858, JUNE 29, 2016
3. DNA Profiles – DNA Evidence Rule – s.11, AM 06-11-5
4. Confidential business information submitted pursuant to the Philippine Competition Act –
S.34, RA 10667
5. Information provided to journalists by informers – s.5, RA 10173 or the Data Privacy Act
6. Sensitive Personal Information provided to companies which are governed by s.13 of the
Data Privacy Act
7. Proceedings under the Witness Protection Program, S.7 of RA 6981

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

18

TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. - No person shall be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants, EXCEPT when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other.

EMMA LEE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GR 177891, July 13, 2010

The SC in this case ruled that parental and filial privilege does not extend to step-parents and
step-children.

Grounds for quashal of subpoena ad testificandum:

a. That the witness is not bound by the subpoena
b. The witness fees and kilometrage were not tendered when subpoena was
served.

Grounds for quashal of subpoena duces tecum:

1. That the same is unreasonable and oppressive
2. Document sought are irrelevant
3. Failure to advance reasonable cost of production

Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. - A person cannot be compelled to testify
about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work
injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the
interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may
require. (n)

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. PENNSWELL, INC., GR No. 172835,

December 13, 2007

Admissions and Confessions

Section 27. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a

relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.

NOTES:

1. Admission (statement against interest) vs. Confession – An admission is a mere statement by a

party in civil or criminal cases which is against his interest. Confession is an acknowledgment
of guilt by the defendant in a criminal case

2. REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADMISSION:

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

19

 On matters of fact
 Categorical and definite and not hypothetical
 Knowingly made
 Adverse to the admitter’s interest
 Must be presented, authenticated and then offered

3. Self-serving evidence – Statement of a party intended to serve his interest

4. Self-serving declaration – Statement made extrajudicially to his favour – it is inadmissible
5. Self-serving testimony – Extrajudicial statements of a party which is being urged for admission
in court
6. Admission vs declaration against interest – A declaration against interest is made against
pecuniary interest made by one who is now dead or unable to testify (made ante litem
motam)
7. Admissions made in amended pleadings – The admissions made in the previous pleading which
are not carried into the amended pleading will become an extrajudicial admission

Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. –

1. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence.
 Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations
admissible, EXCEPT evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another
purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of
undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

2. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise is an implied admission of
guilt.

3. A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser

offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused.
 Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution,
which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later
withdrawn, admissible.

4. Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury, is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or
criminal liability for the injury.

NOTE:

1. LUCIANO TAN vs. RODIL ENTERPRISES, GR 168071, December 18, 2006

2. Instances where the law allows criminal cases to be compromised:

 S.284 NIRC – Offer of compromise on payment of taxes is not admissible as
admission
 Offer of marriage in rape
 Criminal negligence
 SEE PP. 406-407 FOR CASES THAT COULD BE COMPROMISED

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

20

3. SAN MIGUEL CORP. vs. HELEN KALALO (G.R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012)

4. Plea of nolo contendere (no contest) under Philippine Competition Act cannot be used as
basis for liability in a civil suit arising from the criminal action.(s.36, RA 10667 –
Philippine Competition Act)
 In a plea of nolo contendere, one does not accept nor deny responsibility but agrees to
accept the punishment as if he had pleaded guilty

RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE

There are (2) kinds of res inter alios acta:

1. Admission by 3rd party (s.29)
2. Similar acts as evidence (s.34)

Section 29. Admission by third party. - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Admission by 3rd person who is a co-partner, agent – s.30
2. Acts, declaration of joint owner, etc – s.31
3. Admission by co-conspirator – s.31
4. Admission by privies – s.32
5. Admission by silence – s.33

GERRY SALAPUDDIN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GR 184681, February 25, 2013

PEOPLE vs. CONSTANCIO, GR 206226, April 4, 2016

Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. – REQUISITES:

1. Proof of partnership or agency or joint interest other than by the admission
2. The co-partner was within the scope of his authority when he made the act or declaration which
constitutes the admission
3. The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or agency

This also applies to a joint owner, joint debtor, or person jointly interested with the party

Section 31. Admission by conspirator. – REQUISITES:

1. Conspiracy is proven by other evidence other than the admission
2. The act or declaration of co-conspirator which constitutes the admission was done in
furtherance of the conspiracy
3. The act or admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy

NOTES:

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

21

1. Admissions by a co-conspirator AFTER the conspiracy are not covered by s.31 and are
not admissible – EXCEPTIONS:
 if the admission was made in the presence of the others who failed to object or deny it
- admission by silence
 when the facts stated in the admissions are confirmed by interlocking confessions by
the other accused
 when it is only considered as a circumstance to determine credibility of the witness
 when it is only considered as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the
co-conspirator’s participation

2. SALVADOR YAPYUCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR 120744-46, June 25, 2012

3. Doctrine of interlocking confessions – Extrajudicial confessions (when not repeated in

open court) independently made and which are corroborative and confirmatory in its
material points are admissible as circumstantial evidence against each other

PEOPLE vs. REYES, GR 178300, March 17, 2009

Section 32. Admission by privies. - Where one derives title to property from another, the
latter's act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former
if done while the latter was holding the title. (31a)

REQUIREMENTS:
1. When the person against whom the declaration was made DERIVES TITLE from the
declarant
2. There must be a relation of privity between them
3. The admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest WHILE HOLDING
TITLE to the property
4. That the admission is in relation to the property

Section 32. Admission by privies. - Where one derives title to property from another, the
latter's act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former
if done while the latter was holding the title. (31a)

REQUIREMENTS:
1. When the person against whom the declaration was made DERIVES TITLE from the
declarant
2. There must be a relation of privity between them
3. The admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest WHILE HOLDING
TITLE to the property
4. That the admission is in relation to the property

ADMISSION BY SILENCE (SECTION 33) – REQUISITES:

1. There is an act or declaration
2. That it was overheard or observed by the person against whom it was made

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

22

3. That such person had the opportunity to deny it – and would have done so if these were
not true
4. That such person understood it
5. That such fact were within such persons knowledge
6. That the facts admitted or information to be draw from silence is MATERIAL to the issue

CASES:
1. Silence during custodial investigation is not tantamount to an admission – KYLE
RITTENHOUSE

CONFESSION

Section 34. Confession. - The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence
against him or her. (33a)

DIFFERENCE WITH ADMISSION

1. admission is a statement of fact which does not involve in acknowledgment of guilt or
liability while confession expressly acknowledges guilt or liability
2. admission may be express or implied – confession is always express
3. admission may be made by any party and not necessarily the accused or defendant –
confession can only be made by the accused

REQUISITES:
1. Must be express and categorically acknowledge guilt
2. The facts must constitute a crime
3. Must be voluntarily and intelligently made without violation of constitutional rights:
 Rights when under custodial investigation
 Rights against self-incrimination

Previous Conduct As Evidence

Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. - Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing
at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

NOTES:

1. Akin to propensity evidence rule in the U.S. and is inadmissible unless used for another
purpose such as motive, identity, plan, etc. In s.35, such special purposes are: specific
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like

2. Relate s.35 to s.54 on character evidence which says that evidence of a person’s
character or trait is inadmissible if presented to prove action in conformity therewith (akin
propensity evidence rule. But prosecution cannot present proof of bad character unless in
rebuttal which presupposes that the accused presented evidence of his good moral
character (s.54.a.2) – in this case, prosecution may now present evidence of particular
acts or specific instances (s.54.a.2)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

23

3. METRO BANK (MBTC) vs. CUSTODIO, GR 173780, March 21, 2011

Section 36. Unaccepted offer. - An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (35)

NOTES:
1. This is based on Art 1256CC which requires:
 Offer or tender of payment
 Creditor refuses to accept it without just cause
2. S.36, R.130 applies when the offer is reduced in writing

HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE

FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE RULE

HEARSAY

Section 37. Hearsay. -Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
 A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it
is intended by him or her as an assertion.
 Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
 A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:
b) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the
penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
c) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
d) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.

NOTES:

1. Concept of hearsay has been substantially altered and re-defined. There is no

corresponding provision under the 1989 Rules on Evidence

2. Hearsay testimony are statements offered against a party who had no opportunity to
examine the witness.

3. New definition of Hearsay: Out-of-court statements by the declarant, offered to prove

the truth of facts asserted in such out-of-court statement

4. Statements covered by the new hearsay rule:

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

24

 An oral or written assertion

 Non-verbal conduct of a person, if intended by him to be an assertion

5. When are out-of-court statements not deemed as hearsay: When the declarant testifies and
is subject to cross examination concerning the statement – even if the out-of-court
statements are:
 inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the
penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
 consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
 one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her.

6. DST MOVERS CORPORATION vs. PEOPLE’S GENERAL INSURANCE

CORPORATION (GR 198627, January 13, 2016) –

First Hand Knowledge Rule

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. - A witness can testify only to those
facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his or her own perception.

NOTES:

4. The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantial prerequisite for accepting

testimonial evidence.

5. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. ALBERTO, GR 194320, February 1, 2012

The SC ruled that the police report was admissible in evidence since the opposing party did
not timely object when the same was offered even without the testimony of the investigating
police officer. The respondents were not able to rebut the presumption of the doctrine res ipsa
loquitor by presenting their evidence.

6. ANNA LERIMA PATULA vs. PEOPLE, GR 164457, April 11, 2012

The SC ruled that the prosecution’s reliance on hearsay testimony and unauthenticated
documents rendered their evidence unreliable and untrustworthy.

7. Affidavits are hearsay evidence if not properly identified or authenticated

8. Independently relevant statements – These are statements which is relevant to the fact
in issue, independent of whether they are true or not. Hearsay testimony that are not
offered to prove the fact asserted but only for the fact such statement was made

Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought
to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

25

statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the

statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of
such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what
is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply
and the statement may be shown

9. JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a. DANILO ESPINELI vs. PEOPLE, GR 179535, June 9,

2014

EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE RULE

Section 38. Dying declaration. - The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his or her death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
(37a)

NOTES:

1. Known as ante-mortem statements

2. PEOPLE vs. UMAPAS (GR 215742, March 22, 2017) the SC ruled that a dying
declaration is admissible if it relates to the cause and the circumstance of death where the
declarant is conscious of his impending death.

DYING DECLARATIONS CAN ALSO BE DEEMED AS PARTS OF THE RES GESTAE

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

3. PEOPLE vs. PATRICK JOHN MERCADO, GR 218702, October 17, 2018

Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. – REQUISITES:

1. That the witness offered for examination are either of the following: (a) the party
plaintiff, or (b) assignor of party to a case, or (c) persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted
2. The case is against: (a) an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person, or (b) against a person of unsound mind
3. What the case is all about: The case is upon a claim or demand (a) against the estate of
such deceased person, or (b) against such person of unsound mind, or (c) against such
person who cannot testify
4. What the declaration was all about: That the testimony is given on any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind

Requirements before the statement of the deceased or person of unsound mind could be
received in evidence (s.39):

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

26

1. The deceased or person of unsound mind had personal knowledge of the things he said in
his declaration
2. The declarations were made when the matter was recently perceived by him or the
declarations were made when his recollection was clear

Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness. (s.39)

The new rules have removed the Dead Man Statute, or disqualification due to death of party

ANTE LITEM MOTAM – meaning, before suit was brought or before controversy; hence
the declarations in the following must be brought ante litem motam:
1. Declaration against interests
2. Declaration against pedigree
3. Declaration against family reputation
4. Declaration against common reputation

SEC.40 – Declaration against interest: REQUISITES:

1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. The declaration related to a fact against the interest of a declarant
3. That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was aware that the same was
contrary to his interest
4. The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true

Section 40. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to
exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate
the trustworthiness of the statement. (38a)

NOTES:
1. What is Declaration Against Interest? A statement that is against the maker's financial
interests or risk of legal liability to such an extent that no reasonable person would make
such a statement unless he/she believed it was true, thus qualifying such declarations as
exceptions from the hearsay rule.
 The declaration must be against the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary or penal
interest –
 Under s.40 when it is made against penal interest and it exposes the declarant to
criminal liability WHILE EXCULPATING THE ACCUSED, there must be
corroborating circumstances to indicate trustworthiness otherwise it is not admissible
2. Declarant is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit they are available only
when the declarant is unavailable as witness
3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADMISSION AND A DECLARATION AGAINST
INTEREST: An admission is simply the party's own statement offered against him or
her. In contrast, a declaration against interest must be against the interest of the
now unavailable declarant.

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

27

Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person deceased
or unable to testify, may be received in evidence – REQUISITES:
1. Declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is subject of inquiry
2. Such relationship may be shown by evidence other than the declaration
3. Declaration was made before death or inability of declarant to testify and made ante litem
motam
4. Declarant is dead or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines or unable to testify

What the declaration is all about (s.41):

1. In respect to the pedigree of another person related to him or her by birth, adoption, or
marriage or,
2. In respect to the pedigree of another person whose family he or she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or her pedigree

The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces
also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (s.41)

BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO vs. ARHBENCEL ANN LOPEZ, represented by her

mother ARACELI LOPEZ (G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010)

Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of
the family, either by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption. Entries in family bibles or other
family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as
evidence of pedigree. (40a)

DEFINITIONS:
1. Family reputation: This is a question of genealogy, as to questions relating to births,
marriages and deaths – true among immediate relatives and family connections of the
party to whom the inquiry relates.
2. Tradition: Knowledge, belief or practices, transmitted orally between generations

Section 43. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the

controversy, as to: (1) boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community and
reputation as to (2) events of general history important to the community, or (3) respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common reputation. (41a)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

28

NOTES:
1. Common reputation is equivalent to universal reputation
2. What is to be proven by common reputation – matters on the following:
 Marriage
 Moral character

Section 44. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, under the stress of
excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given
in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae. (42a)

TWO CLASSES OF RES GESTAE STATEMENTS:

1. Spontaneous exclamations: Statements made while: (a) a startling occurrence is taking
place, or (b) immediately prior to the startling occurrence, or (c) after the startling
occurrence - under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the
circumstances thereof
2. Verbal acts – statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue – giving it a
legal significance

Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A statement made by a child
describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay
rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the
following rules:

1. Hearing on motion required: Accused must be given a fair opportunity to object.

2. If the child is available, the court shall order the child to be present at the presentation of
the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party.
3. When the child is unavailable, such fact must be proved by the proponent:
 Child is deemed unavailable when deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of
memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or absent
and proponent is unable to procure his attendance
 In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the
time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability.
It shall consider the following factors: (a) motive to lie; (b) general character of the
child; etc
 When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted
only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

29

VERBAL ACT –

1. Utterances which accompany some act or conduct to which it is desired to give a legal
effect. When such act has intrinsically no definite legal significance, or only an
ambiguous one, its legal purport or tenor may be ascertained by considering the words
accompanying it, and these utterances thus enter merely as verbal part of the act.

 Example – a person points his thumb towards his neck and then utters the words,
“you better pray!”
 The mere pointing of his thumb, taken alone, means nothing. Same with the
statement, “you better pray.” But taken together, it means a threat to kill. The
statement, “you better pray” is the verbal act.

4. REQUIREMENT – Verbal act must be contemporaneous with or must accompany the

equivocal act to be admissible. Verbal act must have been made at the time, and not after,
the equivocal act was being performed, unlike spontaneous exclamations which may have
been made before, during or immediately subsequent to the startling occurrence.

5. Requisites for admissibility: For verbal acts to be admissible, it is required that:

 The res gestae or principal act to be characterized must be equivocal
 Such act must be material to the issue
 The statements must accompany the equivocal act
 The statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act

CASES:

1. PEOPLE vs. ERIC VARGAS and GINA BAGACINA, GR 230256, September 18,
2019

2. PEOPLE vs. PATRICK JOHN MERCADO, GR 218702, October 17, 2018

3. PEOPLE vs. ESTIBAL, GR 208749, November 26, 2014

Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. - A memorandum, report,

record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the
regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all
of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. (43a)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

30

LAND BANK vs. ONATE, GR 192371, January 15, 2014

Section 46. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance
of his or her duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (44a)

1. REQUIREMENTS:
 Entries were made by a public officer or anyone enjoined by law to do so
 That such person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must be
acquired personally or through official information

2. GROUNDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY:

 Necessity
 trustworthiness

3. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. ALBERTO, GR 194320, February 1, 2012

4. DST MOVERS CORPORATION vs. PEOPLE’S GENERAL INSURANCE

CORPORATION (GR 198627, January 13, 2016) –

Section 47. Commercial lists and the like. -Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein. (45)

NOTES:
1. Example: Nasdaq Composite, Nikkei 225 or Nikkei Stock Average
2. GROUNDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY: Necessity and Trustworthiness

Section 48. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of

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

GENEVIEVE ROSAL ARREZA vs. TETSUSHI TOYO, LCR of QC and CIVIL

REGISTRAR GENERAL (G.R. No. 213198, July 1, 2019)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

31

Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. - The testimony or deposition of

a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found
therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him or her.
(47a)

NOTES:
1. REQUISITES:
 The testimony was made in a former proceeding
 It was made between the same parties
 It relates to the same matter
 The adverse party has had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness
 The witness is dead or out of the country or cannot be found (with due diligence)
or is unavailable to testify

2. AMBRAY vs. TSOUROUS, et. al., GR 209264, July 5, 2016

Section 50. Residual exception. - A statement not specifically covered by any of the
foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is
admissible if the court determines that:
a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (
b) b) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (
c) c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be best served by
admission of the statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in
the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to
prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it.
including the name and address of the declarant. (n)

OPINION RULE

OPINION NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE (s.51) – EXCEPTIONS:

1. Expert witness (s.52)
2. Identity (s.53)
3. Handwriting (s.53)
4. Mental sanity (s.53)
5. Impressions of emotion, behavior, condition or appearance (s.53)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)

32

OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS (s.52) – special knowledge, skill, experience, training or

education – may be received in evidence

NOTES:

1. TORTONA vs. GREGORIO, G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018

2. DR. RUBI LI vs. SPS. SOLIMAN, GR 165279, June 7, 2011

3. DR. NOEL CASUMPANG vs. CORTEJO, GR 171127, March 11, 2015

CHARACTER EVIDENCE RULE

Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible to prove that a person acted in
conformity with a particular character – EXCEPT:

In Criminal Cases (character evidence of PARTY)

(1) Character of offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable
degree the probability, or improbability of the offense charged.

(2) Accused may prove his good moral character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged. But prosecution may only present character evidence on rebuttal.

In Civil Cases (character evidence of PARTY) - moral character of a party in a civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case

In both Criminal and Civil Cases – character evidence of WITNESS

(1) Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has
been impeached.
(2) In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible,
proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an
opinion.
 On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of
conduct.
(3) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a
charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's
conduct.

PEOPLE vs. FELAN (G.R. 176631, February 2, 2011)

Jay Nakao Notes – Evidence – Rule 130 (without cases)