`ST.

VINCENT COLLEGE OF CABUYAO Teaching Application

Mamatid, City of Cabuyao, Laguna
1. On-line interactions using different social media platforms including,
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
Bachelor of Science in Criminology but not limited to:
SECOND SEMESTER  Messenger;
 Power point presentations;
Arnold Dela Rosa Madriaga, RCrim, CSE (PD 907), NAPOLCOM Passer, JD (Units)
Police Staff Sergeant, CABCPS  Zoom;
Professor, SVCC  Skype; and
 others.
2. Limited face to face discussions and interactions
3. Activities with relevant instructions shall be given to students as a
form of research covering the Articles, as listed above, which
includes:
Course References  Definition of related words
1. Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act 3815);  Distinguishing course related doctrines, rules, and meaning
2. Case Laws;  Recitations
3. Special Laws; and  Quizzes
4. Other amendments. Major Exams
Method of Teaching  Prelim
1. Academic  Midterm
2. Socratic  Final
3. Synchronous and Asynchronous learning
EVIDENCE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128).
NOTE: Evidence is only the means of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. The truth would depend upon the evidence admitted in Court in accordance with the rules.

SCOPE OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE

Applicability of the Rules on Evidence
The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings. (Sec. 1, Rule 128)
NOTE: The Rules of Court shall not apply to: (NICOLE)
1. Naturalization Proceedings;
2. Insolvency Proceedings;
3. Cadastral Proceedings;
4. Other cases as may be provided by law;
5. Land Registration cases; and
6. Election cases

Principle of Uniformity
As a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be same in all courts and in all trials and hearing. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)

EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES vs. EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE

Evidence in Civil Case Evidence in Criminal Case

The party having the burden of proof must prove his The guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond
claim by a preponderance of evidence. reasonable doubt.
(Sec. 1, Rule 133) (Sec. 1, Rule 133)
An offer of compromise is not an admission of any The same may be received in evidence as an
liability, and not admissible in evidence against the admission of guilt except those involving quasi-
offeror. offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by
(Sec. 27, Rule 130) law to be compromised.
(Sec. 27, Rule 130)

PROOF vs. EVIDENCE

Proof Evidence
The result or effect of evidence (Jones on The medium or means by which a fact is proved
evidence, Volume 1, Fourth Edition, 4, p.5). Bare or disproved.
allegations unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof. (Domingo v. Robles, G.R. No.
153743, March 18, 2005)
FACTUM PROBANS vs. FACTUM PROBANDUM

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

The fact or proposition to be established The facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition
to be established.
The fact to be proved, the fact which is in issue and to The probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the
which the evidence is directed. fact in issue.
Ultimate Facts Intermediate or evidentiary facts
Hypothetical Existent

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence

1. The evidence is relevant to the issue; and

NOTE: It is relevant if “it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence” (Sec. 4, Rule 128).
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent).

NOTE: Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence.

Relevancy is an affair of logic, human experience and common sense while competency is determined by law.

Illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted because they are the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Examples of illegally obtained evidence are evidence obtained without a valid search warrant (this is however subject to
exceptions) (Under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution) (2010 Bar)
NOTE: This section could also be the answer to the question on the “two kinds of objection” that is the objection that the evidence is not relevant to the issue and secondly that is excluded by the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3)

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS

Relevancy of Evidence
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
Collateral matters
GR: Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed.

XPN: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of fact in issue.

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefor.
(Regalado, 2008)

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved
thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken out (Regalado, 2008).
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
It allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible
evidence. (Adams v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 865 S.W. 2d 748, 751 (Mo. App. 1993))

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Direct Evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact (Riano, 2016).
Circumstantial Evidence or indirect evidence proves a fact in issue indirectly through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established. (People v. Matito, G.R. No. 144405, February 24, 2004)

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and that tends to prove the same proposition. (Wyne v. Newman, 75 Va., 811, 817)
Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different character to the same point (Edwards v. Edwards, Tenn. App., 501 S.W. 2d 283. 289).

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Positive Evidence exists when the witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does not exist or that a certain event happened.
Negative evidence exists when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist. (Riano, 2016)
Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is accorded to evidence that is negative in character. (Republic vs Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, September 11, 2007)

COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. If the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence is the law or the rules. Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to
eligibility of an evidence to be received as such.

ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or rules. (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
NOTE: Admissible evidence is not necessarily credible evidence. Admissibility does not guarantee credibility. (Riano, 2016)
Credibility refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of belief. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p.330)

BURDEN OF PROOF AND BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

Burden of proof Burden of evidence

Burden of proof or “onus probandi” traditionally refers to Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests upon a party at
the obligation of a party to the litigation to persuade the any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his
court that he is entitled to relief favor or to overthrow one created against him.

Duty of a party to present evidence to establish his claim or Duty of the party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the
evidence by the amount of evidence required by law, which prima facie evidence against him. (Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-
is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. (Supreme 45137, September, 23, 1985)
Transliner, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 125356, November 21, 2001)

Does not shift and remains throughout the entire case The burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from party to
exactly where the pleadings originally placed it. party as the exigencies of the trial require. (Chamberlayne, Sec. 203,
108, 169)
Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party. Generally determined by the developments of the trial, or by the
provisions of substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve
the party from presenting evidence on the facts alleged.

Test for determining where the burden of proof lies

Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.

Equipoise rule or equiponderance doctrine

The Equipoise Doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs more heavily) (Rivera v. Court of Appeals January 23,
1998.)
It is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law (Sec. 1, Art III, Constitution of the Philippines.)

PRESUMPTIONS
These are inferences of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. (In the matter of the Intestate Estates of Delgado and Rustia, G.R. No. 175733, January 27, 2006)
NOTE: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption (Bautista, 2004, citing Mueller
and Kirkpatrick, §3.4.)

Presumption vs. Inference

Presumption Inference
It is mandated by law and establishes a legal relation It is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn
between or among the facts. from other facts (Riano, 2016).
Is a deduction directed by law. It is a permissive deduction (Francisco, 1996).

Effect of presumption
A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact
presumed. (Diesel Construction, Inc v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 154937, March 24, 2008)

Presumption of law vs. Presumption of fact

Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact

(Praesumptiones Juris) (Praesumptiones Hominis)
It is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be It is a deduction which reason draws from the facts proved
made from particular facts. without an express direction from law to that effect.
A certain inference must be made whenever the facts Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the
appear which furnish the basis of the inference. inference.
Reduced to fixed rules and forms a part of the system of Derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the
jurisprudence particular case by means of the common experience of
mankind
Need not be pleaded or proved if the facts on which Has to be pleaded and proved
they are based are duly averred and established

Kinds of presumptions of law

1. Conclusive presumptions (presumptions juris et de jure);
2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris tantum) (Rule 131; Regalado, 2008)

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
These are presumptions which are irrebuttable and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible. This presumption is in reality a rule of substantive law. (Riano, 2016)
Classes of conclusive presumptions
1. Estoppel in pais (Equitable Estoppel) – Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot,
in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it (Sec. 2, (par. a), Rule 131);

2. Estoppel by deed – A party to a property deed is precluded from asserting, as against another party to the deed, any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the deed
e.g. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Sec. 2 (par. b), Rule 131)

Distinguish estoppel from waiver

A waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right. It must be supported by an agreement founded upon a valid consideratipn. An equitable estoppel may arise however, in the absence of any
intention on the part of the person estopped to relinquish or change any existing right, and it need not be supported by any consideration, agreement, or legal obligation. (Francisco, 1996)

Basis of Estoppel in pais

It is founded upon principles of morality and fair dealing and is, intended to promote the ends of justice. It always presupposes error on one side and fault or fraud upon the other and some defect of which it would be equitable
forthe party against whom the doctrine is asserted to take advantage. (19 Am. Jur. 640-642; Francisco, 1996)

Effect of estoppel in pais

The effect of an estoppel in pais, is to prevent the assertion of what would otherwise be an unequivocal right or to preclude what would otherwise be a good defense. Such estoppel operates always as a shield, never as a sword.

Requisites of estoppel in pais

1. Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts; or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently
attempts to assert;
2. Intent, or at least, expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and
3. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. (Riano, 2016)

Requisites for estoppel

1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question;
2. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; and
3. Action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice. (Kalalo v. Luz, G.R. No. L-27782, July 31, 1970)

Other forms of estoppel akin to estoppel in pais:

1. Estoppel by silence - where a person, who by force of circumstances is under a duty to another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe in the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which he
acts to his prejudice. Silence may support an estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional or negligent (Pasion vs. Melegrito, G.R. No. 166558, March 28, 2007);
2. Estoppel by laches – is unreasonable delay to seek or to enfore a right at a proper time. A neglect to do something which one should do or to seek to enforce a right at a proper time;
3. Promissory estoppel- may arise from the making of a promise, even though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would be
virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice;
4. Estoppel on question of jurisdiction – A party is barred from assailing the legality of an order issued at his own motion since a person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong when such would work substantial
injury to the other party. (21 C.J. 1152, Francisco, 1996)

Estoppel by deed
The doctrine is founded in public convenience and policy, because it tends to encourage honesty and good faith between landlord and tenant. (32 Am. Jur. 109; Francisco, 1996)

Requisites of estoppel by deed

1. The recitals should be clear and unambiguous;
2. There should be distinct and precise admission of facts;
3. The deed must be delivered; and
4. That it must be a valid instrument. (Francisco, 1996)

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
Those which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 131)

Disputable presumptions under Section 3, Rule 131

1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question;

NOTE: It applies to both civil and criminal cases. Presumption of innocence of the accused accompanies him until the rendition of judgment and disappears after conviction, such that upon appeal, the appellate court will then presume
the guilt of the accused. The prosecution’s case must rise and fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. (People vs. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195, Dec. 10, 2008)

2. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;

3. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
NOTE:
GR: All people are sane and normal and moved by substantially the same motives. When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but
because that person has been defeated or overcome illegally. There must be a violation of the law. (Vales v. Villa, G.R. No. 10028, December 16, 1916)

XPN: When one of the parties is unable to read or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former. (Art. 1332, NCC)
5. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

Requisites:
a. The evidence is material;
b. The party had the opportunity to produce it; and
c. The evidence is available only to the said party.

The presumption will not be applicable when:

a. Suppression of evidence is not willful;
b. Evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative;
c. Evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and
d. Suppression is by virtue of an exercise of privilege.

6. Money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

7. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced;
10. A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
him;
11. That a person in possession of an order for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
12. Person acting in public office was regularly appointed or elected to it
13. Official duty has been regularly performed
14. A court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. All the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it;
16. All matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by them;
17. Private transactions have been fair and regular;
18. Ordinary course of business has been followed;
19. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
20. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
21. An endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated
22. A writing is truly dated;
23. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
24. Presumption of Death;
a. Absence of 7 years – It being unknown whether, the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession;
b. Absence of 10 years – The absentee shall be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession only after an absence of 10 years; and if he disappeared after the age of 75, absence of only 5 years is sufficient;
c. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of estate among the heirs:
i. Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
ii. Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for 4 years;
iii. Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for 4 years;
iv. If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; 2 years in case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided. Before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules
for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of re-appearance of the absent spouse.

25. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
26. Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary habits of life;
27. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-partnership;
28. A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
29. Property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained
by their joint efforts, work or industry;
30. In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and
their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal;
31. If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300 days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary;
32. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature;
33. The law has been obeyed;
34. A printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published;
35. A printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
36. A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption
is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
37. Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same calamity, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined
from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
38. That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof,
they shall be considered to have died at the same time (Sec. 3, Rule 131).

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

The rules of evidence must be liberally construed (Sec. 6, Rule 1). The Rules of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must
always be avoided if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial justice (Alcantara v. PCIB, G.R. No. 151349, October 20, 2010). Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to
frustrate substantial justice (Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128305, March 28, 2005 ). However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always
been required. (Barcenas v. Tomas, G.R. No. 150321, March 31, 2005)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) RULE 133

Weight of evidence
It is the probative value given by the court to particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue.
Degree of evidence required to disprove the prima facie case established by the party having the burden of proof
ierarchy of quantum of evidence
Sufficiency of evidence
In determining the sufficiency of evidence, what matters is not the number of witnesses but the credibility and the nature and quality of their testimonies. The testimony of a lone witness is sufficient to support a conviction if found
positive and credible. (Ceniza-Manantan v. People, G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (in relation to credibility of witness)

Literally, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus means “false in one thing, false in everything” (Dawson v. Bertolinin, 70 R.I. 325, 38 A.2d 765, 765). The doctrine means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully
false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness’ testimonies. (Hargrave v. Stockloss, 127 N.J.L. 262, 21 A.2d 820, 823)
The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the
testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. (People v. Negrosa, G.R. Nos. 142856-57, August 25, 2003)

Extrajudicial confession NOT sufficient ground for conviction

An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Sec. 3, Rule 133)

Alibi
It is a defense where an accused claims that he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense. It is one of the weakest defenses an accused may avail because of the facility with which it can be fabricated, just like a
mere denial (People v. Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003). When this is the defense of the accused, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence.

Out-of-court identification
It is a means of identifying a suspect of a crime and is done thru:
1. Show-ups: where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification;

NOTE: Eyewitness identification is often decisive of the conviction or acquittal of an accused. Identification of an accused through mug shots is one of the established procedures in pinning down criminals. However, to avoid
charges of impermissible suggestion, there should be nothing in the photograph that would focus attention on a single person. (People v. Villena, G.R. No. 140066, October 14, 2002)
2. Mug shots: where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect; or
3. Line-ups: where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. (People v. Claudio Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995)
NOTE: A police line-up is merely a part of the investigation process by police investigators to ascertain the identity of offenders or confirm their identification by a witness to the crime. Police officers are not obliged to assemble a police
line-up as a condition sine qua non to prove the identity of an offender. If on the basis of the evidence on hand, police officers are certain of the identity of the offender, they need not require any police line-up anymore. (Tapdasan, Jr. v.
People, G.R. No. 141344, November 21, 2002)

Corpus delicti
It is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the deceased or to the ashes of a burned building. The corpus delicti may be proven
by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physical evidence. (Rimorin v. People, G.R. No. 146481, April 30, 2003)

Elements of corpus delicti

1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and

2. A person’s criminal responsibility for the act. (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148919, December 17, 2002)

NOTE: The identity of the accused is not a necessary element of the corpus delicti.
Res ipsa loquitur
It literally means the thing speaks for itself. This doctrine provides that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances. Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
participation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care (Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999).

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind (Sec. 2, Rule 133).

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
It is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence”. It is a phrase
which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth, evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto (Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
Balmaceda, G.R. No. 158143, September 21, 2011).

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Substantial evidence applies to cases filed before the administrative or quasi-judicial bodies and which requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Sec. 5, Rule 133)
NOTE: In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. (Sec 17, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007)

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE (Sec. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (Sec. 5)

1)
Means that the evidence as a whole Is that amount of relevant evidence
adduced by one side is superior to that which a reasonable might mind accept
of the other as adequate to justify a conclusion
Applicable in civil cases Applicable in administrative cases or
quasi-judicial bodies

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

It is that degree of evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such
certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004)
XPN: Under Art. 1387, NCC, certain alienations of property are presumed fraudulent.

Frame up
Allegations of frame up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. For this claim to prosper the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that
government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. (People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012)

Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence

In assessing the evidentiary weight of electronic evidence, certain factors may be considered, like:
1. The reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified.
3. The integrity of the information and communication system.
4. The familiarity of the witnesses or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system.
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system.
6. Other factors which the courts may consider (Sec. 1, Rule 7, Rules on Electronic Evidence).

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Facts that need not be proved
1. Those of which the courts may take judicial notice (Rule 129);
2. Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
3. Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131);
4. Those that are disputably presumed but uncontradicted (Rule 131);
5. Immaterial allegations; and
6. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently alleged (Sec. 1, Rule 8).
7. Res ipsa loquitur

MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

Judicial notice
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without proof because they are supposed to be known to them. It is based on considerations of expediency and convenience. It displaces evidence, being
equivalent to proof. (Regalado, 2008

Function of judicial notice

Judicial Notice dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the evidence is designed to fulfill (Moran, 1980, citing Alzua vs. Johnson, G.R. No. 7317, January 31, 1912). Its function is to abbreviate litigation by
admission of matters that needs no evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence. (Riano, 2016)

Kinds of judicial notice

1. Mandatory – insofar as those matters enumerated under Sec. 1, Rule 129;
2. Discretionary – on matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their functions. (Sec. 2, Rule 129)

Mandatory Judicial Notice vs. Discretionary Judicial Notice

Mandatory Judicial Notice Discretionary Judicial Notice

Court is compelled to take judicial notice Court is not compelled to take judicial
notice
Takes place at court’s initiative May be at court’s own initiative or on
request of a party
No hearing Needs hearing and presentation of
evidence

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice, no motion or hearing is necessary for the court may take judicial notice of a fact.
DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE
When the matter is subject to discretionary judicial notice, a hearing is necessary before judicial notice is taken of a matter.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW OF NATIONS AND

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
Judicial notice of foreign laws
GR: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved (2005 Bar).
XPN: When said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court and such laws are:
1. Well and generally known;
2. Actually ruled upon in other cases before it; and none of the parties claim otherwise (PCIB v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 L-278896, March 29, 1974).

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that the
foreign law is same as ours. (ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal and Ministry of Public Health – Kuwait vs. Ma. Josefina Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010)

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
These are admissions, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which does not require proof. (Sec. 4, Rule 129)

Judicial admissions vs. Extrajudicial admissions

Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions

Those made in the course of the proceeding in the same case Those made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other
than the one under consideration
Do not require proof and may be contradicted only by Regarded as evidence and must be offered as such, otherwise
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the court will not consider it in deciding the case.
no such admission was made
(Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Judicial admissions need not be offered in evidence since it is Requires formal offer for it to be considered
not evidence. It is superior to evidence
and shall be considered by the court as established.

Conclusive upon the admitter Rebuttable

Admissible even if self-serving Not admissible if self-serving

Subject to cross-examination Not subject to cross-examination

Requisites of judicial admission

1. It must be made by a party to the case or his counsel;
2. It must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case; and
3. It can be verbal or written admission. (Regalado, 2008).

Different forms of judicial admission:

1. Verbal – Verbal waiver of proof made in open court, a withdrawal of contention, or disclosure made before the court, or admission made by witness in his testimony or deposition;
2. Writing – Pleading, bill of particulars, stipulation of facts, request for admission, or a judicial admission contained in an affidavit used in the case. (31 C.J.S 1069; Programme Inc. v. Province of Bataan, G.R. No. 144635, June 26,
2006)

EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. They do not require proof; and
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the parties (Ibid.).

NOTE: Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same (Solivio v. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990)

OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

Object as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130) (2005 Bar)
Object evidence, also known as real evidence, demonstrative evidence, autoptic preference and physical evidence, is that evidence which is addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130). It is not limited to the view of an object.
It covers the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch. (Riano, 2016)

Examples of object evidence

1. Any article or object which may be known or perceived using the senses;
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom;
3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments;
4. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question (e.g. maps, diagrams);
5. Documents, if the purpose is to prove their existence or condition, or the nature of the handwriting thereon or to determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations (Regalado, 2008); and
6. A person’s appearance, where relevant (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003).

Paraffin test
A test which can establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand but the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was discharge of a firearm.

NOTE: The paraffin test is merely corroborative evidence, neither proving nor disproving that a person did indeed fire a gun. The positive or negative results of the test can be influenced by certain factors such as the wearing
of gloves by the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind direction, etc. (People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008)

Polygraph test (Lie Detector Tests)

It is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the
questioner. (West’s Legal Thesaurus Dictionary, 1986)
A polygraph test operates on the principle that stress causes physiological changes in the body which can be measured to indicate whether the subject examination is telling the truth. (Riano, 2016)

CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

Categories of object evidence for purposes of authentication
1. Unique objects – Those that have readily identifiable marks (e.g. a caliber 40 gun with serial number XXX888);
2. Objects made unique – Those that are made readily identifiable (e.g. a bolo knife used to hack a victim which could be identified by a witness in court); and
3. Non-unique objects – Those which have no identifying marks and cannot be marked (e.g. drops of blood) (Riano, 2016).

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

Real evidence Demonstrative Evidence

Tangible object that played some actual role in the Tangible evidence that merely illustrates a matter of
matter that gave rise to the litigation importance in the litigation
Intends to prove that the object is used in the underlying Intends to show that the demonstrative object fairly
event represents or illustrates a real evidence
Illustration: Where a drawing is presented to illustrate
the relative positions of the protagonists and
witnesses to the killing, the foundation for demonstrative
evidence will normally consist of the testimony of an
eyewitness or investigator stating that the drawing was
indeed fairly represents the position of those present in
the event. (Francisco, 1996)

VIEW OF AN OBJECT OR SCENE

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (Sec 1, Rule 130)
Where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove, it is proper for the tribunal to go to the object in its place and there observe it (Francisco, 1996). An ocular inspection
conducted by the judge without the presence of the parties or due notice is not valid, as an ocular inspection is part of the trial. (Regalado, 2008, citing Adan vs. Abucejo-Luzano, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1298, August 3, 2000)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

MEANING OF 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 130).

Document
A document is a deed, instrument or other duly notarized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth. (Regalado, 2008)
NOTE: Any instrument notarized by a notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities required by law, is a public document. Pleadings filed in a case and in the custody of the clerk of court are public documents. All other
documents are private documents. (Bermejo vs. Barrios, G.R. No. L-23614, February 27, 1970)

Two categories of documentary evidence

1. Writings;
2. Any other material containing modes of written expressions – the material contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as proof of their contents. ( Riano, 2016)

BEST EVIDENCE RULE

MEANING OF THE RULE
GR: It provides that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.
XPNs: (LCNP)
1. When the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office (Sec. 3, Rule 130) (1997 Bar).

NOTE: Where the issue is only as to whether such a document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution or delivery (external facts), the best evidence rule does not apply
and testimonial evidence is admissible (Moran, 1980).
The Best Evidence Rule, applied to documentary evidence, operates as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot be inceptively be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court, except in the
four instances mentioned in Sec. 3 (Regalado, 2008).
Best Evidence Rule different from best evidence
The best evidence rule is often described as a misnomer. Despite the word “best,” the rule does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence. The term “best” has nothing to do with
the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence. More accurately, it is the “original document” rule, or primary evidence rule (1994 Bar, as
cited in Riano, 2016).
NOTE: The “Best evidence rule” does not refer to the exclusivity of the “best evidence” but rather allows exceptions in certain circumstances. It is a misnomer since it applies only to documentary evidence and not to other types of
evidence.

Collateral Facts Rule

A document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue involved in the case on trial need not be proved. Where the purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but merely to give coherence to, or to make
intelligible the testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original of the document need not be presented.

MEANING OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

1. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry;
2. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, including signed carbon copies, all such copies are equally regarded as originals; or

NOTE: When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the
sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others (Trans-pacific Industrial Supplies v. CA, G.R. No. 109172, August 19, 1994).

3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, including entries in journals and ledgers, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals (Sec. 4, Rule 130) (2001 Bar)

NOTE: Writings with identical contents made by printing, mimeographing, lithography and other similar methods executed at the same time are considered as original document. Thus, each newspaper sold in the stand is an
original. (Riano, 2016)

SECONDARY EVIDENCE
It refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. It is the class of evidence that is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable. It performs the same
functions as that of primary evidence. (EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. BF Corporation, G.R. Nos. 145842 & 145873, June 27, 2008; Francisco, 1992)

Intentional destruction of original document

Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who acted in good faith does not preclude the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof (Regalado, 2008).
Proof of loss or destruction
It may be proved by:
1. Any person who knew of such fact;
2. Anyone who, in the judgment of the court, had made sufficient examination in the places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document was and has been
unable to find it; or
3. Any person who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost.

NOTE: A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient, and this may be shown by a bona fide and diligent search, fruitlessly made, in places where it is likely to be found (Paylago v. Jarabe, G.R. No. L-20046, March 27, 1968).

Order of presentation of secondary evidence

Upon proof of its execution and loss of the original document, its contents may be proved by:
1. Copy of the original;
2. Recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document; or
3. By the testimony of witnesses. (Sec. 5, Rule 130)

NOTE: The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must strictly be followed. (Riano, 2016)
Who may prove the contents of a document?
1. Any person who signed the document;
2. Any person who read it;
3. Any person who heard when the document was being read;
4. Any person who was present when the contents of the document were talked over by the parties to such an extent as to give him reasonably full information of the contents; or
5. Any person to whom the parties have stated or confessed the contents thereof.

Definite Evidentiary Rule

Where the law specifically provides for the class and quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document, or bars secondary evidence of a lost document, such requirement is controlling, e.g. evidence of a lost
notarial will should consist of a testimony of at least two credible witnesses who can clearly and distinctly establish its contents. (Sec. 6, Rule 76; Regalado, 2008)

Waiver of the presentation or offer of the original

The presentation or offer of the original may be waived upon failure to object by the party against whom the secondary evidence is offered when the same was presented, as the secondary evidence becomes primary evidence.
But even if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value must still meet the various tests by which its reliability is to be determined. Its tendency to convince and persuade must be considered for admissibility of evidence
should not be confused with its probative value. (Heirs of Teodoro De la Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 117384, October 21, 1998)

When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control

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

When the original consists of numerous accounts

When the production of the original writings and their examination in court would result in great loss of time considering that the evidence desired from the voluminous accounts is only the general result of the whole. (Sec.
3(c), Rule 130)
NOTE: A witness may be allowed to offer a summary of a number of documents, or summary of the contents may be admitted if documents are so voluminous and intricate as to make an examination of all of them impracticable. They
may also be presented in the form of charts or calculations. (Riano, 2016)

When a document produced is not offered in evidence

If the party who calls for the production of a document does not offer the same in evidence, no unfavorable inference may be drawn from such failure. This is because a party who calls for the production of a document is not required to
offer it (Sec. 8, Rule 130).

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement. (Sec. 9, Rule130)

NOTE: Among the evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence rule that has direct application to the law on contracts. The rule applies only to contracts which the parties have decided to set forth in writing. Hence, parol evidence does not
apply to oral contracts. (Riano, 2016)

Parol evidence
It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document (Regalado, 2008). It may refer to testimonial, real or documentary
evidence.
NOTE: Parol evidence is evidence outside of the agreement of the parties while the parol evidence rule prevents the presentation of such parol evidence.

Rationale for the adoption of the parol evidence rule (2009 Bar)
It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only (Francisco, 1992). Spoken words could be
notoriously undesirable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language (Ortañez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107372, January 23, 1997) Moreover, it gives stability to written statements, removes the temptation and
possibility of perjury and prevents possible fraud.

APPLICATION OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Requisites for the application of the rule
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing. “Agreement” includes wills;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.

Application of the rule to wills

The Parol evidence rule applies to contractual obligations. However, the term “agreement” includes wills. Therefore, there can be no evidence of the terms of the will other than the contents of the will itself (Riano, 2016).
NOTE: While parol evidence applies to wills, an express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may not be proved by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code of the Philippines).

WHEN PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED

Exceptions to Parol Evidence Rule
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleadings the following: (IF-VE)
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
2. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties thereto; (2001 Bar)
3. Validity of the written agreement; or
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement (Sec. 9, Rule 130).

Mistake
The mistake contemplated is one which is a mistake of fact mutual to both parties (Bernardo, 2008, citing Gurango vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75290, November 4, 1992). Parol evidence may only be allowed, if any of the foregoing matters is put in
issue in the pleadings.
Kinds of ambiguities

Intrinsic or Latent Extrinsic or Patent Intermediate

On its face, the writing appears Ambiguity is apparent on the face Ambiguity consists in the
clear and unambiguous but there of the writing and requires that use of equivocal words
are collateral matters which make something be added to make the susceptible of two or more
the meaning uncertain meaning certain interpretation

Curable by evidence aliunde Cannot be cured by evidence Curable by evidence aliunde

aliunde because it is only
intrinsic ambiguity not extrinsic
ambiguity which serves as an
exception to the parol evidence
rule

Where the document refers to a Where the contract refers to an Use of terms such as
particular person or thing but unidentified grantee or does not “dollars” “tons” and
there are two or more persons particularly identify the subject “ounces”
having the same name or two or matter thereof such that, in either
more things to which the case the text does not disclose
description in the writing may who are or what is referred to
apply

Failure of the written agreement to express true intent of the parties

Parol evidence may be admitted to show the true consideration of the contract, or the want or illegality thereof, or the incapacity of the parties, or the fact that the contract was fictitious or absolutely simulated, or that there
was fraud in inducement (Regalado, 2008). Despite the meeting of the minds, the true agreement of the parties is not reflected in the instrument. (Riano, 2016).

NOTE: In an action for reformation of instrument under Art. 1359 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the real intention of the parties. An action for reformation presupposes that a
meeting of the minds exists between the parties, i.e., there is a contract between them although the instrument that evidences the contract does not reflect the true agreement of the parties by reason of, for instance, fraud or mistake
(Riano, 2016).

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE AND THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule

Presupposes that the original document is available in court The original document is not available or there is a dispute as to whether
said writing is original
Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement Prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original
document regardless of whether it varies the contents of the original
Applies only to documents which are contractual in nature including Applies to all kinds of writings
wills
Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the Can be invoked by any party to an action whether he has participated in
written agreement, their privies, or any party affected thereby like a the writing involved
cestui que trust
Waiver of the parol evidence rule
Failure to invoke the benefits of the rule constitutes as waiver of the rule. Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object (Riano, 2016).
Probative value
NOTE: However, even if the parol evidence is admitted, it does not mean that the court would give probative value to the parol evidence. Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative value or credibility (Riano, 2016).
Considering the agreement’s mistake, imperfection or supposed failure to express the parties’ true intent was successfully put in issue in the complaint, this case falls under the exceptions provided by Sec 9, Rule 130. Accordingly, the
testimonial and documentary parol evidence sought to be introduced, which attest to these supposed flaws and what they aver to have been the parties’ true intent, may be admitted and considered. However, this admission and
availability for consideration is no guarantee of how exactly the parol evidence adduced shall be appreciated by the court. They do not guarantee the probative value, if any, that shall be attached to them. (Paras v. Kimwa Construction
and Development Corp., G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015).

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION
It is the process of proving the due execution and genuineness of a document.

When authentication is NOT required

1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec. 21, Rule 132);
2. The writing is a public document or record (Sec. 19, Rule 132);

NOTE: A private document required by law to be recorded, while it is transformed into a public document by the “public record” thereof, is not included in this enumeration. Such recording does not make the private writing
itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication, i.e. birth certificate recorded in the NSO is a public record, but it is still a private document.

3. The writing is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or certified (Sec. 30, Rule 132);
4. The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly admitted or impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under oath; or
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

Public Document Private Document

What comprises it
All other writings are private (Sec. 19, Rule 132).
1. 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;
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein

(Sec. 19, Rule 132).

As to authenticity and admissibility as evidence

Admissible as evidence without need of further proof of its genuineness and due Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution execution and authenticity must first be proved.
As to person’s bound

Evidence even against third persons, of the fact which gave rise to its due execution Binds only the parties who executed them or their privies, insofar as due
and to the date of the latter execution and date of the document are concerned
As to validity of certain transactions
Certain transactions must be contained in a public document; otherwise they
will not be given any validity.
NOTE: Church registries of births, marriages and deaths are not no longer public writings nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved, as are all other
private writings in accordance with the rules. (Llemos v. Llemos, G.R. No. 150162, January 26, 2007).

WHEN A PRIVATE WRITING REQUIRES AUTHENTICATION; PROOF OF A PRIVATE WRITING

Who may prove the due execution and authenticity of private documents
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
2. By 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, i.e. ancient documents.
NOTE: In addition to the modes of authenticating a private document under Sec. 20, Rule 132, American Jurisprudence also recognizes the doctrine of self-authentication – where the facts in writing could only have been
known by the writer; and the rule of authentication by the adverse party – where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending to him and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is
offering as evidence (Regalado, 2008).
The testimony of a handwriting expert is not indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwritings in cases of forgery. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the
judge must conduct an examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. The opinions of handwriting experts are not binding upon courts, especially when the question involved
is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones (Pontaoe v. Pontaoe, G.R. Nos. 159585 & 165318, April
22, 2008).

WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF A PRIVATE WRITING IS NOT REQUIRED (ANCIENT DOCUMENTS)

1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec. 21, Rule 132);
2. The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly admitted or impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under oath;
3. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue.

Requisites of ancient document/authentic document rule

1. That the private document be more than 30 years old;
2. That it be produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
3. That it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion (Sec. 21, Rule 132).

NOTE: This rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine authenticity.

HOW TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING

1. It may be proved by any witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
2. By any person who is familiar or has acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person, his opinion as to the handwriting being an exception to the opinion rule under Secs. 48 & 50 of Rule 130;
3. By a comparison of the questioned handwriting from the admitted genuine specimens thereof; or
4. By expert witness (Secs. 20 & 22, Rule 132; Sec. 49, Rule 130).

NOTE: Sec. 22 of Rule 132 merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to a particular method (Lopez v. CA, et al., G.R. No. L-31494, January 23, 1978).

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE; PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD

Proof of public records
Written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, e.g. a written foreign law, may be evidenced by:

1. If it is within the Philippines:

a. An official publication thereof; or

b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.

2. If it is kept in a foreign country:

a. An official publication thereof; or

b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record or by his deputy and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec.
24, Rule 132). (2009 Bar)

NOTE: Upon failure to comply with the above-mentioned requirements, courts will apply the doctrine of processual presumption.

Inspection of Public Record

GR: Any public record must not be removed from the office in which it is kept.
XPN: Upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case (Sec. 26, Rule 132).
Probative value of documents consisting of entries in public records
They are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein if entered by a public officer in the performance of a duty. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and
of the date of the latter (Sec. 23, Rule 132).

NOTE: A special power of attorney executed and acknowledged before a notary public in a foreign country authorizing a person to file a suit against certain persons in the Philippines is not admissible in evidence because a notary public
in a foreign country is not one of those who can issue the certificate mentioned in Sec. 24, Rule 132 of Rules of Court. Non-compliance with the said rule will render the SPA inadmissible in evidence. Not being duly established in
evidence, the SPA cannot be used to file a suit in representation of another. The failure to have the SPA authenticated is not a mere technicality but a question of jurisdiction (Heirs of Medina v. Natividad, G.R. No. 177505, November 27,
2008).

ATTESTATION OF A COPY
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance:
1. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be;
2. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court (Sec. 25, Rule 132).

PUBLIC RECORD OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Proof of public record of a private document
1. By the original record; or
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody (Sec. 27, Rule 132).

PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD

Proof of lack of record of a document consists of written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy. The written statement must contain the following matters:
1. There has been a diligent search of the record;
2. That despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office.

NOTE: The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody of official records (Sec. 28, Rule 132). (2003 Bar)

HOW A JUDICIAL RECORD IS IMPEACHED

Impeachment of a judicial record: (WCF) (2009 Bar)
1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
2. Collusion between the parties (e.g. legal separation, annulment cases); or
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings (Sec. 29, Rule 132).

NOTE: Fraud refers to extrinsic fraud, which is a ground for annulment of judgment.

PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS

Notarial documents
Documents acknowledged before a notary public is considered a public document and enjoy the presumption of regularity.
The document may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved (Sec. 30, Rule 132).

NOTE: The identification documents which may be presented as “competent evidence of identity” by signatories to documents or instruments to be notarized include, but are not limited to: passports, driver’s licenses, Professional
Regulations Commission (PRC) identification cards, NBI clearances, police clearances, postal IDs, voter’s IDs, Barangay certifications, GSIS e-cards, SSS cards, Philhealth cards, senior citizen’s cards, Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) IDs, OFW IDs, seaman’s books, alien certificate of registrations/immigrant certificate of registrations, government office IDs, certifications from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
and DSWD certifications.

Evidentiary weight of a notarial document

A Notarial document celebrated with all the legal requisites under a notarial certificate is evidence of a high character, and to overcome its recitals, it is incumbent upon the party challenging it to prove his claim with clear and
convincing evidence.
A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and it has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so strong and convincing as to exclude
all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies on the one contesting the same (Pan Pacific
Industrial Sales Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 125283, August 9, 2005).

HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT

A party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration:
1. Was made by another, without his concurrence;
2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
NOTE: Failure to do at least one of the above will make the document inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 31, Rule 132).

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino (Sec. 33, Rule 132).

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

It is sometimes called viva voce evidence which literally means “living voice” or by word of mouth. In this kind of evidence, a human being (witness) is called to the stand, is asked questions, and answers the question asked of
him (Riano, 2016).

QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification (Sec. 20, Rule 130) .

NOTE: The number of witnesses does not determine the outcome of the case. In a case of rape, the Supreme Court has held that positive identification will prevail over the defense of alibi, the latter being considered as a
weaker defense since it can be easily fabricated.
Presumption of competency of a witness
GR: A person who takes the witness stand, is presumed to be qualified to testify. A party who desires to question the competence of a witness must do so by making an objection as soon as the facts tending to show
incompetency are apparent (Jones on Evidence, Vol. 3, Sec. 796).
A prospective witness must show that he has the following abilities:
1. To observe – The testimonial quality of perception;
2. To remember – The testimonial quality of memory;
3. To relate – The testimonial quality of narration; and
4. To recognize a duty to tell the truth – The testimonial quality of sincerity (Herrera, 1999).
XPNs: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following:
1. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
2. That one is an inmate of an asylum. (Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772)
Time when the witness must possess the qualifications
The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time said witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their depositions (Regalado, 2008).
Who may be witnesses
All persons who:
1. Can perceive and in perceiving;
2. Can make known their perception to others (Sec. 20, Rule 130);
NOTE: The ability to make known the perception of the witness to the court involves two factors: (a) the ability to remember what has been perceived; and (b) the ability to communicate the remembered perception. If he
cannot remember what he perceived, he cannot be a competent witness (Riano, 2016).
3. Must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132; Riano, 2016); and
4. Must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules (Riano, 2016).

COMPETENCY vs. CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS

Competency of Witness Credibility of Witness

Refers to a witness who can perceive, and in perceiving, can Refers to a witness whose testimony is believable
make known his perception to others
Is a matter of law or a matter of rule Refers to the weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the
It also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications testimony
imposed upon a witness.

NOTE: GR: Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit, being
taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate.
XPN: The credibility of witnesses will be impaired if:
1. The omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident that one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention; or
2. When the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.

The point of inquiry is whether the omission is important or substantial (People vs. Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994).

Credibility of a witness
A testimony must not only come from a credible witness, but must be credible in itself, tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years (People vs.
Mirandilla Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011).
NOTE: Mental unsoundness of the witness which occurred at the time of taking his testimony, affects only his credibility. Nevertheless, as long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent
answers to questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-minded or is a mental retardate or is a schizophrenic (People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-39087, Apr. 27, 1984; People v. Gerones, G.R. No. 91116, Jan.
24, 1991; People v. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000).

Findings on the credibility of a witness

GR: The determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor and bodily movements. The findings of the trial court with respect to the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect, and even finality. (Llanto v. Alzona, G.R. No. 150730, January 31, 2005)
XPNs:
1. The lower court has reached conclusions that are clearly unsupported by evidence; or
2. It has overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which, if considered, would affect the result of the case (People vs. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, April 30, 2003).