Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SCOPE
CLASSIFICATION
EVIDENCE COMPARED
TO PROOF
• It is the result or effect of evidence; when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular
fact has been duly admitted and given weight,
the result is called the proof of such fact.
3) JUDICIAL – One made in connection with an admission of any liability, and is not
a judicial proceeding in which it is offered; admissible against the offeror.
EXTRAJUDICIAL – Any admission other 2) In criminal cases – An offer of compromise by
than judicial (e.g. Rule 130, Sec 26 and the accused may be received in evidence as an
32). implied admission of guilt.
• General rule: Any act/declaration/omission of • Exception:
a party as to a relevant fact may be given in a) In cases involving quasi-offenses
evidence against him. [Rule 130, Sec. 26] (criminal negligence);
b) Those allowed by law to be
compromised.
Admission Confession
Merely a statement of fact Involves an • An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
acknowledgement of hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
guilt/liability injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
Maybe express or tacit Must be express
civil/criminal liability for the injury.
- Flight from justice is an - The silence of an accused
• A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
admission by conduct and under custody or his failure unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
circumstantial evidence of to deny statements by offense, is not admissible in evidence against
consciousness of guilt. another implicating him in the accused who made the plea/offer.
[US v. Sarikala] a crime cannot be • In cases of public crimes, the accused is
considered as a tacit permitted to show that the offer was not made
confession of his under a consciousness of guilt but merely to
participation in the
avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment of for
commission of the crime.
[People v. Alegre (1979)]
some other reason which would justify a claim
Maybe made by 3rd Can be made only by the by the accused that the offer was not in truth
parties, and in certain party himself and are an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid
cases, admissible against admissible against his co- the legal consequences which would ordinarily
a party accused in some instances ensue therefrom. [People vs. Godoy (1995)]
• A plea of forgiveness may be considered as
analogous to an attempt to compromise.
Admission Self-serving testimony [People vs. De Guzman (1996)]
Made against the interest Made in favor of the • An offer to compromise does not require that a
of the person who interest of the person criminal complaint be first filed before the offer
admitted making the statement can be received as evidence against the
Made in anticipation of
offeror. [People vs. Yparriguirre (1997)]
future litigation
Admissible in evidence Not admissible in evidence
e. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA [Rule 130,
- Admissible not only Sec. 28]
against the party who
made it or his successors-
• Definition: The rights of a party cannot be
in-interest, but also
against 3rd persons.
prejudiced by an act/declaration/omission of
[Viacrucis v. CA (1986)] another. (1st branch of the res inter alios acta
rule)
• Only the admissions of a party-litigant are
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
admissible as substantive evidence. Those of
• Requisites
non-party witnesses may be admitted for
1) The statement was made extra-judicially;
impeachment purposes only.
• It does not include the party’s
• An admission by a 3rd-party cannot bind a
testimony as a witness in court. [Co v.
party-litigant because such 3rd-party admission
CA (1980)]
would be res inter alios acta and therefore
2) The statement is in favor of the declarant’s
hearsay.
interest;
• Extra-judicial statements of an accused
3) The statement was made in anticipation of
implicating a co-accused may not be utilized
future litigation
against the latter.
• Where the statement was not made in
• Exception: [People v. Raquel (1996)]
anticipation of a future litigation, it is
(1) The co-accused impliedly acquiesced in
not self-serving. [Korisu v. Rizal
or adopted the confession by not
Cement] questioning its truthfulness;
(2) The accused persons voluntarily and
ADMISSION BY SILENCE [Rule 130, Sec. 32]
independently executed identical
• An act/declaration made in the presence and
confessions without collusion and
within the hearing/observation of a party who
without contradiction by the others
does/says nothing when the act/declaration is
present;
such as naturally to call for action/comment if
(3) The accused admitted the facts after
not true, and when proper and possible for him
being apprised of the confession;
to do so, may be given in evidence against
(4) If they are charged as co-conspirators
him.
of the crime which was confessed by 1
• The rule does not apply if the statements
of the accused and the confession is
adverse to the party were made in the course
used only as a corroborating evidence;
of an official investigation. [US v. De la Cruz]
(5) The confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of
d. COMPROMISE [Rule 130, Sec. 27] participation by the co-conspirator;
(6) The confessant testified for his co-
1) In civil cases – An offer of compromise is not defendant;
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible of which is not based on the personal
to prove that he did or did not do the same or knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge
similar thing at another time. (2nd branch of of some other person not on the witness stand.
res inter alios acta rule) [Rule 130, Sec. 34] • Rationale: The party against whom such
• Exception: But that evidence may be hearsay evidence is presented is deprived of his
received to prove a specific intent or right and opportunity to cross-examine the
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, persons to whom the statements or writings
habit, custom or usage and the like. are attributed.
• Previous acts of negligence is • General rule: A witness testify only as to
admissible to show knowledge or those facts which he knows of his personal
intent. [US v. Pineda] knowledge.
• An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of • PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE – Those derived
money or to deliver a written instrument or from his own perception, i.e. his 5 sense
specific personal property is, if rejected without (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production • Witnesses can testify only with regard to
and tender of the money/instrument, or facts of which they have personal
property. [Rule 130, Sec. 34] knowledge. Testimonial or documentary
• It is merely an evidentiary complement to evidence is hearsay if it is based, not on
the rule on tender of payment. [Art. 1256, the personal knowledge of the witness, but
CC] on the knowledge of some other person not
on the witness stand. Consequently,
CHARACTER [Rule 130, Sec. 51; Rule 132, Sec. hearsay evidence -- whether objected to or
14] not -- has no probative value unless the
• General rule: Character evidence is not proponent can show that the evidence falls
admissible. within any of the exceptions to the hearsay
• Exception: rule, as provided in the ROC. [Mallari v.
1) In criminal cases: People (2004)]
a) Accused – May prove his good • The hearsay evidence rule applies also to
moral character which is pertinent affidavits when the supposed affiant never
to the moral trait involved in the identified the affidavit and there was no
offense charged. opportunity for the prosecution to cross-
b) Prosecution – May not prove the examine him/her. [People v. Brioso (1971)]
bad moral character of the accused, • The testimony of a witness regarding a
except in rebuttal. statement made by another person, if
c) Offended Party – His/her good or intended to establish the truth of the facts
bad moral character may be proved asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay
if it tends to establish in any evidence. It is otherwise if the purpose is
reasonable degree the merely to establish the fact that the
im/probability of the offense statement was made, or the tenor of such
charged. statement. [People v. Cusi (1965)]
• Victim’s good/bad moral • The testimony of a witness on the
character is not necessary in a confession made to him by the accused is
crime of murder where the not hearsay. He is testifying to a fact
killing is committed through which he knows of his personal knowledge
treachery or premeditation. (was testifying to the fact that the accused
[People v. Soliman (1957)] told him that he stabbed the victim) and
2) In civil cases: not to the truth of the statement of the
• Moral character is admissible only accused. [People v. Gaddi (1989)]
when pertinent to the issue of • Newspaper clippings or facts published in
character involved in the case. the newspapers are hearsay and have no
[Rule 130, Sec. 51] evidentiary value unless substantiated by
• Evidence of the witness’ good persons with personal knowledge of said
character is not admissible until facts. [People v. Aguel (1980)]
such character has been • 2 main requisites for evidence not to be
impeached. [Rule 130, Sec. 14] hearsay: [Gulam v. Sps. Santos (2006)]
• It is admissible when it is otherwise 1) It must be based on personal knowledge;
relevant, as when it tends to 2) There must be opportunity for cross-
identify defendant as the examination by the adverse party.
perpetrator and tends to show is • The hearsay rule covers all types of evidence
presence at the scene of the crime (oral, documentary and object). [Valencia v.
or in the vicinity of the crime at the Cabigting (1991)]
time charged, or when it is
evidence of a circumstance CHILD WITNESS RULE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
connected with the crime. [People [Sec. 28, AM 00-4-07-SC]
vs. Irang (1937)] 1) Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act
or attempted act of sexual abuse may now be
IV. HEARSAY RULE admitted in any criminal proceeding subject to
certain prerequisites and the adverse party’s
right to cross-examine.
A. TESTIMONIAL 2) The admissibility of such hearsay statements
shall be determined by the court in light of
KNOWLEDGE specified subjective and objective
considerations which provide sufficient indicia
• HEARSAY - Any evidence the probative value or reliability of the child witness.
legal duty to submit the same. [Salmon, Dexter [Rule 130, Sec. 49]
& Co. v. Wijangco] • There is no precise requirement as
• Such record is prima facie evidence, if the to the mode in which
person made the entries in his professional skill/experience shall have been
capacity or in the performance of duty and in acquired. Scientific study and
the ordinary or regular course of business or training are not always essential to
duty the competency of a witness as an
• The report submitted by a police officer in the expert. Knowledge acquired by
performance of his duties on the basis of his doing is no less valuable than that
own personal observation of the facts reported, acquired by study. [Dilag Co. v.
may properly be constituted as an exception. Merced (1949)]
[Caltex v. Africa (1966)] • Polygraph test has not as yet
• Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive attained scientific acceptance as a
proof of the truth of such entries. [People vs. reliable and accurate means of
Cabuang (1993)] ascertaining truth or deception.
• Baptismal certificates or parochial records of [People vs. Adoviso (1999)]
baptism are not official records. [Fortus v. 2) Ordinary witness: If proper basis is
Novero (1968)] given, and regarding: [Rule 130, Sec.
50]
9. COMMERCIAL LISTS [Rule 130, a) Identity of a person about whom he
Sec. 45] has adequate knowledge;
b) Handwriting with which he has
• Evidence of statements of matters of interest to sufficient familiarity;
persons engaged in an occupation contained in c) Mental sanity of a person with
a list/register/periodical or other published whom he is sufficiently acquainted;
compilation, is admissible as tending to prove d) Impressions of the
the truth of any relevant matter so stated if emotion/behavior/condition/appear
that compilation is published for use by persons ance of a person.
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
• A published treatise/periodical/pamphlet on a
subject of history/law/science/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/pamphlet is recognized in
his profession/calling as expert in the subject.
1) Existence and territorial extent of states; which would have required no proof. It
2) Their political history; becomes merely an extra-judicial admission
3) Their forms of government; requiring a formal offer in order to be
4) Their symbols of nationality; admissible. [Torres v. CA (1984)]
5) The law of nations;
6) Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and C. BURDEN OF PROOF
their seals;
7) Political constitution and history of the
• Definition: Duty of a party to present evidence
Philippines;
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
8) Official acts of the legislative, executive and
claim/defense by the amount required by law.
judicial departments of the Philippines
[Rule 131, Sec. 1]
• Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
• The test for determining where the burden of
laws. [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales (1988)]
proof lies is to ask which party to an action/suit
• General rule: Courts are not mandated to
will fail if he offers no evidence competent to
take judicial notice of municipal ordinances.
show the facts averred as the basis for the
[City of Manila v. Garcia (1967)]
relief he seeks to obtain, and based on the
• Exception: If the charter of the
result of an inquiry, which party would be
concerned city provides for such judicial
successful if he offers no evidence. [Republic v.
notice.
Vda. De Neri (2004)]
• General rule: Courts cannot take judicial
• General rule: All facts in issue and relevant
notice of the contents/records of other
facts must be proven by evidence.
cases even if both cases may have been
• Exception: [Republic v. Vda. De Neri
tried or are pending before the same judge.
(2004)]
[Prieto v. Arroyo (1965)]
1) Allegations contained in the
• Exception: The case clearly referred to
complaint/answer immaterial to the
or the original or part of the records of
issues;
the case are actually withdrawn from
2) Facts which are admitted or which are
the archives of that case and admitted
not denied in the answer, provided they
as part of the record of the case
have been sufficiently alleged;
pending when: [Tabuena v. CA (1991)]
3) Those which are the subject of an
a) There is no objection from adverse
agreed statement of facts between the
party even with his knowledge
parties, as well as those admitted by
thereof;
the party in the course of the
b) It is at the request or with the
proceedings in the same case;
consent of the parties.
4) Facts which are the subject of judicial
9) Laws of nature;
notice;
10) Measure of time;
5) Facts which are legally presumed;
11) Geographical divisions.
6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of
the opposite party.
WHEN DISCRETIONARY [Rule 129, Sec. 2]
TRANSCRIPT
• TSN shall be made by the official stenographer/
stenotypist/recorder. He shall certify it as
correct, and it shall be deemed prima facie a
VII. PRESENTATION OF correct statement of the proceedings.
• That a judge did not hear a case does not
EVIDENCE necessarily render him less competent in
assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can
rely on the TSN of their testimony and calibrate
A. EXAMINATION OF them in accordance with their conformity to
common experience, knowledge and
WITNESS observation of ordinary men. Such reliance
does not violate substantive and procedural
MANNER OF EXAMINATION [Rule 132, Sec. due process of law. [People v. Cadley (2004)]
ORDER OF EXAMINATION [Rule 132, Sec. 4] • After both sides have concluded the
examination of a witness, he cannot be recalled
without leave of court. The court will grant or
DIRECT EXAMINATION withhold leave in its discretion as the interests
[Rule 132, Sec. 5] of justice may require.
• Examples of grounds for recalling a witness:
• Examination-in-chief of a witness by the [People v. Rivera (1991)]
party presenting him, on the facts • Particularly identified material points were
relevant to the issue.
not covered in the cross-examination;
• Particularly described vital documents were
not presented to the witness;
• The cross-examination was conducted in so
inept a manner as to result in a virtual
absence thereof.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
[Rule 132, Sec. 6] LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
[Rule 132, Sec. 10]
• When conducted: Upon the termination
of the direct examination.
• Matters covered: Witness may be cross- • MISLEADING QUESTIONS – Questions that
examined by the adverse party: assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the
1) As to any matter stated in the witness, or contrary to that which he has
direct examination, or connected previously stated. They are not allowed.
therewith, with sufficient fullness • LEADING QUESTIONS – Questions that
and freedom to test his accuracy suggest to the witness the answer which the
and truthfulness and freedom from
examining party desires.
interest or bias, or the reverse;
2) To elicit all important facts bearing
• General rule: Leading questions are not
upon the issue. allowed.
• Exception:
1) On cross examination;
2) On preliminary matters;
3) When there is a difficulty is getting
direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
• It is usual and proper for the court
to permit leading questions in
conducting the examination of a
witness who is immature; aged and
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION infirm; in bad physical condition;
[Rule 132, Sec. 7] uneducated; ignorant of, or
unaccustomed to, court
• When conducted: After the cross- proceedings; inexperienced;
examination of the witness has been
concluded.
1 0 0 % U•P L AWhy
W conducted: To explain or UP BAROPS 2008 Page 81 of 227
supplement his answers given during
the cross-examination.
• On re-direct-examination, the court
in its discretion may allow questions
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW
HOW TO PROVE PUBLIC RECORDS [Rule 132, Sec. IRREMOVABILITY OF RECORD [Rule 132, Sec. 26]
24] • Any public record, an official copy of which is
1) By an official publication thereof; admissible in evidence, must not be removed
2) By a copy attested by the officer having the from the office in which it is kept, except upon
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, order of a court where the inspection of the
and accompanied: record is essential to the just determination of
• If the record is not kept in the Philippines, a pending case.
with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. PROBATIVE VALUE [Rule 132, Sec. 23]
• If the record is in a foreign country, the • Documents consisting of entries in public
certificate may be made by a secretary of records made in the performance of duty by a
the embassy/legation, consul-general, public officer are prima facie evidence of the
• The defect caused by the absence of formal Documentary Offeror may have the same
offer of exhibits can be cured by the attached or made part of the
identification of the exhibits by testimony duly record
recorded and the incorporation of the said Testimonial Offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal
exhibits in the records of the case. [People v.
circumstances of the witness
Mate (1981)] and the substance of the
proposed testimony
2. OBJECTIONS [Rule 132, Sec. 36]
• Documents marked as exhibits during the
What to object to When to object hearing but which were not formally offered in
Testimonial evidence Immediately after offer is evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor
made shall they have evidentiary value. [Vda. De
Question propounded in As soon as the grounds Flores v. WCC (1977)]
the course of oral become reasonably
examination apparent
Identification of Formal offer of
Offer done in writing Within 3 days after notice
documentary evidence exhibit
of the offer, unless a
• Done in the course of the • Done only when
different period is allowed
trial and is accompanied the party rests
by the court
by the marking of the his/her case
The grounds for objection must be specified in any
evidence
case.
• That a document has
been identified does not
WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION IS mean that it will be
UNNECESSARY [Rule 132, Sec. 37] offered
• When it becomes reasonably apparent in the [Interpacific Transit v. Aviles (1990)]
course of the examination of a witness that the
questions being propounded are of the same
class as those to which objection has been
made, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled.
• It shall be sufficient for the adverse party to
record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.
• A court may, motu proprio, treat the objectin
as a continuing one. [Keller v. Ellerman &
Bucknall Steamship]
preponderance of evidence. [Habagat Grill v. the facts to which they testify. [Habagat Grill v.
DMC Urban (2005)] DMC Urban (2005)]
• In determining preponderance, the court may • Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is
consider: concerned, the prosecution or the private
1) All the facts and circumstances of the case; complainant is burdened to adduce
2) The witnesses’ manner of testifying; preponderance of evidence or superior weight
3) Their intelligence; of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by
4) Their means and opportunity of knowing the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by
the facts to which they testify; the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment
5) The im/probability of their testimony; if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his
6) Their interest or want of interest; cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the
7) Personal credibility so far as the same may strength of his own evidence and not upon the
legitimately appear upon the trial; weakness of that of the defendants’. [Quinto v.
8) Number of witnesses (although Andres (2005)]
preponderance is not necessarily equated
with the number of witnesses). SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
(ADMINISTRATIVE CASES) [Rule 133, Sec. 5]
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
(CRIMINAL CASES) [Rule 133, Sec. 2] • Definition: The amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as
• Definition: That degree of proof which adequate to support a conclusion.
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It
does not mean such a degree of proof as, EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS [Rule 133,
excluding the possibility of error, produces Sec. 3]
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
required – that degree of proof which produces • General rule: An extra-judicial confession
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. made by an accused, is not a sufficient ground
• General rule: Findings of the judge who tried for conviction.
the case and heard the witnesses are not to be • Exception: When corroborated by
disturbed on appeal, unless there are evidence of the actual commission of a
substantial facts and circumstances which have particular crime (corpus delicti).
been overlooked and which, if properly
considered, might affect the result. [People v. CORPUS DELICTI
Cabrera (1990)] • Corpus delicti is not synonymous with the
• Exception: The rule does not apply when whole charge so as to require that all the
the issue revolved on the identification of elements of the crime be established
the accused or credibility of witness and independently of the extra-judicial confession.
one judge heard the testimony and a [People v. Comendador (1980)]
different judge penned the decision. • Elements:
[People v. Escalante (1984); People v. CA 1) The existence of a certain act or result
(2000)] forming the basis of the criminal charge;
• Rationale: The latter judge is not in a 2) The existence of a criminal agency as the
better position than the appellate cause of the act or result.
courts to make the determination. • In murder, the fact of death is the corpus
• The number of witnesses should not in and by delicti. [People v. Garcia]
itself determine the weight of evidence. • Where there is doubt as to the identity of a
However, the numerical factor may be cadaver, in the absence of any other evidence,
considered in case of conflicting testimonies. there is no corpus delicti. [People v. Mutuc
[Caluna v. Vicente (1951)] (1984)]
• The testimony of the offended party is not
essential to convict an accused if there are
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE [Rule 133, Sec.
already other evidence to prove guilt. [People
4]
v. Juliada].
• Inconsistencies/contradictions on details do not
• Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be
materially impair the credibility of such witness,
sufficient for conviction:
but on the contrary are indications of veracity
1) There is more than 1 circumstance;
rather than prevarication. [People v. Vinas
2) The facts from which the inferences are
(1968)]
derived are proven;
• The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
3) The combination of all the circumstances is
is not absolute. The court may accept or reject
such as to produce a conviction beyond
portions of the witness’ testimony depending
reasonable doubt.
on the inherent credibility thereof or the
• Under the RPC, one cannot be convicted of
corroborative evidence in the case. [People v.
treason by means of circumstantial evidence.
Baao (1986)]
[Art. 114, RPC]
• In criminal cases in which the quantum of
evidence required is greater than in civil cases,
the testimony of only one witness - if credible, WHEN COURT MAY STOP INTRODUCTION
straightforward and worthy of belief - is OF FURTHER TESTIMONY [Rule 133, Sec. 6]
sufficient to convict. Under Rule 133, Sec. 1,
among the facts and circumstances to be • Upon any particular point when the evidence
considered by the court in determining which of upon it is already so full that more witnesses to
the presented evidence has superior weight is the same point cannot be reasonably expected
the witnesses’ means and opportunity to know to be additionally persuasive. This power
1) The electronic signature is that of the person to authenticity must be proved by any of the
whom it correlates; following means: [Rule 5, Sec. 2, REE]
2) The electronic signature was affixed by that 1) By evidence that it had been digitally
person with the intention of authenticating or signed by the person purported to have
approving the electronic document to which it signed the same;
is related or to indicate such person’s consent 2) By evidence that other appropriate security
to the transaction embodied therein; procedures/devices as may be authorized
3) The methods or processes utilized to affix or by the SC or by law for authentication of e-
verify the electronic signature operated without documents were applied to the document;
error or fault. 3) By other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO • A document electronically notarized in
DIGITAL SIGNATURES [Rule 6, Sec. 4, REE] accordance with the rules promulgated by the
1) The information contained in a certificate is SC shall be considered as a public document
correct; and proved as a notarial document under the
2) The digital signature was created during the ROC. [Rule 5, Sec. 3, REE]
operational period of a certificate;
3) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF E-DOCUMENTS [Rule 7,
revocable; Sec. 1, REE]
4) The message associated with a digital signature • Factors for assessing evidentiary weight:
has not been altered from the time it was 1) The reliability of the manner/method in
signed; which it was
5) A certificate had been issued by the generated/stored/communicated, including
certification authority indicated therein. but not limited to input and output
procedures, controls, tests and checks for
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT [Rule 2, Sec. 1(h), accuracy and reliability of the electronic
REE] data message or document, in the light of
all the circumstances as well as any
• It is the functional equivalent of paper-based relevant agreement;
documents. [Rule 3, Sec. 1, REE] 2) The reliability of the manner in which its
• It is admissible in evidence if it complies with originator was identified;
the rules on admissibility prescribed by the 3) The integrity of the information and
ROC and related laws and is authenticated in communication system in which it is
the manner prescribed by the REE. [Rule 3, recorded/stored, including but not limited
Sec. 2, REE] to the hardware and computer programs or
• The confidential character of a privileged software used as well as programming
communication is not lost solely on the ground errors;
that it is in the form of an electronic document. 4) The familiarity of the witness or the person
[Rule 3, Sec. 3, REE] who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5) The nature and quality of the information
BEST EVIDENCE RULE [Rule 4, Sec. 1, REE]
which went into the communication and
information system upon which the
• An electronic document shall be regarded as
electronic data message or electronic
the equivalent of an original document under
document was based;
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
6) Other factors which the court may consider
output readable by sight or other means,
as affecting the accuracy/integrity of the
shown to reflect the data accurately.
electronic document or electronic data
message.
ORIGINALS AND COPIES [Rule 4, Sec. 2, REE]
• Copies/duplicates regarded as originals:
INTEGRITY OF AN INFORMATION AND
1) When a document is in 2 or more copies
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM [Rule 7, Sec. 2, REE]
executed at or about the same time with
• In any dispute involving the integrity of the
identical contents;
information and communication system in
2) Counterparts produced by the same
which an e-document or e-data message is
impression as the original, or from the
recorded/stored, the court may consider the
same matrix, or by mechanical/electronic
following factors:
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
1) WON the information and communication
or by other equivalent techniques that
system or other similar device was operated
accurately reproduces the original.
in a manner that did not affect the integrity
• Copies/duplicates not admissible to the same
of the e-document, and there are no other
extent as the original:
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of
1) If a genuine question is raised as to the
the information and communication system;
authenticity of the original;
2) WON the e-document was recorded/stored
2) If in the circumstances it would be unjust
by a party to the proceedings with interest
or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of
adverse to that of the party using it;
the original.
3) WON the e-document was recorded/stored
in the usual and ordinary course of business
AUTHENTICATION OF E-DOCUMENTS
by a person who is not a party to the
• The burden of proving authenticity is on the
proceedings and who did not act under the
person seeking to introduce an e-document in
control of the party using it.
any legal proceeding. [Rule 5, Sec. 1, REE]
• Before any private electronic document offered
HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTION [Rule 8, Sec. 1, REE]
as authentic is received in evidence, its
• A memorandum/report/record or data
ELECTRONIC TESTIMONY