Powerhaus LAW Review Center

EVIDENCE
By

MARIO R.L. LUNA1

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before

administrative bodies
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before
administrative bodies such as the Board of Medicine. 2 It is true that administrative and quasi-
judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication
of cases. However, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain
fundamental evidentiary rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity
are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least
have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.3

Admissibility of evidence and its probative value

Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance (or
evidence) is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of the evidence refers
to the question of whether or not it proves an issue. 4

What need not be proved; judicial notice

The rules of evidence are merely the means of ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of
fact. Thus, they likewise provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved such
as those covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature involving

1
Professor of Law, College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila; Pre-Bar Lecturer, Academicus
Review Center, Manila and Powerhaus Law Review Center,; MCLE Lecturer, ACLEx/ Centro Escolar University
College of Law and ACCESS/Adamson University College of Law; Deputy City Prosecutor, Antipolo City; Member:
Prosecutors League of the Philippines; Tau Kappa Phi Fraternity, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University; The
Phantoms Riders Club
2
Rico Rommel Atienza v. Board of Medicine, etc., G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011
3
PLDT v. Antonio Tiamson, G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November 11, 2005
4
Rico Rommel Atienza v. Board of Medicine, etc., G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011

1
the physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and composition of
living things such as human beings. We take judicial notice that Editha’s kidney’s before, and at
the time of her operation, as with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations. 5

The Court will take judicial notice of the fact that the people’s ratification of the 1987
Constitution on February 2, 1987 signaled the return to normalcy of the political situation in the
Philippines. 6

We have taken cognizance of the practice that a check with two parallel lines in the upper
left hand corner means that it could only be deposited and could not be converted into cash. Thus,
the effect of crossing a check related to the mode of payment, meaning that the drawer intended
the check for deposit only by the rightful person, i.e., the payee named therein. 7

Courts may take judicial notice of the assessed value or market value of a land
subject of a judicial action
Considering that the area of the subject land is four million eight hundred thirty-eight
thousand and thirty-six (4,838,736) square meters, the RTC acted properly when it took judicial
notice of the total value of the titled property, and it would also be at the height of absurdity if the
assessed value of the property with such an area is less than Php20,000.00. 8

Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash
injuries
A dump truck suddenly rammed the Toyota Corolla car where Dr. Dela Llana was a
passenger, puncturing Dr. Dela Llana. Dr. Milla told her that she suffered from a whiplash injury,
an injury caused by the compression of the nerve running to the left arm and hand. Dr. Milla
required to undergo physical therapy to alleviate her condition.

In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. He who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving his allegation by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of credible
evidence. The reason for this rule is that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof. In short, mere allegations are not evidence

Courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. This
proposition is not of public knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to
be known to judges because of their judicial knowledge. We have no expertise in the field of

5
Rico Rommel Atienza v. Board of Medicine and Editha Samson, G.R. No. 177407, February 9, 2011
6
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161602, July 13, 2010
7
Anamer Salazar v. J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 171998, October 20, 2010
8
Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas v. Feliciano P. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966, March 2, 2016

2
medicine. Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the law on the basis of the
parties’ pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal arguments. 9

Failure to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document gave rise to judicial admission
The failure to deny the genuineness and the due execution of the sales invoices, the post-
dated checks, the itemized statement of accounts and the letters demanding payment specifically
under oath gave rise to a judicial admission of the genuineness and due execution of said
instruments, in accordance with Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Judicial admissions of
this sort do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been
made through palpable mistake. Thus, any evidence presented by the admitter, even without
objection by the adverse party, tending to contradict or otherwise negate or modify the judicial
admission, will be disregarded in the absence of prior showing that the admission had been made
through palpable mistake. 10

Photographs when presented as object evidence must be identified

Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its
production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of
this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and
its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The
photographer, however, is not the only witness who can testify the pictures he has taken. The
correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved
prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses,
after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. (Romeo Sison v.
People, G.R, Nos. 108280-83, November 16, 1995)

In the crime of rape the clothes worn by the victim, her shorts, bra and panty
may be used by the prosecution to prove the use of force and presence of a
struggle
Although there was an absence of external injuries on the body of the complainant, the
clothes worn by her at the time of the offense speak well of the use of force and the presence of
struggle.

Her T-Shirt was torn which corroborate her testimony that it was forcibly removed. It also
proves that she offered resistance to the criminal advances of the accused. Her shorts, like her
panty, had blood stains. Her panty was detached from her shorts. Her bra was torn, also denoting
that it was forcibly removed. These physical evidence are consistent only with the force and

9
Dela Llana v. Rebecca Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013
10
Bell Carpets International Trading Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75315, May 7, 1990

3
compulsion applied on her; they prove she offered resistance and her defloration was against her
will.

The actuation of the complainant subsequent to the commission of the crime are likewise
consistent with her allegations of rape. Her immediate revelation of the incident to her uncle upon
arrival as well as her swift recourse to the barangay Captain and the police authorities are not acts
of woman savoring an illicit tryst but that of a maiden seeking retribution for the outraged
committed against her. 11

Under the best evidence rule in proving the terms of a written document the
original of the document must be presented in court
The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the terms of a written document the
original of the document must be produced in court. The rule excludes any evidence other than the
original writing to prove the contents thereof, unless the offeror prove: (a) the existence or due
execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the original, or the reason for the non-
production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the
availability of the original can be attributed.

The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a
writing are brought before the court. The rule also protects misleading inferences resulting from
the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. 12

Best evidence of forged signature

As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of forged
signature in the instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact
of forgery can only be established by comparison between the alleged forged signature and the
authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been
forged.

While it is true that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it
with respect to its due execution, and has in his favor the presumption of regularity, this
presumption, however, is not absolute. It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. The testimony of the NBI expert witness, had it been properly appreciated, is sufficient
to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to public documents and to meet the stringent
requirements to prove forgery.

11
People v. Roland Tacipit, G.R. No. 109140, March 8, 1995
12
Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez, G.R No. 170604, September 2, 2013

4
 In order to bring an accurate comparison and analysis, the standard of comparison must be
as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature. However, when the dissimilarity
between the genuine and false specimens of writings is visible to the naked eye and would not
ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer, resort to technicalities is no
longer necessary and the instrument may be stricken off for being spurious. When so established
and is conspicuously evident from its appearance, the opinion of handwriting experts on the forged
document is no longer necessary. 13

There is no application of the best evidence if there is no dispute regarding the

contents of the contract
The Best Evidence Rule states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, the best evidence rule is the original document itself and no other evidence (such as
reproduction, photocopy or oral evidence) is admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred
because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering with the document.

But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise
only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Evidence Rule applies only
when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns
external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without references to its
terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such case, secondary evidence may be
admitted even without accounting for the original. 14 The best evidence rule is the rule which
requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact. However, the same applies only
when the contents of a document are the subject of inquiry. 15

Canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document; they are private

writings and their authenticity must be proved
For a photo copy of the marriage contract and the canonical certificate of marriage cannot
be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage without running afoul with the Rules on
Evidence of the Rules of Court. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence provides that: “When
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, x x x .” Nevertheless, a reproduction of the original document can still be
admitted as secondary evidence subject to certain requirements specified by law.

A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5 which
states that: when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its due execution or existence and the cause of unavailability without bad faith on

13
Heirs of the late Felix Bucton v. Gonzalo Go, G.R. No. 188395, November 20, 2013
14
Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of Maximo Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013
15
Nissan North Edsa v. United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency, G.R. No. 179470, April
20, 2010

5
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by the testimony of witnesses in that order. Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence
is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicate thereof, namely: (1) the existence or due execution
of the original; and (2) the loss and destruction of the original is not due to the bad faith on the part
of proponent. Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute
the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence. 16

Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. The testimony by one
of the parties to the marriage or by one of the witnesses to the marriage has been held to be
admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person who officiated at the solemnization is also
competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact marriage. 17

Annotation on the transfer certificate of title and in the primary entry book of
the Registry of Deeds as well as the entry in the notarial register is not sufficient
proof of the existence of a deed of sale
The annotation on TCT No. 84797 of the deed of sale with right to repurchase and the entry
in the primary entry book of the Registry of Deeds did not themselves establish the existence of
the deed. They proved at best that a document purporting to be a deed of sale with right to
repurchase had been registered in the Registry of Deeds. Verily, the registration alone of the deed
was not conclusive proof of its authenticity or its due execution by the registered owner of the
property.

By the same token, the entry in the notarial register of the Notary Public could only be
proof that a deed of sale with a right to repurchase had been notarized, but did not establish the
due execution of the deed. 18

Secondary evidence is admissible when there is no objection at the time the

same was offered in evidence
There is no question that the photocopies were secondary evidence and as such were not
admissible unless there was ample proof of the loss of the originals, and neither were the
exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court applicable. The trouble is that in rejecting these copies
under Rule 130, Section 3, the respondent court disregarded an equally important principle long
observed in our trial courts and amply supported by jurisprudence. This is the rule that objection

16
Virginia Calimag v. Heirs of Silvestre Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936, June 1, 2016

17
Peregrina Macua Vda. Avenido v. Tecla Hoybia Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January 22, 2014
18
Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of Maximo Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013

6
to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit and not
before. Objection prior to that time is premature.

It is instructive at this point to make a distinction between identification of documentary

evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. The second is done only when the party
rests its case and not before. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as
an exhibit does not mean it will be or has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. 19

Where the controversy arose out of a written agreement no evidence shall be

admitted other than the contents of the said written
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.

Parol evidence rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of the terms of a
written agreement
Per the parol evidence rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities
observed, forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by
testimony of other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the
parties, varying the purport of the written agreement.

In choosing to reduce their agreement into writing, they are deemed to have done so
meticulously and carefully, employing specific – frequently, even technical – language as are
appropriate to their context. From an evidentiary standpoint, this is also because “oral testimony
coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on
human memory, is not as reliable in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human
memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. 20

The parol evidence rule is exclusive only as between the parties and their
successors-in-interest
The Parol Evidence Rule excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by which a party seeks to
contradict, vary, add or subtract from the from the terms of a valid agreement or instrument,
However, the Parol Evidence Rule is improper in the case at bar. In the first place, respondents
are not parties to the written contract. They are strangers to the written contract. Rule 130, Section
9 specifically provides that parol evidence is exclusive only as between the parties and their
successors-in-interest. The parol evidence rule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties

19
Interpacific Transmit, Inc. v. Rufu Aviles, G.R. No. 86062, June 6, 1990
20
Spouses Bonifacio and Lucia Paras v. Kimwa Construction, G.R. No. 171601, April , 2015

7
to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not base
his claim on the instrument or asserts a right originating in the instrument. 21

If the terms are clear, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control
It is a basic fundamental rule in the interpretation of a contract that if the terms thereof are
clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties the literal meaning of the
stipulation shall control, but when the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the
parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.

Where there is conflicting terminologies in the document, it becomes necessary to inquire

into the reason behind the transaction and other circumstances accompanying it so as to determine
the true intent of the parties. Once the intent becomes clear then it shall be made to prevail over
what on its face the document appears to be. Each case is to be resolved on the basis of the
circumstances attending the transaction. 22

The burden of proof questioning the qualification of a witness lies with the
party challenging his competence
With the exceptions provided in the Rules of Court, all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving can make known their perceptions to others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed
by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness which specifies that every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging the child’s competence. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of
the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the
duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a
competency examination of the child. 23

Authorization to testify for a party is not required of a witness

There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present
some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. No law or
jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to
prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness. All that the Rules require of a witness
is that the witness possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualification provided therein.
24

21
Salun-at v. Eloisa Espejo, G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010
22
Spouses Cenen Dizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44258, May 27, 1985
23
People v. Ibanez, G.R. No. 197813, September 25, 2013
24
Armed Forces of the Philippines and Separation Benefit System v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188956,
March 20, 2013

8
A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot, in a
civil case, testify without the consent of the patient
The requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked: (a) the privilege is
claimed in a civil case; (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person acquired the information while he was
attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the information was necessary to enable
him to act in that capacity; and (e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient.

In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient’s husband who
wishes to testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does
not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention
of the prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the
physician who examined the patient and executed the report. 25

Admission of a party may be given in evidence

Estoppel precludes a person who has admitted or made representation about something as
true from denying or disproving it against anyone else relying on his admission or representation.
Thus, our law on evidence regards estoppel as conclusive by stating that “[w]henever a party has,
by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing 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. 26

Rights of a person cannot be prejudiced by an admission of a third party

The principle of res inter alios acta or that principle which states “the right of a party cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided, among
which are: (1) admission by third party, (2) admission by co-partner or agent, (3) admission by
conspirator, and (4) admission by privies.”

On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only
be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers, and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought
their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. 27

25
Ma. Paz Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, June 14, 1994
26
Pinausukan Seafoodhouse v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014
27
Tan Siok Kuan v. Feliciano “Boy” Ho, G.R. No. 175085, June 1, 2016

9
Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency
and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. 28 Hearsay
evidence has no probative value because it is merely the witness’ recitation of what someone else
has told him, whether orally or in writing. 29

It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts he knows of his own
personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not
testify on what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is considered
hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned, read or heard. Hearsay
evidence is evidence, not of what the witness knows himself but, of what he has heard from others,
it is not only limited to oral testimony or statements but likewise applies to written statements,
such as affidavits. 30

The exceptions to the rule that averments can testify only to those which he knows of
personal knowledge are as follows: (a) dying declaration; (b) declaration against interest; (c) act
or declaration about pedigree; (d) family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree; (e) common
reputation; (f) part of the res gestae; (g) entries in the course of business; (h) entries in official
records; (i) commercial lists and the like; (j) learned treatises; and (k) testimony or deposition at a
former proceeding. 31

Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of A Child Witness provides that a statement made
by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the
hearsay rule, may admitted in evidence in any criminal or noncriminal proceedings subject to the
following rules: (a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make
known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him
a fair opponent to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination
by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved
by the proponent; (b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall
consider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability.

Dying declaration is hearsay but admissible under exceptional circumstances

A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay
character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur: (a) the declaration
concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it is made when

28
Espineli v. People, 725 SCRA 365 (2014)
29
Josefa v. Manila Electric Company, 730 126 (2014)
30
Miro v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 172532 & 172544-45, November 20, 2013
31
Sections 37 to 47, Rule 130, Rules of Court

10
death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c)
the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the dying
declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s death. 32

Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled
to the highest degree of credence and respect. Persons aware of an impending death have been
known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. 33

Part of the res gestae

The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of res gestae is whether the act, declaration,
or exclamation, is so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes
as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.

Statements made by a person, like in this case, while a startling occurrence is taking place
or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given
in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material
to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. 34

Admissibility of the testimony of a witness in a former proceeding

Case law hold that for admissibility of the testimony of a deceased witness in a former
proceeding, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
between the same parties or those representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved the
same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified
to by the witness in the former trial is same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the adverse
party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case. The reasons for the
admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the testimony
and its trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in evidence, the
proponent must first lay the proper predicate, i.e., the party must establish the basis for the
admission of testimony in the realm of admissible evidence. 35

Independently relevant statements

32
People v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014
33
People v. Reggie Villariez, G.R. No. 211160, September 2, 2015
34
People v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014
35
Damaso Ambray v. Sylvia Tsourous, G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016

11
 Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity,
the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially
relevant as to the existence of such a fact. Undoubtedly, the testimonies of the whistleblowers are
independently relevant to prove the involvement of Sen. Revilla and his co-accused in the present
controversy, considering their respective participations in the entire PDAF scam. Therefore, the
statements made by the whistleblowers Sunas, Sula, and Luy, who were employees of JLN
Corporation and privy to the financial transactions of Napoles concerning, among others, Sen.
Revilla’s PDAF, should be given consideration as they are directly, if not circumstantially, relevant
to the issue at hand.

As such, their testimonies should not be completely disregarded as hearsay.36

The dangerous drugs itself constitutes the corpus delicti

In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drugs itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug’s unique characteristics that renders it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either ty
accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of
the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same
illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs fails.

Similarly, in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drugs itself
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable
doubt, plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale, are both vital and essential to a judgment of
conviction. 37

The rule on chain of custody

The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who
handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the
illegal drugs from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in
court. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or

36
Richard A. Cambe v. Office of the Ombudsman, National Bureau of Investigation, et al., G.R. No. 208643,
December 16, 2016
37
People v. Susan M. Tamano and Jaffy B. Gulmatico, G.R. No. 208643, December 16, 2016

12
testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the
possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition
up to the time it was offered in evidence.

Failure to strictly comply with the requirements on chain of custody does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The
most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.38

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims to be. It would include testimony about every link in the
chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witnesses’ possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 39

Substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item is
sufficient. For as long as the chain of custody is unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be
affected. 40

The prosecution’s failure to comply with the requirements on chain of custody under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in
evidence. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
pursuant to the chain of custody rule, non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not
automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the items seized. 41

Public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary

proof as to their authenticity and due execution
Documents acknowledged before notaries are public documents and public documents are
admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due
execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there
must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. 42

The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document. As
a public document, the rule on authentication does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without

38
People v. Susan M. Tamano and Jaffy B. Gulmatico, G.R. No. 208643, December 16, 2016
39
People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010
40
People v. John Happy Domingo, G.R. No. 211672, June 1, 2016
41
People v. Edwin Dalawis, G.R. No. 19725, November 9, 2015
42
Miguel J. Osorio Pension Foundation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162175, June 28, 2010

13
further proof of its due execution and genuineness; the person who made the report need not be
presented in court to identify, describe and testify how the report was conducted. Moreover,
documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.43

Statements of accounts showing purchases are private documents; its

genuineness and due execution must be proven to be admissible
The statements of accounts which Tan adduced before the MTCC indubitably ae private
documents. The MTCC could not admit the same as evidence against Otero without the required
authentication thereof pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. During
authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as evidence is
genuine and has been duly executed, or that the document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor
executed by mistake or under duress.

Here, Tan during the ex parte presentation of his evidence, did not present anyone who
testified that the said statements of account were genuine and were duly executed or that the same
were neither spurious or counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress. Betache, the one
who prepared the said statements of account, was not presented by Tan as a witness during the ex
parte presentation of his evidence with the MTCC.

Considering that Tan failed to authenticate the aforesaid statements of account, the said
documents should not have been admitted in evidence against Otero. It was thus error for the lower
tribunals to have considered the same in assessing the merits of Tan’s Complaint.44

Purpose of the best evidence rule

The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a
writing are brought before the court. It further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a party
is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence
in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
purposes that its production would expose defeat. The rule protects misleading inferences resulting
from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings.45

There is no application of the best evidence rule if there is no dispute regarding

the contents of the contract

43
Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013
44
Roberto Otero v. Roger Tan, G.R. No. 200134, April 15, 2015
45
Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013

14
 There is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is no dispute
regarding the contents of the documents. 46

The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a
disputed fact. However, the same applies only when the contents of a document are subject of
inquiry.47

Fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence

Fax or photocopy of the marriage contract and the canonical certificate of marriage, cannot
be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage without running afoul with the Rules of
Evidence.

Notwithstanding, it is well settled that other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of
marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other
than the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be recognized as
competent evidence of the marriage between the parents. 48 The testimony by one of the parties to
the marriage or by one of the witnesses to the marriage has been held to be admissible to prove the
fact of marriage. The person who officiated at the solemnization is also competent to testify as an
eyewitness to the fact of marriage. 49

Parol evidence rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of the terms of the
written agreement; exclusive only as between the parties
Per the parol evidence, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities observed,
forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by testimony of other
evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the
purport of the written contract.50

The parol evidence rule excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by which a party seeks to
contradict, vary, add to or substract from the terms of a valid agreement or instrument. However,
the parol evidence rule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a
party or a privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not base his claim on the
instrument or asserts a right originating in the instrument. 51

Authorization to testify for a party is not required of a witness

46
Salun-at Marquez, etc. v. Eloisa Espejo, etc., G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010
47
Nissan Edsa, etc v. United Philippine Scout Veterans Detective and Protective Agency, G.R. No. 179470, April 20,
2010
48
Virginia Calimag v. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936, June 1, 2016
49
Perigrina Macua Vda. de Avenido v. Tecla Avenido, G. R. No. 173540, January 22, 2014
50
Spouses Bonifacio and Lucia Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Development Corp., G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015
51
Salun-at etc. v. Eloisa Espejo, etc., G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010

15
 There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present
some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him. No law or
jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to
prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness. All that the Rules require of a witness
is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualification provided
therein.52

Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an admission of a third party

On principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only
be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought
their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.53

Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

As to the issue on the admissibility of the testimony of a deceased witness made in a former
proceeding, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
between the same parties or those representing the same interest; (c) the former case involved the
same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified
to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the
adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case. The reasons for
the admissibility of testimony taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the
testimony and its trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in
evidence, the proponent must first lay the proper predicate, i.e., the party must establish the basis
for the admission of testimony in the realm of admissible evidence. 54

Burden of proof
It is the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such quantum of
evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises. In its other concept, it is the duty
of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet
a prima facie case. 55

52
AFP Separation Benefit System v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013
53
Tan Siok Kuan, etc v. Felicisimo “Boy” Ho, etc., G.R. No. 175085, June 1, 2016
54
Damaso Ambray, etc v. Sylvia Tsourous, etc, G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016
55
Far East Band & Trust Company v. Chante, G.R. No. 170598, October 9, 2013

16
 Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove: (1) the fact of the crime, i.e.,
the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged; and (2) the fact
that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. 56

In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no
evidence is given on either side
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is
given on either side. This is because our system frees the trier of facts from the responsibility of
investigating and presenting the facts and arguments, placing the responsibility entirely upon the
respective parties. The burden of proof, which may either be on the plaintiff or the defendant, is
on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner
required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential
allegations but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that if proved, would exculpate him from
liability. 57

In criminal procedure, the State has the burden of proof to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence dictates
that it is for the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not for the accused to
establish innocence
It is fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as a consequence of the tenet that
“he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove,” and as a means of respecting the presumption of
innocence in favor the man or woman on the dock for a crime. Accordingly, the State has the
burden of proof to show: (1) the correct identification of the author of the crime, and (2) the
actuality of the commission of the offense with the participation of the accused. All these must be
proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace
from the weakness of the defense. That the defense of the accused puts up may be weak is
inconsequential if, in the first place, the State has failed to discharge the onus of his identity and
culpability. The presumption of innocence dictates that it is for the Prosecution to demonstrate the
guilt and not for the accused to establish innocence. Indeed, the accused, being presumed innocent,
carries no burden of proof on his shoulders. For this reason, the first duty of the Prosecution is not
prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the crime
can be established, without competent proof of the identity of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, there can be no conviction.58

56
People v. Fabian Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016
57
Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Chante, G.R. No. 170598, October 9, 2013
58
People v. Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013

17
The inability of the accused to establish the defense of alibi does not relieve the
prosecution of the burden of proving his guilt
The inability of the appellant to present a valid alibi does not relieve the prosecution of the
burden of proving his guilt with the moral certainty required to overcome presumption of
innocence. 59

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that
the dismissal is for a just and valid cause
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal
is for just and valid cause, failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.
The employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of
the employee’s defense. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of proof
required in determining the legality of an employee’s dismissal is only substantial evidence. 60

Person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful

act
The application of disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the doer of the whole act, in this case the alleged
carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where such possession is
either unexplained or that the proffered explanations is rendered implausible in view of
independent evidence inconsistent thereto. Though the explanation is not seamless, once the
explanation is made for the possession, the presumption arising from the unexplained possession
may not anymore be invoked and the burden shifts once more to the prosecution to produce
evidence that would render the defense of the accused improbable. 61

A stock certificate is not the stock in the corporation but is merely evidence of
the holder’s interest and status in the corporation
A stock certificate is prima facie evidence that the holder is a shareholder of the
corporation, but the possession of the certificate is not the sole determining factor of one’s stock
ownership. A stock certificate is merely the paper representative or tangible evidence of the stock
itself and of the various interests therein. The certificate is not the stock in the corporation but is
merely evidence of the holder’s interest and status in the corporation, his ownership of the share
represented thereby, but is not in law the equivalent of such ownership. It expresses the contract

59
People v. Efren Besmonte, G.R. No. 103306, September 4, 2013
60
PLDT v. Tiamson, G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November 11, 2005
61
People v. Fabian Urzais, et al., G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016

18
between the corporation and the stockholder, but it is not essential to the existence of a share in
stock or the creation of the relation of shareholder to the corporation. 62

Person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful

act
The application of disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act, in this case
the alleged carnapping and the homicide/murder of its owner, is limited to cases where such
possession is either unexplained or that the proffered explanations is rendered implausible in view
of independent evidence inconsistent thereto. Though the explanation is not seamless, once the
explanation is made for the possession, the presumption arising from the unexplained possession
may not anymore be invoked and the burden shifts once more to the prosecution to produce
evidence that would render the defense of the accused improbable. 63

Regularity of performance of official duty

While the court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The presumption cannot prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the
constitutional rights of the accused. In short, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt.64

Unwilling witness may be impeached

A witness may be considered unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the
party into calling him to the witness stand.65

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may
be impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by
the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief. (Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015)

Offer of evidence

62
Grace Borgona Insigne v. Abra Valley College
63
People v. Fabian Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016
64
People v. Erlinda Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011
65
Sec. 11, Rule 132, Rules of Court

19
 The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified. 66

A document or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to object
to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it. A formal offer is necessary
since judges are required to base their findings of act and judgment only – and strictly – upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial. 67

The rule that only evidence formally offered before the trial court can be considered is
relaxed where two requisites concur, namely: one, the evidence was duly identified by testimony
recorded, and, two, the evidence was incorporated in the records of the case. Furthermore, the rule
has no application where the court takes judicial notice of the adjudicative facts, or where the court
relies on judicial admissions, or where the trial court, in judging the demeanor of witnesses,
determine their credibility even without the offer of the demeanor as evidence. 68

When a party failed to interpose a timely objection, such objection shall be

considered as waived
It has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against the
admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, otherwise, it will be deemed to have
been waived. The proper time is when from the question addressed to the witness, or from the
answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may
be inferred.69

The equipoise rule

The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of
two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
not sufficient to support a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a
criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in
favor of the accused. 70

Presumption on instances where vehicles bump the rear of another vehicle

Drivers of vehicle “who bump the rear of another vehicle” are presumed to be “the cause
of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence.” The rationale behind the presumption is

66
Sec. 34, Rule 132
67
Republic v. Luz Reyes-Bakunawa, G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013
68
Emeritu Barut v. People, G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014
69
Dionisio Carran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005
70
People v. Fabian Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016

20
that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the situation as he is in a position to observe
the vehicle in front of him.

Rate of speed, in connection with other circumstances, is one of the principal

considerations in determining whether a motorist has been reckless in driving a vehicle, and
evidence of the extent of the damage caused may show the force of impact from which the rate of
speed of the vehicle may be modestly inferred. The very fact of speeding is indicative of imprudent
behavior, as a motorist must exercise ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed
commensurate with the conditions encountered, which will enable him to keep the vehicle under
control and avoid injury to others using the highway. 71

Calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless written
interrogatories are first served upon the latter
In civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed,
unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. The process could be treated as a
fishing expedition or an attempt or an attempt at delaying the proceedings, it produces no
significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring.72

The chemistry report showing positive result is a public document; it is

admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution
The chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document. As
a public document, the rule on authentication does not apply. It is admissible in evidence without
further proof of its due execution and genuineness, the person who made the report need not be
presented in court to identify, describe and testify how the report was conducted. Moreover,
documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 73

The State carries the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt
It is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove, and as a means of respecting the presumption of innocence in favor of the man or
woman on the dock for a crime. Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to show: (1) the
correct identification of the author of the crime, and (2) the actuality of the commission of the

71
Travel & Tour Advisers, Inc., v. Alberto Cruz, etc., G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016
72
Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015
73
Leticia Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013

21
offense with the participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved by the State beyond
reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the
defense. That the defense the accused puts up may be weak is inconsequential if, in the first place,
the State has failed to discharge the onus of his identity and culpability. The presumption of
innocence dictates that it is for the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not for the accused to
establish innocence. Indeed, the accused, being presumed innocent, carries no burden of proof on
his shoulders.74

The defense of alibi cannot prevail over a positive identification

It is established jurisprudence that denial cannot prevail over the witnesses’ positive
identification of the accused; more so where the defense did not present convincing evidence that
it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the crime scene at the time of
the commission of the crime.75

Identification in a telephone conversation

Without authentication, incriminating another person just by adverting to the telephone
conversation with him would be all too easy. In this respect, an identification based on familiarity
of the voice of the caller, or because of clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller, would have
sufficed. The identity of the caller could also be established by the caller’s self-identification,
coupled with additional evidence, like the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of
the statement challenged, internal patterns, and other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of
knowledge of facts showing known peculiarity to the caller. 76

Preponderance of evidence in civil cases

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence.

Preponderance of evidence is that evidence of greater weight or is more convincing than

that which is in opposition to it. It does not mean absolute truth, rather, it means that the testimony
of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that probability of truth is on one
side than on the other.77 As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of
greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that
leads to the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its
nonexistence. 78

74
Mayor Amado Corpuz, Jr., v. People, G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016
75
People v. Ardo Bacero, G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016
76
People v. Gilbert Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013
77
Manlar Rice Mill v. Lourdes Deyto, G.R. No. 191189, January 29, 2014
78
Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Chante, G.R. No. 170598, October 9, 2013

22
 When only one side is able to present its evidence, and the other side demurs to the
evidence, a preponderance of evidence can result only if the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to
establish the cause of action. For this purpose, the sheer volume of the evidence presented by one
party cannot tip the scales in its favor. Quality, not quantity, is the primordial consideration in
evaluating evidence. 79

Variance between the eyewitnesses’ testimonies in open court and their

affidavits does not affect their credibility
Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him
on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally
incomplete. As between the joint affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails
because affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony in court.
80

The quantum of evidence in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt

In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree as, excluding
possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 81

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply
to exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense, the accused is not required to establish the
truth of such matters by a preponderance of the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability. 82

Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect evidence or presumptive
evidence, indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from
the evidence established. It is not a weaker evidence vis-à-vis direct evidence. Resort to it is
imperative when the lack of testimony would result in setting an outlaw free. Direct evidence in
the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which the court may draw its finding of guilt.
In fact, circumstantial evidence, when demonstrated with clarity and forcefulness, may even be

79
Republic v. Bakunawa, G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013
80
Letecia Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013
81
Sec. 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court
82
People v. Fabian Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016

23
the sole basis of a criminal conviction. It cannot be overturned by bare denials or hackneyed alibis.
83

To sustain conviction, the Rules of Court requires: (1) there be more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived must be proven; and (3) the combination of all
the circumstances is such that it will result in a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The requisites
must be complied with if circumstantial evidence is to be the basis for proof beyond reasonable
doubt. 84

The defense of denial cannot prevail over a positive identification

It is established jurisprudence that denial cannot prevail over the witnesses’ positive
identification of the accused, more so where the defense did not present convincing evidence that
it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the crime scene at the time of
the commission of the crime.85

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of

quilt is only substantial evidence
It is well-entrenched that in administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for
a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which require
moral certainty to justify affirmative findings. 86

Electronic evidence admissible in criminal cases

Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same
or has personal knowledge of them. 87

Where a witness unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit, the

appropriate remedy is to file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena
If a witness without any justifiable ground declines to execute the desired judicial affidavit,
the remedy available for the requesting party is file a motion for the issuance of a subpoena. Section
5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule provides: “If the government employee or official, or the requested
witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying,

83
People v. Martin Nerio, Jr., G.R. No. 200940, July 22, 2015
84
People v. Luz Vda. de Quijano, G.R. No. 102045, March 17, 1993
85
People v. Ardo Bacero, G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016
86
Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodrigo Mapoy, G.R. No. 197299, February 13, 2013
87
People v. Noel Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014

24
authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum.

Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule expressly excludes from its application adverse
party and hostile witness. For the presentation of these types of witnesses, the provisions on Rules
of Court under the Revised Rules of Evidence and all other correlative rules including the modes
of disposition and discovery shall apply.

25