QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

RULE%128% Motive%
% General$rule:$Motive$is$not$an$essential$element$of$a$
felonyE$intent$is.$
GENERAL%PROVISIONS%
$
% Exceptions:$
Evidence,%definition%
1.$ when$ the$ evidence$ presented$ is$ purely$
The$ means,$ sanctioned$ by$ the$ Rules$ of$ Court,$ of$ circumstantial$
ascertaining$ in$ a$ judicial$ proceeding$ the$ truth$ 2.$ when$ the$ identity$ of$ the$ accused$ is$ in$
respecting$a$matter$of$fact$(sec.%1)$ dispute$
$ 3.$ when$there$is$no$eye$witness$presented$$
Uniformity%of%the%rules% $
The$rules$of$evidence$shall$be$the$same$in$all$courts$ Facts%in%issue%
and$ in$ all$ trials$ and$ hearings,$ except$ as$ otherwise$ General$rule:$all$facts$in$issue$or$relevant$facts$must$
provided$by$law$or$the$Rules$(sec.%2)$
be$proved$in$court.$
$ $
Proof% Exceptions:$The$following$facts$need$not$be$proved$
the$result$or$effect$of$evidence.$ in$court$(pajals):$
$ 1.$ peculiarly$ within$ the$ knowledge$ of$ the$
Factum'probandum'v.'factum'probans' opposing$party$
Factum%probandum% Factum%probans% 2.$ allegations$ contained$ the$ complaint$ and$
Ultimate$fact$ Evidentiary$fact$ answer$immaterial$to$the$issue$
the$ fact$ sought$ to$ be$ the$ fact$ by$ which$ the$ 3.$ judicial$notice$
established$ factum$probandum$is$to$ 4.$ admitted$ or$ which$ are$ not$ denied$ in$ the$
be$established$ answer$
$ 5.$ legally$presumed$
Classification%of%evidence% 6.$ subject$ of$ an$ agreed$ statement$ of$ facts$
1.$ Object$ or$ real$ –$ directly$ addressed$ to$ the$ between$the$parties$
senses$of$the$court$and$consists$of$tangible$ $
things$ exhibited$ or$ demonstrated$ in$ open$ ADMISSIBILITY%OF%EVIDENCE%
courtE$autoptic%proference$ Evidence$ is$ admissible$ when$ it$ is$ relevant$ to$ the$
2.$ Documentary$ –$ supplied$ by$ written$ issue$ and$ is$ not$ excluded$ by$ the$ law$ or$ the$ Rules$
instruments$ or$ derived$ from$ conventional$ (competent).$
symbols$by$which$ideas$are$represented$on$ $
material$substances$ Evidence%on%collateral%matters%
3.$ Testimonial$ –$ submitted$ to$ the$ court$ Generally,$it$is$not$allowed,$except$when$it$tends$in$
through$the$testimony$of$a$witness$ any$reasonable$degree$to$establish$the$probability$of$
4.$ Relevant,$material,$and$competent$ the$fact$in$issue$
5.$ Direct$and$circumstantial$ $
$ RapeMChild%Victim%
Document,%object%or%documentary% •$ if$ the$ child$ presented$ as$ witness$ is$ not$
Documents$ are$ not$ automatically$ considered$ as$ competent$(as$objected$to$by$the$defense),$
documentary$ evidence.$ It$ depends$ on$ the$ purpose$ the$ court$ shall$ determine$ the$ child’s$
for$which$a$document$is$offered:$ competency$in$an$examination$thereof.$The$
1.$ if$ offered$ to$ prove$ its$ existence$ and$ due$ conduct$ of$ this$ examination$ may$ be$ made$
execution$–$object$ upon$ motion$ of$ the$ prosecution$ or$ motu$
2.$ if$ offered$ to$ prove$ the$ authenticity$ and$ proprio.$
veracity$ of$ the$ contents$ therein$ –$ •$ The$counsels$or$their$clients$are$not$allowed$
documentary$ to$directly$ask$questions$to$the$child.$They$
$ may$write$their$questions$and$submit$them$
Direct%evidence% to$the$judge.$
Proves$ the$ fact$ in$ dispute$ without$ the$ aid$ of$ any$ $
inference$or$presumption$ Guidelines$for$determining$competency$
$ 1$ Capacity$of$observation$
Circumstantial%evidence% 2$ Capacity$of$recollection$
Proof$of$a$fact$or$facts$from$which,$taken$either$singly$ 3$ Capacity$of$communication$
or$collectively,$the$existence$of$the$particular$fact$in$ $
dispute$may$be$inferred$as$a$necessary$or$probable$ Sexual%Abuse%Shield%Rule%
consequence$ 1.$ The$following$evidence$is$not$admissible$in$
$ any$ criminal$ proceeding$ involving$ alleged$
Cumulative%evidence% child$ sexual$ abuse:$
Evidence$of$the$same$kind$and$to$the$same$state$of$ Evidence$ offered$ to$ prove$ that$ the$ alleged$
facts$ victim$ engaged$ in$ other$ sexual$ behaviorE$
$ and$
Corroborative%evidence% $
Additional$ evidence$ of$ a$ different$ character$ to$ the$ 2.$ Evidence$ offered$ to$ prove$ the$ sexual$
same$point$ predisposition$of$the$alleged$victim.$
$ $

databril2018 1 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

Exception:$Evidence$of$specific$instances$of$sexual$ An$ocular$inspection$conducted$by$the$judge$without$
behavior$by$the$alleged$victim$to$prove$that$a$person$ notice$to$or$the$presence$of$the$parties$is$invalid,$as$
other$ than$ the$ accused$ was$ the$ source$ of$ semen,$ an$ocular$inspection$is$a$part$of$the$trial.$
injury,$or$other$physical$evidence$shall$be$admissible.$ $
$ Documentary%evidence%
$ Consists$ of$ writings$ or$ any$ material$ containing$
RULE%129% letters,$ words,$ numbers,$ figures,$ symbols$ or$ other$
$ modes$of$written$expressions$offered$as$proof$of$their$
WHAT%NEED%NOT%BE%PROVED% contents$
$
% Relevant%evidence%
Judicial%notice,%mandatory%(elpol)$ Evidence$having$such$a$relation$the$fact$in$issue$as$
A$ court$ shall$ take$ judicial$ notice,$ without$ the$ to$induce$belief$in$its$existence$or$nonVexistence$
introduction$of$evidence,$of$the$following:$
$
1.$ The$ existence$ and$ territorial$ extent$ of$ Test$or$Relevancy$
states,$ their$ political$ history,$ forms$ of$ The$ logical$ relation$ of$ the$ evidentiary$ fact$ (factum$
government$and$symbols$of$nationalityE$ probans)$to$the$fact$in$issue$(factum$probandum)$
2.$ The$law$of$nations,$admiralty$and$maritime$ $
courts$of$the$world$and$their$seals$ Material%evidence%
3.$ The$political$constitution$and$history$of$the$ Evidence$ directed$ to$ prove$ a$ fact$ in$ issue$ as$
Philippines$ determined$ by$ the$ rules$ of$ substantive$ law$ and$
4.$ The$ official$ acts$ of$ the$ executive,$
pleadings$
legislative,$ and$ judicial$ departments$ of$ the$ $
Philippines$ Test$of$materiality$
5.$ The$ laws$ of$ nature,$ the$ measure$ of$ time,$ Whether$the$fact$intends$to$prove$is$in$issue$or$not$
and$the$geographical$divisions$ $
$ Competent%evidence%
Judicial%notice,%discretionary%(puk)$ Evidence$not$excluded$by$the$Rules,$a$statute$or$the$
1.$ Matters$of$public$knowledge$ Constitution$
2.$ Capable$of$unquestionable$demonstration$
$
3.$ Ought$to$be$known$to$judges$because$of$the$ $
judicial$functions$
DOCUMENTARY%EVIDENCE%
$
Judicial%admissions% %
An$admission,$verbal$or$written,$made$by$a$party$in$ Parole%evidence%v.%Best%evidence%
the$ course$ of$ the$ proceedings$ in$ the$ same$ case,$ Parole%Evidence% Best%Evidence%
does$not$require$proof.$ Presupposes$ that$ the$ The$ original$ writing$ is$
$ original$ document$ is$ not$ available$ and/or$
Made$where$ available$in$court$ there$is$a$dispute$as$to$
1.$ In$the$allegations$(complaint,$answer,$etcc)$ whether$ said$ writing$ is$
2.$ Pre$trial$ the$original$
3.$ Preliminary$conference$ Prohibits$the$varying$of$ Prohibits$ the$
4.$ Trial$$ terms$ of$ a$ written$ introduction$ of$
$ agreement$ substitutionary$
How$contradicted$ evidence$ in$ lieu$ of$ the$
1.$ Made$through$palpable$mistake$ original$document$
2.$ That$no$such$admission$was$made$ Applies$ only$ to$ Applies$ to$ all$ kinds$ of$
$ documents$ which$ are$ writings$
Admissions%in%the%same%case% contractual$ in$ nature$
General$ rule:% $ Admissions$ made$ in$ another$ (except$wills)$
proceeding$ are$ inadmissible$ as$ evidence$ in$ the$ Can$ be$ invoked$ only$ Can$be$invoked$by$any$
present$case.$ when$the$controversy$is$ party$ to$ an$ action$
$ between$ the$ parties$ to$ regardless$ of$ whether$
Exception:$ The$ admissions$ in$ another$ proceeding$ the$ written$ agreement,$ or$ not$ such$ party$ has$
are$ actually$ pertinent$ or$ relevant$ to$ the$ issue$ or$ their$ privies,$ or$ any$ participated$ in$ the$
issues$in$the$present$case$ party$ directly$ affected$ writing$involved$
% thereby$
% $
RULE%130% Best%Evidence%Rule%
% When$ the$ subject$ of$ inquiry$ is$ the$ contents$ of$ a$
document,$ no$ evidence$ shall$ be$ admissible$ other$
RULES%OF%ADMISSIBILITY%
than$ the$ original$ document$ itself,$ except$ in$ the$
$ following$cases:$LUNP$
Object%evidence%
1.$ When$ the$ original$ has$ been$ Lost$ or$
Addressed$to$the$senses$of$the$courtE$when$relevant$ destroyed,$or$cannot$be$produced$in$court,$
to$the$fact$in$issue,$it$may$be$exhibited$to,$examined$ without$bad$faith$on$the$part$of$the$offerE$
or$viewed$by$the$court$(sec.%1)$
$

databril2018 2 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE
2.$ When$the$original$is$in$the$custody$or$Under$
the$ control$ of$ the$ party$ against$ whom$ the$
evidence$ is$ offered,$ and$ the$ latter$ fails$ to$
produce$it$after$reasonable$noticeE$
3.$ When$ the$ original$ consists$ of$ Numerous$
accounts$or$other$documents$which$cannot$
be$examined$in$court$without$great$loss$of$
time$and$the$fact$sought$to$be$established$
from$them$is$only$the$general$result$of$the$
wholeE$and$
4.$ When$the$original$is$a$Public$record$in$the$
custody$of$a$public$officer$or$is$recorded$in$
a$public$office.$$
$ $
Original$of$document$
1.$ The$ original$ of$ the$ document$ is$ one$ the$
contents$of$which$are$the$subject$of$inquiry.$
2.% When$a$document$is$in$two$or$more$copies$
executed$ at$ or$ about$ the$ same$ time,$ with$
identical$ contents,$ all$ such$ copies$ are$
equally$regarded$as$originals.%
3.% When$ an$ entry$ is$ repeated$ in$ the$ regular$
course$of$business,$one$being$copied$from$
another$ at$ or$ near$ the$ time$ of$ the$
transaction,$ all$ the$ entries$ are$ likewise$
equally$regarded$as$originals.%
$
Secondary%evidence%
When$ the$ original$ document$ has$ been$ lost$ or$
destroyed,$ or$ cannot$ be$ produced$ in$ court,$ the$
offeror,$upon$proof$of$its$execution$or$existence$and$
the$cause$of$its$unavailability$without$bad$faith$on$his$
part,$may$prove$its$contents$by:$
1.$ a$copy$of$its$contentsE%
2.$ a$ recital$ of$ its$ contents$ in$ some$ authentic$
documentE$or$%
3.$ by$the$testimony$of$witnesses,$in$the$order$
stated.$%
% perceiving$ the$ facts$ respecting$ which$
Parol%Evidence%Rule%
Any$evidence$aliunde,$whether$oral$or$written,$which$
is$intended$or$tends$to$vary$or$contradict$a$complete$
and$ enforceable$ agreement$ embodied$ in$ a$
document.$
% During$ their$ marriage,$ neither$ the$ husband$ nor$ the$
Evidence%of%written%agreements%
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.$
$ $
Exceptions$(in%fa%v%ex)%
However,$ a$ party$ may$ present$ evidence$ to$ modify,$
explain$or$add$to$the$terms$of$written$agreement$if$he$
puts$in$issue$in$his$pleading:$
(a)$ An$ intrinsic$ ambiguity,$ mistake$ or$
imperfection$in$the$written$agreementE$
(b)$ The$ failure$ of$ the$ written$ agreement$ to$
express$ the$ true$ intent$ and$ agreement$ of$
the$parties$theretoE$
(c)$ The$validity$of$the$written$agreementE$or$
(d)$ The$existence$of$other$terms$agreed$to$by$
the$ parties$ or$ their$ successors$ in$ interest$
after$ the$ execution$ of$ the$ written$
agreement.$
databril2018
$
TESTIMONIAL%EVIDENCE%
$
Who%may%qualify%to%become%a%witness?%
all$persons$who$can$perceive,$and$perceiving,$
can$ make$ their$ known$ perception$ to$ others,$
may$be$witnesses$
$
The$following$shall$not$be$be$grounds$for$DQ:$
1.$ Religious$or$political$belief$
2.$ Interest$in$the$outcome$of$the$case$
3.$ Conviction$of$a$crime$
Exceptions%or%Disqualifications%
1.$ Mental$incapacity$or$immaturity$
2.$ Marital$$
3.$ Death$or$insanity$of$adverse$party$
4.$ Privileged$communication$
a.$ Marital$privileged$communication$
b.$ AttorneyVclient$
c.$ PhysicianVpatient$
d.$ PriestVpenitent$
e.$ Public$officer$
$
Disqualification% by% reason% of% mental%
incapacity%or%immaturity%
1.$ Those$ whose$ mental$ condition,$ at$ the$
time$ of$ their$ production$ for$
examination,$ is$ such$ that$ they$ are$
incapable$of$intelligently$making$known$
their$perception$to$othersE$
$
2.$ Children$whose$mental$maturity$is$such$
as$ to$ render$ them$ incapable$ of$
they$are$examined$and$of$relating$them$
truthfully$
$
Disqualification% by% reason% of% marriage% (Marital%
DQ)%
wife$may$testify$for$or$against$the$other$without$the$
consent$of$the$affected$spouse.$$
Except:$
1.$ in$a$civil$case$by$one$against$the$other,$or$$
2.$ in$a$criminal$case$for$a$crime$committed$by$
one$ against$ the$ other$ or$ the$ latter's$ direct$
descendants$or$ascendants.$$
Dead%man’s%statute%or%Survivorship%DQ%
Disqualification$by$reason$of$the$insanity$or$death$of$
the$adverse$party$
$
Note:$ This$ applies$ only$ in$ civil$ cases$ and$ special$
proceedings$ involving$ an$ estate$ of$ a$ deceased$
person.$
$
Requisites:$
1.$ The$ witness$ offered$ for$ examination$ is$ a$ party$
plaintiff,$or$the$assignor$of$said$party,$or$a$person$in$
whose$behalf$a$case$is$prosecuted.$$
3 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

2.$The$case$is$against$the$executor$or$administrator$ Classification%of%admission%
or$ other$ representative$ of$ a$ person$ deceased$ or$ of$ 1.$ Express$or$implied$
unsound$mindE$$ 2.$ Verbal$or$written$
3.$The$case$is$upon$a$claim$or$demand$against$the$ 3.$ Judicial$or$extrajudicial$
estate$of$such$person$who$is$deceased$or$of$unsound$ 4.$ Adoptive$
mindE$$ Note:% Admissions$ made$ during$ the$ preliminary$
4.$ The$ testimony$ to$ be$ given$ is$ on$ a$ matter$ of$ fact$ conference$need$not$be$proved$during$trial.$
occurring$before$the$death$of$such$deceased$person$ $
or$before$such$person$became$unsound$mind.$$ Offer%of%compromise%
$ Civil$ cases:$ not$ an$ admission$ of$ liability,$ and$ is$ not$
Marital%privileged%communication% admissible$in$evidence$
a.$ the$husband$or$the$wife$$ $
b.$ during$or$after$the$marriage$ Criminal$cases:$
c.$ cannot$be$examined$without$the$consent$of$ In$ criminal$ cases$ (except$ quasiVdelict)$ or$ those$
the$other$$ allowed$ by$ law$ to$ be$ compromised,$ an$ offer$ of$
d.$ as$ to$ any$ communication$ received$ in$ compromise$ by$ the$ accused$ may$ be$ received$ in$
confidence$by$one$from$the$other$$ evidence$as$an$implied$admission$of$guilt.$
e.$ during$the$marriage$$ $
$ Not%deemed%an%admission%of%guilt%
Except:$ 1.$ Plea$of$guilty$later$withdrawn$
1.$ in$a$civil$case$by$one$against$the$otherE$or$ 2.$ Unaccepted$ offer$ of$ a$ plea$ of$ guilty$ to$ a$
2.$ in$a$criminal$case$for$a$crime$committed$by$ lesser$offense$
one$ against$ the$ other$ or$ the$ latter's$ direct$ 3.$ Offer$ to$ pay$ or$ the$ payment$ of$ medical,$
descendants$or$ascendants$ hospital,$or$other$expenses$occasioned$by$
$ an$injury$(Good%Samaritan%Rule)$
PhysicianMpatient%% $
A$person$authorized$to$practice$medicine,$surgery$or$ Res% Inter% Alios% Acta% Rule% (Admission$ by$ a$ third$
obstetrics$cannot$in$a$civil$case,$without$the$consent$ party)$
of$ the$ patient,$ be$ examined$ as$ to$ any$ advice$ or$ 1.$ Admission$by$third$parties$–$The$rights$of$a$
treatment$given$by$him$or$any$information$which$he$ party$ cannot$ be$ prejudiced$ by$ an$ act,$
may$ have$ acquired$ in$ attending$ such$ patient$ in$ a$ declaration,$or$omission$of$another,$except$
professional$ capacity,$ which$ information$ was$ as$hereinafter$provided.$(sec.%28,%R130)$
necessary$to$enable$him$to$act$in$capacity,$and$which$ $
would$blacken$the$reputation$of$the$patient$ 2.$ Similar$ acts$ as$ evidence$ –$ Evidence$ that$
$ one$did$or$did$not$do$a$certain$thing$at$one$
This$privilege$survives$the$death$of$the$patient.$ time$is$not$admissible$to$prove$that$he$did$
% or$ did$ not$ do$ the$ same$ or$ similar$ thing$ at$
Testimonial%Privilege%(Parental%and%filial%Privilege% another$ timeE$ but$ it$ may$ be$ received$ to$
Rule)$ prove$ a$ specific$ intent$ or$ knowledgeE$
No$ person$ may$ be$ compelled$ to$ testify$ against$ his$ identity,$ plan,$ system,$ scheme,$ habit,$
parents,$ other$ direct$ ascendants,$ children$ or$ other$ custom$ or$ usage,$ and$ the$ like.$(sec.% 34,%
direct$ascendants.$ R130)$
$ $
•$ But$may$voluntarily$testify.$ Exceptions:$
•$ Article$ 215$ FC$ Provision:$ No$ descendant$ 1.$ Admission$ by$ coVpartner$ or$ agent,$ person$
shall$ be$ compelled,$ in$ a$ criminal$ case,$ to$ jointly$interested$with$the$party$
testify$ against$ his$ parents$ and$ 2.$ Admission$by$conspirator$
grandparents,$except$when$such$testimony$ 3.$ Admission$by$privies$
is$ indispensable$ in$ a$ crime$ against$ the$ $
descendant$ or$ by$ one$ parent$ against$ the$ Admission$by$coVpartner$or$agent$
other.$ The$ act$ or$ declaration$ of$ a$ partner$ or$ agent$ of$ the$
$ party$within$the$scope$of$his$authority$and$during$the$
$ existence$of$the$partnership$or$agency,$may$be$given$
ADMISSIONS%AND%CONFESSIONS% in$evidence$against$such$party$after%the%partnership%
$ or%agency%is%shown%by%evidence%other%than%such%act%
Admission%of%a%party% or% declaration.$ The$ same$ rule$ applies$ to$ the$ act$ or$
The$ act,$ declaration$ or$ omission$ of$ a$ party$ as$ to$ a$ declaration$ of$ a$ joint$ owner,$ joint$ debtor,$ or$ other$
relevant$fact$may$be$given$in$evidence$against$him.$ person$jointly$interested$with$the$party.$$
$ $
Requisites:$COAK% Admission$by$conspirator$
Categorical$and$definite$ The$act$or$declaration$of$a$conspirator$relating$to$the$
Only$involve$matters$of$fact$ conspiracy$and$during$its$existence,$may$be$given$in$
Adverse$ to$ the$ admitter’s$ interest,$ otherwise,$ it$ will$ evidence$ against$ the$ coVconspirator$ after$ the$
be$selfVserving$and$therefore$inadmissible$ conspiracy$is$shown$by$evidence$other$than$such$act$
Knowingly$and$voluntarily$made$by$the$admitter$ of$declaration.$
% %
Admission$by$privies$

databril2018 4 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

Where$one$derives$title$to$property$from$another,$the$ 4.$ That$ the$ declaration$ is$ offered$ in$ a$ case$

act,$ declaration,$ or$ omission$ of$ the$ latter,$ while$ wherein$the$declarant’s$death$is$the$subject$
holding$ the% title,% in% relation% to% the% property,% is% of$the$inquiry$
evidence%against%the%former.$$ $
% Factors$ to$ consider$ in$ determining$ whether$ the$
Estoppel%in'pais,%requirements%to%be%admissible% declaration$ was$ made$ under$ the$ consciousness$ of$
1.$ The$person$must$have$heard$and$observed$ death$
the$act$of$admission$of$the$other$person$ 1.$ Words$or$statements$(oral$or$written)$of$the$
2.$ He$had$the$opportunity$to$deny$the$same$ declarant$
3.$ The$fact$admitted$is$material$to$the$issue$ 2.$ His$conduct$at$the$time$the$declaration$was$
$ made$
Confession$$ 3.$ Serious$ nature$ of$ his$ wounds$ as$ would$
The$ declaration$ of$ an$ accused$ acknowledging$ his$ necessarily$ engender$ a$ belief$ on$ his$ part$
guilt$ of$ the$ offense$ charged,$ or$ of$ any$ offense$ that$he$would$not$survive$therefrom$
necessarily$ included$ therein,$ may$ be$ given$ in$ $
evidence$against$himE$judicial$or$extrajudicial% Notes:$$
$ 1.$ The$intervening$time$from$the$making$of$the$
Note:%% declaration$ up$ to$ the$ actual$ death$ of$ the$
1.$ Extrajudicial$ admission$ is$ admissible$ only$ declarant$ is$ immaterial,$ as$ long$ as$ the$
against$the$accusedVadmitter.% declaration$ was$ made$ under$ the$
2.$ An$acknowledgement$of$guilt$on$the$part$of$ consciousness$of$impending$death.$
the$person$confessor% 2.$ A$ dying$ declaration$ is$ admissible$ only$
3.$ Always$expressed% insofar$ as$ it$ refers$ to$ facts$ regarding$ the$
4.$ Can$only$be$made$by$the$party$himself% cause$ and$ surrounding$ circumstances$ of$
5.$ EJ$ confession$ is$ not$ admissible$ unless$ the$ declarant’s$ deathE$ hence,$ statements$
corroborated$by$the$corpus$delicti$and$done$ referring$ to$ the$ antecedents$ of$ the$ fatal$
in$writing.% encounter$ or$ opinions,$ impressions,$ or$
$ conclusions$ of$ the$ declarant$ are$
Hearsay%Evidence%Rule% inadmissible.$
A$ witness$ can$ testify$ only$ to$ those$ facts$ which$ he$ $
knows$of$his$personal$knowledgeE$that$is,$which$are$ Declaration%against%interest%
derived$from$his$own$perception,$except$as$otherwise$ The$ declaration$ made$ by$ a$ person$ deceased,$ or$
provided$in$these$rules.$ unable$to$testify,$against$the$interest$of$the$declarant,$
$ if$ the$ fact$ is$ asserted$ in$ the$ declaration$ was$ at$ the$
Why$ inadmissible:$ It$ deprives$ the$ other$ party$ to$ time$it$was$made$so$far$contrary$to$declarant's$own$
crossVexamine.$ interest,$that$a$reasonable$man$in$his$position$would$
$ not$have$made$the$declaration$unless$he$believed$it$
Exceptions$to$the$Hearsay$Evidence$ to$ be$ true,$ may$ be$ received$ in$ evidence$ against$
1.$ Dying$declaration$ himself$or$his$successors$in$interest$and$against$third$
2.$ Declaration$against$interest$ persons.$$
3.$ Act$or$declaration$about$pedigree$ $
4.$ Family$ reputation$ or$ tradition$ regarding$ Requisites:$
pedigree$ 1.$ The$declarant$is$dead$or$unable$to$testify$
5.$ Common$reputation$ 2.$ Declaration$ relates$ to$ a$ fact$ against$ the$
6.$ Part$of$the$res%gestae$ interest$of$the$declarant$
7.$ Entries$in$the$course$of$business$ 3.$ At$the$time$he$made$his$declaration,$he$was$
8.$ Entries$in$official$records$ aware$ of$ his$ declaration$ being$ against$ his$
9.$ Commercial$lists$and$the$like$ interest$
10.$ Learned$treatises$ 4.$ He$ had$ no$ motive$ to$ falsify$ and$ believed$
11.$ Testimony$ or$ deposition$ at$ a$ former$ such$declaration$to$be$true$
proceeding$$ $
12.$ Independent$relevant$statements$ SelfVserving$statement$
$ Opposite$of$declaration$against$interestE$favorable$to$
Dying%Declaration% or$intended$to$advance$the$interests$of$the$declarant$
The$declaration$of$a$dying$person,$made$under$the$ $
consciousness$ of$ an$ impending$ death,$ may$ be$ $
received$in$any$case$wherein$his$death$is$the$subject$ Res'Gestae'(things%done)%
of$inquiry,$as$evidence$of$the$cause$and$surrounding$ Spontaneous$statements$
circumstances$of$such$death.$ Statements$ made$ by$ a$ person$ while$ a$ starting$
$ occurrence$ is$ taking$ place$ or$ immediately$ prior$ or$
Requisites:$$ subsequent$ thereto$ with$ respect$ to$ the$
1.$ That$death$is$imminent$and$the$declarant$is$ circumstances$thereof.$$
conscious$of$such$fact$ $
2.$ That$the$declaration$refers$to$the$cause$and$ Verbal$acts$
surrounding$circumstances$of$such$death$ So,$also,$statements$accompanying$an$equivocal$act$
3.$ That$ the$ declaration$ relates$ to$ facts$ which$ material$ to$ the$ issue,$ and$ giving$ it$ a$ legal$
the$victim$is$competent$to$testify$to$

databril2018 5 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

significance,$ may$ be$ received$ as$ part$ of$ the$res$ Civil$cases$

gestae$ Evidence$of$moral$character$of$a$party$in$a$civil$case$
$ is$ admissible$ only$ when$ pertinent$ to$ the$ issue$ of$
Requisites$ character$involved$in$the$case.$
1.$ Statements$are$spontaneous$ $
2.$ Made$ while$ a$ startling$ occurrence$ was$ Moral$character$of$witness$
taking$ place$ or$ immediately$ prior$ or$ evidence$of$the$moral$character$of$a$witness$is$not$
subsequent$thereto$ admissible$ until$ the$ same$ has$ been$ impeached.$
3.$ Relates$to$the$circumstances$of$the$startling$ (when$the$adverse$party$offers$evidence$which$tends$
occurrence$ to$destroy$the$good$moral$character$of$the$witness$of$
4.$ Must$ be$ involuntary$ and$ simultaneously$ the$other$party)$
wrung$from$the$witness$by$the$impact$of$the$ $
occurrence$ $
% RULE%131%
Dying%declaration%converted%into%res%gestae% %
When$ the$ statements$ of$ the$ victim$ were$ not$ made$ BURDEN%OF%PROOF%AND%PRESUMPTIONS%
under$ the$ consciousness$ of$ impending$ death$ the$
same$ may$ still$ be$ admissible$ as$ part$ of$ the$ res% %
gestae$ if$ they$ were$ made$ immediately$ after$ the$ Burden%of%proof%(onus%probandi)%
incident.$ The$duty$of$a$party$to$present$evidence$on$the$facts$
$ in$issue$necessary$to$establish$his$claim$or$defense$
by$the$amount$of$evidence$required$by$law.$
If$ elements$ of$ both$ RG$ and$ DD$ are$ present,$ the$
statements$ may$ be$ admitted$ both$ as$ a$ DD$ and$ as$ %
part$of$the$RG.$ Classification%of%presumptions%
$ 1.$ Presumptions$of$fact$
Note:% the$ interval$ of$ time$ between$ the$ startling$ 2.$ Presumptions$of$law$
occurrence$ and$ the$ statement$ depends$ upon$ the$ a.$ Conclusive$presumptions$
circumstancesE$but$such$statement$must$have$been$ b.$ Disputable$or$prima%facie$presumptions$
made$while$the$declarant$was$under$the$immediate$ $
Conclusive%presumptions%under%the%Rules%$
influence$of$the$startling$occurrence.$
$
$ 1.$ Whenever$ a$ party$ has,$ by$ his$ own$
Opinion%Rule% declaration,$ act,$ or$ omission,$ intentionally$
General$rule:$the$opinion$of$witness$is$not$admissible.$ and$deliberately$led$to$another$to$believe$a$
Except:$the$opinion$of$an$expert$witness$ particular$ thing$ true,$ and$ to$ act$ upon$ such$
$ belief,$he$cannot,$in$any$litigation$arising$out$
Opinion$of$ordinary$witnesses$ of$ such$ declaration,$ act$ or$ omission,$ be$
The$ opinion$ of$ a$ witness$ for$ which$ proper$ basis$ is$ permitted$to$falsify$it:$
given,$may$be$received$in$evidence$regarding$—$ 2.$ The$tenant$is$not$permitted$to$deny$the$title$
(a)$ the$ identity$ of$ a$ person$ about$ whom$ he$ has$ of$ his$ landlord$ at$ the$ time$ of$
adequate$knowledgeE$ commencement$ of$ the$ relation$ of$ landlord$
(b)$ A$ handwriting$ with$ which$ he$ has$ sufficient$ and$tenant$between$them$
familiarityE$and$
(c)$ The$ mental$ sanity$ of$ a$ person$ with$ whom$ he$ is$ Presumptions%that%need%not%be%proved%
sufficiently$acquainted.$ 1.$ Judicial$notice$
The$ witness$ may$ also$ testify$ on$ his$ impressions$ of$ 2.$ Judicial$admission$
the$emotion,$behavior,$condition$or$appearance$of$a$ 3.$ Negative$allegation,$unless$it$is$an$element$
person.$$ of$a$crime$or$forms$part$of$a$cause$of$action$
$ in$a$civil$case$
$ %
CHARACTER%EVIDENCE% %
$ RULE%132%
Character% evidence% not% generally% admissible`%
when%may%be%admissible% %
Criminal$cases$ PRESENTATION%OF%EVIDENCE%
1.$ Accused$ may$ prove$ his$ good$ moral$ %
character$ which$ is$ pertinent$ to$ the$ moral$ Examination%of%a%witness%
trait$involved$in$the$offense$charged$ The$examination$of$witnesses$presented$in$a$trial$or$
2.$ Prosecution$ may$ prove$ the$ bad$ moral$ hearing$shall$be$done$in$open$court,$and$under$oath$
character$ of$ the$ accused$ in$ rebuttal$ or$affirmation.$Unless$the$witness$is$incapacitated$to$
(propensity$evidence)$ speak,$or$the$questions$calls$for$a$different$mode$of$
3.$ Good$ or$ bad$ moral$ character$ of$ the$ answer,$ the$ answers$ of$ the$ witness$ shall$ be$ given$
offended$party$may$be$proved$if$it$tends$to$ orally.$$
establish$ in$ any$ reasonable$ degree$ the$ $
probability$ or$ improbability$ of$ the$ offense$ General$rule:$to$be$admissible,$the$testimony$of$the$
charged$ witness$must$be$given$in$open$court.$
$ Exceptions:$

databril2018 6 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

1.$ Depositions$(civil)$ (e)$Of$a$witness$who$is$an$adverse$party$or$an$officer,$

2.$ Depositions$or$Conditional$examination$of$a$ director,$ or$ managing$ agent$ of$ a$ public$ or$ private$
witness$(criminal0$ corporation$or$of$a$partnership$or$association$which$
% is$an$adverse$party.$
Note:% Testimony$ of$ a$ witness$ in$ open$ court$ will$ $
prevail$ over$ his$ affidavit,$ unless$ there$ are$ A$misleading$question$is$one$which$assumes$as$true$
inconsistencies$based$on$significant$details.$ a$fact$not$yet$testified$to$by$the$witness,$or$contrary$
$ to$ that$ which$ he$ has$ previously$ stated.$ It$ is$ not$
Two%major%rights%of%a%witness% allowed.$$
1.$ Right$ against$ selfVincrimination$ –$ if$ the$ %
question$ requires$ an$ answer$ that$ will$ tend$ Impeachment%of%own%witness%
to$ subject$ a$ witness$ to$ punishment$ for$ an$ General$ rule:$ the$ party$ producing$ a$ witness$ is$ not$
offense$ allowed$to$impeach$his$credibility.$
2.$ Right$ against$ selfVdegradation$ –$ if$ the$ $
answer$ will$ have$ a$ direct$ tendency$ to$ Except:$
degrade$his$character,$unless:$ 1.$ Hostile$or$unwilling$witness$
a.$ Such$ question$ is$ directed$ to$ the$ very$ 2.$ Witness$is$the$adverse$party$
fact$at$issue$or$to$a$fact$from$which$the$ 3.$ Witness$is$not$voluntarily$offered$
fact$at$issue$would$be$presumedE$ $
b.$ It$refers$to$his$previous$final$conviction$ Unwilling$or$hostile$witness$
for$an$offense$ A$witness$may$be$considered$as$unwilling$or$hostile$
$ only$ if$ so$ declared$ by$ the$ court$ upon$ adequate$
Right%against%selfMincrimination% showing$ of$ his$ adverse$ interest,$ unjustified$
right$Not$to$give$an$answer$which$will$tend$to$subject$ reluctance$ to$ testify,$ or$ his$ having$ misled$ the$ party$
a$ witness$ to$ a$ penalty$ for$ an$ offense$ unless$ into$calling$him$to$the$witness$stand.$
otherwise$provided$by$law$ %
$ How%to%destroy%your%own%witness%
RASI:$accused$v.$witness$ 1$ Contradictory$statements$
Accused%% Witness%% 2$ Evidence$ that$ his$ general$ reputation$ for$
May$ be$ with$ reference$ The$offense$involved$is$ truth,$integrity,$and$honesty$is$bad.$
to$ the$ offense$ involved$ one$ for$ which$ he$ may$ 3$ Evidence$ that$ he$ has$ made$ prior$
in$ the$ same$ case$ be$tried$in$another$case$ inconsistent$ statements$ with$ present$
wherein$ he$ is$ charged$ testimony.$
or$ to$ an$ offense$ for$ 4$ Evidence$ of$ bias,$ interest,$ prejudice,$ or$
which$ he$ may$ be$ incompetence.$
charged$ and$ tried$ in$ $
another$case$ Recalling%a%witness%
He$ may$ refuse$ to$ take$ Compelled$ to$ take$ the$ After$the$examination$of$a$witness$by$both$sides$has$
the$stand$altogether$ stand$but$may$refuse$to$ been$ concluded,$ the$ witness$ cannot$ be$ recalled$
answer$ upon$ being$ without$ leave$ of$ the$ court.$ The$ court$ will$ grant$ or$
propounded$ by$ an$ withhold$ leave$ in$ its$ discretion,$ as$ the$ interests$ of$
incriminating$question$ justice$may$require.$$
$ $
$ Reference%to%memorandum%
General$rule:$a$witness$can$be$asked$questions$on$ Revival$of$present$memory$
matters$ taken$ during$ the$ direct$ examination$ or$ in$ A$ witness$ may$ be$ allowed$ to$ refresh$ his$ memory$
connection$ therewith.$ Questions$ are$ not$ limited$ to$ respecting$a$fact,$by$anything$written$or$recorded$by$
purely$mechanical$acts$but$also$to$mental$acts.$ himself$ or$ under$ his$ direction$ at$ the$ time$ when$ the$
$ fact$ occurred,$ or$ immediately$ thereafter,$ or$ at$ any$
Exceptions:$ other$time$when$the$fact$was$fresh$in$his$memory$and$
1.$ Accused$ knew$ that$ the$ same$ was$ correctly$ written$ or$
2.$ Hostile$witness$ recordedE$but$in$such$case$the$writing$or$record$must$
3.$ Adverse$witness$ be$produced$and$may$be$inspected$by$the$adverse$
$ party,$ who$ may,$ if$ he$ chooses,$ cross$ examine$ the$
$$ witness$upon$it,$and$may$read$it$in$evidence.$
Leading%and%misleading%questions% $
A$question$which$suggests$to$the$witness$the$answer$ $
which$ the$ examining$ party$ desires$ is$ a$ leading$ Revival$of$past$recollection$
question.$It$is$not$allowed,$except:$ A$ witness$ may$ testify$ from$ such$ writing$ or$ record,$
(a)$On$cross$examinationE$ though$ he$ retain$ no$ recollection$ of$ the$ particular$
(b)$On$preliminary$mattersE$ facts,$if$he$is$able$to$swear$that$the$writing$or$record$
(c)$ When$ there$ is$ a$ difficulty$ is$ getting$ direct$ and$ correctly$stated$the$transaction$when$madeE$but$such$
intelligible$ answers$ from$ a$ witness$ who$ is$ ignorant,$ evidence$must$be$received$with$caution.$.$
or$a$child$of$tender$years,$or$is$of$feeble$mind,$or$a$ $
deafVmuteE$ %
(d)$Of$an$unwilling$or$hostile$witnessE$or$ AUTHENTICATION% AND% PROOF% OF%
DOCUMENTS%

databril2018 7 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

% When%to%make%offer%
Classes%of%documents% Testimony$ of$ a$ witness$ –$ made$ at$ the$ time$ the$
1.$ Public$ –$ there$ is$ presumption$ of$ its$ due$ witness$is$called$to$testify$
execution$and$genuineness$ $
2.$ Private$–$no$such$presumption$lies$ Documentary$and$object$evidence$–$made$after$the$
$ presentation$ of$ a$ party’s$ last$ witness$ or$ testimonial$
Public%documents% evidence$
(a)$ The$written$official$acts,$or$records$of$the$official$ $
acts$ of$ the$ sovereign$ authority,$ official$ bodies$ Repetition%of%objection%unnecessary%
and$tribunals,$and$public$officers,$whether$of$the$ When$it$becomes$reasonably$apparent$in$the$course$
Philippines,$or$of$a$foreign$countryE$ of$ the$ examination$ of$ a$ witness$ that$ the$ question$
(b)$ Documents$acknowledge$before$a$notary$public$ being$propounded$are$of$the$same$class$as$those$to$
except$last$wills$and$testamentsE$and$ which$ objection$ has$ been$ made,$ whether$ such$
(c)$ Public$records,$kept$in$the$Philippines,$of$private$ objection$was$sustained$or$overruled,$it$shall$not$be$
documents$ required$ by$ law$ to$ the$ entered$ necessary$to$repeat$the$objection,$it$being$sufficient$
therein.$ for$ the$ adverse$ party$ to$ record$ his$ continuing$
$ objection$to$such$class$of$questions.$
How%to%prove%the%due%execution%and%genuineness% Striking%out%answer%
of%a%private%document% Should$ a$ witness$ answer$ the$ question$ before$ the$
Before$any$private$document$offered$as$authentic$is$ adverse$ party$ had$ the$ opportunity$ to$ voice$ fully$ its$
received$ in$ evidence,$ its$ due$ execution$ and$ objection$to$the$same,$and$such$objection$is$found$to$
authenticity$must$be$proved$either:$ be$meritorious,$the$court$shall$sustain$the$objection$
(a)$ By$ anyone$ who$ saw$ the$ document$ and$ order$ the$ answer$ given$ to$ be$ stricken$ off$ the$
executed$or$writtenE$or$ record.$
(b)$ By$ evidence$ of$ the$ genuineness$ of$ the$ $
signature$or$handwriting$of$the$maker.$ On$proper$motion,$the$court$may$also$order$the$
% striking$out$of$answers$which$are$incompetent,$
Note:% The$ due$ execution$ and$ genuineness$ of$ an$ irrelevant,$or$otherwise$improper.$$
ancient$document$need$not$be$proved$in$court.$$ $
$ Tender%of%excluded%evidence%
Ancient$document$$ If$ documents$ or$ things$ offered$ in$ evidence$ are$
1.$ a$private$document$$ excluded$by$the$court,$the$offeror$may$have$the$same$
2.$ that$ has$ been$ executed$ for$ more$ than$ 30$ attached$to$or$made$part$of$the$record.$$
years$ $
3.$ found$ in$ a$ place$ where$ it$ should$ be$ If$the$evidence$excluded$is$oral,$the$offeror$may$state$
genuinely$found$ for$ the$ record$ the$ name$ and$ other$ personal$
4.$ unblemished$or$unaltered$ circumstances$ of$ the$ witness$ and$ the$ substance$ of$
$ the$proposed$testimony.$$
How% to% prove% authenticity% of% a% foreign% official% $
document% $
(a)$ Attestation$ by$ the$ officer$ having$ legal$ RULE%133%
custody$of$the$recordsE$ %
(b)$ Accompanying$certification$of$the$Philippine$
WEIGHT%AND%SUFFICIENCY%OF%EVIDENCE%
diplomatic$or$consular$representative$to$the$
foreign$country$certifying$that$such$attesting$ $
officer$has$custody$of$the$document$ Quantum%of%evidence%
1.$ Civil$casesV$preponderance$of$evidence$
%
2.$ Criminal$cases$–$proof$beyond$reasonable$
How% do% you% prove% the% handwriting% of% a% person%
doubt$
who%signed%that%particular%document?%$
3.$ Administrative$cases$–$substantial$evidence$
1.$By$any$person$who$has$seen$the$person$writeE$$
4.$ Other$ cases$ –$ clear$ and$ convincing$
2.$By$any$person$who$has$seen$writing$purporting$to$ evidence$
be$ his$ upon$ which$ the$ witness$ has$ acted$ or$ been$ %
chargedE$$ Worthy%of%credit%
3.$By$making$comparison$of$the$signatureE$$ Evidence,$ to$ be$ worthy$ of$ credit,$ must$ not$ only$
4.$Expert$evidence$$ proceed$from$a$credible$source$but$must,$in$addition,$
$ be$credible$itself.$
$ $
OFFER%AND%OBJECTION% Proof%beyond%reasonable%doubt%
$ Does$not$mean$such$degree$of$proof,$as$excluding$
Offer%of%evidence% possibility$ of$ error,$ produces$ absolute$ certainty.$
The$court$shall$consider$no$evidence$which$has$not$ Moral$ certainty$ only$ is$ required,$ or$ that$ degree$ of$
been$ formally$ offered.$ The$ purpose$ for$ which$ the$ proof$which$produces$conviction$in$an$unprejudiced$
evidence$is$offered$must$be$specified.$Offer$shall$be$ mind.$
done$orally$unless$allowed$by$the$court$to$be$done$in$ $
writing.$ Presumptions%%
% Inferences$ which$ establish$ the$ existence$ or$ nonV

databril2018 8 of 9
 QUICKIE NOTES EVIDENCE

existence$of$facts$ $
$ a.$ Where$the$identity$of$the$accused$is$in$
Preponderance%of%evidence% question$
In$determining$where$the$preponderance$or$superior$ b.$ Where$the$evidence$is$circumstantial$
weight$ of$ evidence$ on$ the$ issues$ involved$ lies,$ the$ $
court$may$consider:$ 10.$ Res%ipsa%loquitur$
1.$ $all$the$facts$and$circumstances$of$the$case,$$ $
2.$ the$ witnesses'$ manner$ of$ testifying,$ their$ 11.$ Equipoise$or$equiponderance$rule$
intelligence,$their$means$and$opportunity$of$ $
knowing$ the$ facts$ to$ which$ there$ are$ 12.$ Flight$as$an$indication$of$guilty$
testifying,$$ $
3.$ the$nature$of$the$facts$to$which$they$testify,$$ 13.$ Totality$ of$ circumstances$ test$ for$ out$ of$
4.$ the$ probability$ or$ improbability$ of$ their$ court$identification$of$suspects.$
testimony,$ $
5.$ their$interest$or$want$of$interest,$and$also$$ $
6.$ their$personal$credibility$so$far$as$the$same$ Circumstantial% evidence,% when% sufficient% for%
may$legitimately$appear$upon$the$trial.$$ conviction%
Note:% The$ court$ may$ also$ consider$ the$ number$ of$ Circumstantial$evidence$is$sufficient$for$conviction$if:$
witnesses,$ though$ the$ preponderance$ is$ not$ (a)$ There$is$more$than$one$circumstancesE$
necessarily$with$the$greater$number.$ (b)$ The$facts$from$which$the$inferences$are$
$ derived$are$provenE$and$
Related%principles%% (c)$ The$combination$of$all$the$circumstances$
1.$ falso% in% uno,% falsus% in% omnibus% –$ false$ is$such$as$to$produce$a$conviction$beyond$
testimony$ in$ one$ aspect$ affects$ the$ entire$ reasonable$doubt.$
testimonyE$not$applied$in$the$Philippines.$ Power%to%stop%further%evidence%
$ The$ court$ may$ stop$ the$ introduction$ of$ further$
2.$ NonVproduction$ of$ a$ corroborative$ witness$ testimony$ upon$ any$ particular$ point$ when$ the$
without$any$explanation$given$why$he$was$ evidence$ upon$ it$ is$ already$ so$ full$ that$ more$
not$produced$weakens$the$testimony$of$the$ witnesses$ to$ the$ same$ point$ cannot$ be$ reasonably$
witness$ who$ named$ that$ corroborating$ expected$ to$ be$ additionally$ persuasive.$ But$ this$
witness$in$his$testimony.$ power$should$be$exercised$with$caution.$$
$ %
3.$ Affirmative$ testimony$ is$ stronger$ than$ %
negative$testimony.$ $
$ $
4.$ In$ weighing$ contradictory$ declarations$ and$ $
statements,$ greater$ weight$ must$ generally$ %
be$ given$ to$ the$ positive$ testimony$ of$ the$ $
prosecution$witnesses$than$to$the$denial$of$ $
the$defendant.$ $
! $
5.$ Delay$ of$ a$ witness$ in$ revealing$ to$ the$ %
authorities$ what$ he$ knows$ about$ a$ crime$
does$not$render$his$testimony$false,$for$the$
delay$ may$ be$ explained$ by$ the$ natural$
reticence$ of$ most$ people$ and$ their$
abhorrence$ to$ get$ involved$ in$ a$ criminal$
case.$
$
6.$ Mere$ relationship$ of$ the$ witness$ to$ the$
victim$does$not$impair$his$positive$and$clear$
testimony$nor$render$the$same$less$worthy$
of$credit.$
$
7.$ The$ prosecution$ must$ rely$ on$ the$ strength$
of$ his$ own$ evidence$ and$ not$ on$ the$
weakness$of$that$of$the$defense,$and$viceV
versa.$
$
8.$ Alibi$is$one$of$the$weakest$defenses.$
$
9.$ Motive$of$the$accused$is$immaterial$and,$not$
being$ an$ element$ of$ a$ crime,$ it$ does$ not$
have$ to$ be$ proved.$ However,$ evidence$ of$
motive$ is$ relevant$ or$ essential$ in$ the$
following$instances:$

databril2018 9 of 9