DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations

Academics Committee

TRANSCRIPT OF HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH

ONLINE LECTURE ON THE 2019 AMENDMENTS TO
THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-
SC)
DISCLAIMER: DLSU College of Law’s LCBO Academics Committee does not take credit for the
online lecture conducted by Hon. Maria Filomena D. Singh and hosted by the Facebook page “Live
Lecture in Evidence by J. Singh” on May 12, 2020. This written transcript was made in order to aid
law students in their review and for those students who may have had difficulty in watching the
said online lecture. The contents of this transcript are based solely on the said online lecture.
The online video lecture started on Section 2 of Documentary Evidence.

Page 1 of 39
This Transcription should be read alongside Justice Singh’s PowerPoint Presentation found on
this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ntcEnHAccuIPt9pyr5uH181ccYYnU0-
o/view?usp=drivesdk

- TRANSCRIPT BEGINS –

Section 2. Documentary Evidence

Old Provision Revised Provision

Documents as evidence consist of writing or Documents as evidence consist of writings,

any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their
contents. (n)
recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers,
figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression offered as proof
of their contents. Photographs include still
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films,
motion pictures or videos. (n)

 This is a very important revision, because the traditional concept is when we say
documentary evidence, of course, it’s a document, it’s a writing (something in writing) but
with this revision, it is no longer confined to documents or writing.
 This is a very very substantial revision. It expanded the definition of documentary
evidence
 This revision is lifted from the federal rules of evidence and also from the uniform rules of
evidence of the US
 The purpose for expanding the definition is to embrace in the broadest possible sense
every memorial that preserves written and spoken language including recorded sounds.
 For the longest time, even the Supreme Court in jurisprudence has repeatedly
acknowledged that photographs are documentary evidence.
 But now we are not limiting it just to what we can see, but also to what we hear. Because
even sounds memorialized are now considered documentary evidence.
 Now, how will this revolutionize trail or litigation in our country? Most of us, who are
involve in trials, always decry the delay occasioned to us by the absence of originals,
original documents, but more so, by the loss of this documents through some to reasons
beyond our control and sometimes in custody of courts. So with this, we can already
immediately guard against this delay, these losses, with the introduction of this particular
revisions and the subsequent provisions under this title.

Original Document Rule

 Well this is what we knew as the Best Evidence Rule.

 But even then, the Best Evidence Rule was always problematic because both judges and
litigants often confuse the BER with another rule, the Parol Evidence Rule.

Page 2 of 39
  So that is why a document is deemed presented and somebody was being asked (witness)
about the document; instead of saying “objection your Honor, on the basis of the BER”
sometimes counsels will raise the objection of violation of the Parol Evidence Rule and
vice versa.
 Here the very heart of this rule is what the Court wants is that if you have reduced your
agreement in writing, you give me the original of that writhing. Because that is the best
evidence of your agreement. That is because of the requirement of trustworthiness or
reliability. So it is a bit of a misnomer to call it “best evidence” because when you speak
of best evidence, we are actually not talking about all types of evidence (documentary,
object, testimonial), so this is really just a the best document evidence rule. Because it only
refers to documents.
 That is why the SC has deemed it best to call it by the proper nomenclature, and that is
the Original Document Rule, to avoid confusion.
 The original document rule applies only when the contents of the documents are in
question, that they are the very issue or at the core of the case, and so if that is the issue,
then the court naturally, would want to see the original of that document.
 And now you have to look at it, not just confined to paper or to written documents. This
will now include videos and other recordings including drawings.
 Jurisprudence in the PPT:
o With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when
the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only
as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does
not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Republic v. Spouses Gimenez,
G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016; Scunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No.
205879, April 23, 2014)
o The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents
of a writing are brought before the court xxx. The rule 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 and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against
misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction
of selected portions of a larger set of writings. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez,
G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013)
 If the issue is was that document actually executed, or does it exist, then there is no
question or issue as to the contents of the document, the Original Document Rule WILL
NOT apply.

Section 3. Original Document must be produced; exceptions

Old Provision Revised Provision

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible a document, writing, recording, photograph or
other record, no evidence is admissible other

Page 3 of 39
other than the original document itself, except than the original document itself, except in the
in the following cases: following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or (a) When the original is lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of court, without bad faith on the part of
the offeror; the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody
or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(b) When the original is in the custody
or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by judicial
processes or procedure;

 There are exceptions to this rule, and these exceptions were already existent under the
old provision that we have revised.
 The revisions only refer to the addition of the recordings, the photographs, or other
recrods.
 Exceptions:
o When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror.
o When the document is in the custody of the adversary, but here, the Court added
another exception. The addition is underscored in the bottom of the page “or the
original cannot be obtained by judicial processes or procedure;”
 This is only a recognition of jurisprudence that we already have that if the
document or the documentary evidence is in a foreign jurisdiction, and our
processes cannot secure them, then there is a ground or a justifiable cause
for the introduction of secondary evidence. The Court only recognized that
rule which has been memorialized in its decisions and now they have
included it as part of Paragraph B.
o Numerous or voluminous documents
 We have a special provision about this later on.
o When the original is in a public record in the custody of a public officer
o When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue.
 This is a new provision, why did the Court add this exception?
 This is what is referred to as a collateral matter. From the general
provisions, evidence on collateral matters are prohibited. Because they are
not relevant. Relevance is number 1, then competence. If it is not relevant
because it is a collateral matter, then it should not be admitted. But here,
there are also collateral matters which are admissible under the same
section in Rule 128 – if they tend to any degree, to prove the probability or

Page 4 of 39
 improbability of the fact in issue. Then collateral matters may be admitted
to. So this particular exception refers to collateral matters. So when the
original is not closely related to a controlling issue, this should be read in
conjunction with Section 4 of Rule 128.
 Jurisprudence on Exceptions:
o The additional exception “or the original cannot be obtained by judicial process or
procedure”
 In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil.
1002, unreported), the Supreme Court ruled that when the original is
outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country,
secondary evidence is admissible. See also Chartered Bank of India,
Australia & China v. Tuliarmo, 51 O.G.5211.
o The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-related to a controlling
issue”
 Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment
is intended to prevent an overly rigid or technical application of the original
document rule. It allows for trial efficiency where the original is so
tangential that its production would add little or nothing to the reliability
of the fact-finding process. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence,
Section 10.2 [1995])

Section 4. Original of Document

Old Provision Revised Provision

a) The original of the document is one (a) An “original” of a document is the

the contents of which are the subject
of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more
copies executed at our about the same
time, with identical contents, all such
copies are equally regarded as
originals.
document itself or any counterpart
intended to have the same effect by a
person executing or issuing it. An
“original” of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom. If
data is stored in a computer or similar
device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the data accurately is
an “original.”

(c) When an entry is repeated in the (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart

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. (3a)
produced by the same impression as
the original, or from the same matrix,
or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording,
or by chemical reproduction, or by
other equivalent techniques which

Page 5 of 39
 accurately reproduce the original. (c) A
duplicate is admissible to the same
extent as an original unless (1) a
genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original, or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the duplicate in
lieu of the origial. (4a)

 What do we consider the original of a document?

o The document itself, the contents of which are in issue
o Pragraph A - “… or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person
executing or issuing it.”
 For the longest time we’ve known that carbon copies are intended to be
originals.
 An ordinal of a photograph – the negative or any print therefrom.
 Where did this originate? - If you recall your Rules on Electronic Evidence,
we have that phrase “functional equivalent”.
 For example, you have your document in your computer (original) and then
you send it to someone by email, and then you generate a printout, that is
a functional equivalent. In the case of Maliksi v. Comelec: the flashcards
which stored the images of the ballots (and any printout thereof) were
considered by the Supreme Court as functional equivalents of the actual
ballots which was cast by the voters.
o Paragraph B (Duplicate) – this is a detailed version of paragraph b of the old
provision, of course taking into account advances in technology.
o Paragraph C – restrictions
 GR: duplicate is like an original, it is a counterpart, it is admissible
 EXPN:
 (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original,
or
 (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the origial. (4a)
o The amendment in Section 4 (a) does not modify the meaning of the existing rule
that “[t]he original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry.”
o Even as amended, the term “original” does not necessarily mean the first writing,
recording or photograph that was made, but rather refers to the writing, recording,
or photograph that is in issue in the litigation.
o The inclusion of any output from a computer adopts Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence (REE)
 Kinds of Original Documents
o (a) Documents where its contents are the subject of inquiry – still retained
 When what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of a
deed of sale and there is no real issue as to its contents, the best evidence

Page 6 of 39
 rule is inapplicable. (Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879,
April 23, 2014)
o (b) Duplicate original – still retained
 When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing
paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, xxx,
produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed
impression, all sheets are regarded as duplicate originals. (Capital Shoes
Factory, Ltd. v. Traveler Kids, Inc., G.R. No. 200065, Sept. 14, 2014)
o (c) Entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all entries are regarded as originals
– still retained (under the new Section 7)
 A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of goods or services to
the buyer, while a VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment
of goods or services received from the seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT
receipt should not be confused and made to refer to one and the same
thing. (Northern Mindanao Power Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 185115,
February 18, 2015)

Section 5. When Original of Document is Unavailable

 This provision starts off the enumeration of secondary evidence which may be resorted to
if the original of a document is no longer available or could not be produced in court within
a reasonable time.
 What are these alternative/ secondary evidence?
o You can produce it by a recital its contents in some other authentic document or
by a copy, or by testimony of witnesses in the order stated in the Rules.
o Requisites to establish the loss of an original of a document:
 The offeror must prove:
 existence or due execution of the original;
 loss/destruction of original or reason for non-production;
 absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror; Order of proof is: existence,
execution, loss, and contents. (MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark
Equipment Corp., G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014)

Section 6. When Original Document is in Adverse Party’s custody or control

 Revisions only refer to gender inclusive language.

 Requisites:
o The offeror must prove:

Page 7 of 39
 o a) existence or due execution of the original;
o b) loss/destruction of original or reason for non-production;
o c) absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror; Order of proof is: existence,
execution, loss, and contents. (MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment
Corp., G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014)
 In this particular case, during the hearing counsel for the litigant, undertook to bring the
particular document in the custody of his client to court, but never did so. And that is why
when the plaintiff submitted the photocopies, in his offer to evidence, the trial court
admitted the photocopies.

Section 7. Summaries

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

 This is a lift from the federal rule on Evidence.

 To us, this is just an elaboration or some form of guidance both to the judges and the
litigants.
 If the documents are voluminous, and you really don’t need to present all of them, but you
just want to present a conclusion based on these documents, all you need to do is to
present to the court a summary (chart, graph, calculation).
 Guidance on how to present evidence of this sort.

Section 10. Evidence of written agreements (Parol Evidence Rule)

 In essence: when the terms or the agreements of the parties have been reduced into
writing, there can be no other evidence of such terms but that writing.
 You cannot introduce testimony to alter the terms, or to add to it, or to subtract from it.
 No change in the provision except to add gender inclusive language and the word
“verified” (2nd paragraph).
 What are these things you can allege in order to justify the introduction of Parol Evidence?
o Intrinsic ambiguity
o Imperfection/ mistake in the drafting of the agreement
o Failure of the agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
o Validity of the written agreement itself is put in issue
o Or the existence of other terms agreed upon after the execution of the written
agreement

Page 8 of 39
 Oral testimony, of person who has an interest in the outcome of the case, in lieu of
documentary evidence may be admitted as evidence, provided:
o a) the existence of any of the following has been put in issue in a party's pleading
or has not been objected to by the adverse party:
 1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the agreement;
 2. Failure of agreement to express true intent of the parties;
 3. Validity of agreement;
 4. Existence of other terms agreed to after execution of the agreement.
o b) it serves as the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting party.
(Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
171601, April 8, 2015)
 The issue of admitting parol evidence is a matter that is proper to the trial, not the
appellate, stage of a case. (Sps. Abella v. Sps. Abella, G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015)
 This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in deferring to the contracting parties’
articulated intent. 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 as written or
documentary evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written
contract which speaks of a uniform language.” (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015)

Qualification of Witnesses

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

 DELETED PROVISION
 Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility if the testimony is coherent. A
mentally retarded may be a credible witness. The acceptance of her testimony depends
on the quality of her perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.
(People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, Jan. 30, 2013)
 That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The
dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has
long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC),
every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. (People v. Esugon, G.R. No. 195244,
22 June 2015)

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge

 Revision only includes gender inclusiveness and renumbering

 This used to be the old concept of hearsay.
 OLD CONCEPT OF HEARSAY

Page 9 of 39
 o testimony that is not based on one’s personal knowledge, nor derived from one’s
own perception
 NEW CONCEPT AS LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
o a witness can testify only as to facts of his or her personal knowledge or derived
from his or her own perception
 INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT – a witness may testify on matters which were
related to him/her by another individual. It is admissible because it is still based on the
witness’ personal knowledge as told to him/her by the third person. It is not proof of the
proof of what the third person relayed to the witness.
o statement relating what another individual told the declarant
o admissible proof based on firsthand knowledge of what the other individual told
the declarant: not hearsay
o Inadmissible as proof of the truth of the statement of the other individual to the
declarant
 The proper term now: Lack of first-hand knowledge
 Jurisprudence:
o Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth
of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if
the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact
that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the
truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement
has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.
As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary
but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is known as the
doctrine of independently relevant statements. (Espineli v. People, G.R. No. 179535,
June 9, 2014, citing Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, December
3, 2002)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage
 Stylistic change only.
 Reasons for the Rule:
o a) There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
o b) If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger
of perjury;
o c) The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private
life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent
domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
o d) Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing
one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. (Alvarez v. Ramirez,
G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005)
 Thus, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no
more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed,
the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity
of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that
identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences

Page 10 of 39
 of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. There is therefore
no reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. (Id.)
 If the community of interests no longer exists because of the strained relations of
the parties such as when they are separated in fact for a considerable period of
time, then the courts may no longer apply this disqualification.

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications

 No changes in husband-wife privileged communication.

Old Provision Revised Provision

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment, nor
can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or
clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity;
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed
by the client to be licensed to engage in the
practice of law cannot, without the consent of
the client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him or
her, or his or her advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined, without
the consent of the client and his or her
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity,
except in the following cases:

 “A person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of

law…”
o The motivation of the client to divulge or disclose his/her secrets is the belief that
this person is a lawyer or is licensed to practice law.
o We have to protect the general public against those unscrupulous individuals who
assume our position and illegally practice law when they should not.
 “or other persons assisting the attorney…”
o Refers to paralegals which are common nowadays
 Jurisprudence:
o A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the
author has acted in bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made
by parties or their counsel in pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial
and administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the witness in reply
to questions propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that
said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are

Page 11 of 39
 responsive to the questions propounded to said witnesses. xxx The absolute
privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice,
if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the
inquiry. (Belen v. People, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017)
o While Philippine law is silent on the question of whether the doctrine of absolutely
privileged communication extends to statements in preliminary investigations or
other proceedings preparatory to trial. (Id., citing Borg v. Boas, 231 F 2d 788 (1956)
 When will the attorney-client privilege not apply?
o Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought
or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client
knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
 The lawyer-client privilege should not be used as a shield for committing a
crime or committing fraud.
 If a client seeks advice or asks the lawyer for any other form of assistance
to further a crime or any fraud then the lawyer is no longer bound by the
privilege.
o Claimants through the same deceased client. As to a communication relevant to
an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless
of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
 Applies to succession cases.
 Attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client.
 In testate or intestate succession, what we want to do is to distribute the
estate as quickly as possible to the persons who were really intended by
the deceased or decedent to benefit from it.
 There will be no good purpose for using this privilege to bar the lawyer
from disclosing what the intent of the decedent was.
o Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an issue of
breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
 Self-defense exception.
 If your client stops paying you, and refuses to pay you your attorney’s fees,
you can bring a case to collect your fees, then you are no longer bound by
this privilege because this is self-defense.
 In the same manner, if you commit malpractice, your client also will no
longer be bound by this privilege. Because the view is that there is a view
of the privilege because of allegations of breach of duty as a lawyer.
o Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
 This is not an exception because the lawyer who acts as an attesting
witness, is not really a rendering professional legal services.
 You are just witnessing a document and you knew, by your client’s request
to be an attesting witness, that your role in this particular instance is not
as the counsel of your client, but to witness an execution of a particular
document.
o Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest
between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a
lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any
of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.

Page 12 of 39
  By the nature of the engagement, it is understood that they accept the risk
that everything that they say with their lawyers will be shared to the other
client.
 Unless, if you want to keep it confidential, then you have to state it
expressly.
 A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition,
including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her physician or
psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, including members of the patient’s
family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the
direction of the physician or psychotherapist.
 A “psychotherapist” is:

a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a

mental or emotional condition, or

b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.

o The old physician-patient privilege, there is a requirement that the statement must
tend to blacken the reputation – it is no longer here. What is important is that these
disclosures were made to a professional or someone who was believed to be
licensed to give diagnosis or treatment to the patient.
o This is important because it goes to basic constitutional right to privacy. There can
be no more personal or intimate disclosures than one you make to your physician
or psychotherapists. And so you must encourage for the most adequate treatment
and diagnosis – you must encourage free flowing information.
o It should not be tied to a requisite that only those information that will blacken the
reputation of the patient are prohibited. It covers all or any communications.
 A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of
the affected person, be examined as to any communication or confession made to or any
advice given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
o Priest-penitent privilege
o No longer limited to confessions.
o It includes any communication.
o Any communication which is confidential or intended to be confidential by a
person to a minister or priest in his professional character as a spiritual advisor.
o It cannot be just any spiritual advisor, there must be some course of discipline
recognized by the church.
 A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to communications
made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest
would suffer by the disclosure. The communication shall remain privileged, even in the
hands of a third person who may have obtained the information, provided that the original
parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
(24a)

Page 13 of 39
 oThe change was done was to clarify “… after his or her tenure” instead of using the
word “term”
o There is a danger that the original communicants are able to keep the
confidentiality of state secrets, but then, by some accidents or by other means
beyond the control or without the knowledge of the original discussants, there is a
memorial of what was discussed and it gets into the hands of a third person.
o Because of the nature of this statements and because of public interest, the Court
ought to add the last paragraph.
 Other privileged matters:
o a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;
o b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted;
o c) trade secrets;
o d) information contained in tax census returns;
o e) bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act);
o f) national security matters and intelligence information; and
o g) criminal matter. (Eagleridge Dev't. Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700, Nov. 24, 2014)
o There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from
taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. (Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro,
G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013)
 As to editors, in the draft of the proposed revisions, there was a section 26
– which was called the journalist source privilege (shield law).
 To protect the sources of the journalists
 In the rules that came out, Section 26 is no longer included
 There is no problem with that, because it has been recognized in
jurisprudence

Section 25. Parental and Filial Privilege

Old Provision Revised Provision

No person may be compelled to testify against No person shall be compelled to testify

his parents, other direct ascendants, children, against his or her parents, other direct
or other direct descendants. (20a) ascendants, children or other direct
descendants, except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime against that person
or by one parent against the other. (25a)

 Use of the phrase “except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that
person or by one parent against the other” – incorporates Article 315 of the Family Code
of the Philippines which provides that “[n]o descendant can be compelled, in a criminal
case, to testify against his parents and ascendants.”

Page 14 of 39
  A stepmother can be compelled to testify against stepdaughter, xxx they have no
common ancestry, privilege applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants. (Lee v.
CA, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010)
 The privilege is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not
incompetent or disqualified to testify against an ascendant. xxx refers to a privilege not
to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
 This privilege is waivable.

Section 26. Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets

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

 New provision but this provision merely institutionalized what has been ruled before by
the Supreme Court.
 Jurisprudence:
o In Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc. (G.R. No. 172835, December 13,
2007), the Supreme Court held that trade secrets are of a privileged nature, but
the privilege is not absolute; the court may compel disclosure where it is
indispensable for doing justice. A trade secret was defined in said case “as a plan
or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of his
employees to whom it is necessary to confide.” The definition was held to extend
to “a secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals
using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value.” The
Court went on to explain that a trade secret may “consist of any formula, pattern,
device or compilation of information that (1) is used in one’s business, and (2) gives
the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not
possess the information.

Section 27. Admission of a party

 Renumbered and gender inclusive

 Admission
o Any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
 To be admissible, it must:
o a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;
o b) be categorical and definite;
o c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
o d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and
inadmissible.

Page 15 of 39
 Section 28. Offer of Compromise not admissible
Old Provision
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.
n criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer. Xxx
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil or criminal liability for the injury. (24a)
 Offer of Compromise
o Civil Cases
 NOT ADMISSIBLE as admission of any liability.
Revised Provision
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.
Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements
made in compromise negotiations admissible,
except evidence otherwise discoverable or
offered for another purpose, such as proving
bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
contention of undue delay, or proving an
effort to obstruct a criminal investigation of
prosecution.
In criminal cases, except those involving
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer.
Neither is any statement made in the course
of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which
does not result in a plea of guilty or which
results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn,
admissible.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a)
Page 16 of 39
  ADMISSIBLE for other purposes (e.g., to prove bias of a witness, to negate
undue delay, to prove obstruction of criminal investigation/prosecution)
o The Rule is NOT absolute:
 If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the
purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits
the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the
claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such
indebtedness. (Tan v. Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December 18,
2006)
 Example: I am not admitting liability, but I will negotiate with you a
compromise because I don’t want to go to court anymore – no admission
of liability
 But in the course of our negotiations, I admit my indebtedness to you, and
I make a proposal, that is an admission of liability.
o Criminal Cases, EXCEPT quasi- offenses and those allowed to be compromised
 ADMISSIBLE as an implied admission of guilt.
 INADMISSIBLE if plea of guilt withdrawn; if offer of plea of guilt to lesser
offense is not accepted; if statement made during plea bargain and no plea
of guilt results or plea is later withdrawn.
o Offer made prior to the filing of the criminal complaint cannot xxx be an implied
admission of guilt, xxx as it was not made in the context of a criminal proceeding.
(San Miguel Corp. v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012)
o Act of pleading for forgiveness, through letters from detention, xxx analogous to
an attempt to compromise. Offer must be made under a consciousness of guilt,
NOT merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment. (People v. Nazareno, G.R.
No. 180915, Aug. 9, 2010)

Section 30. Admission by co-partner

Old Provision Revised Provision

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 in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act
or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party.
(26a)
The act or declaration of a partner or agent
authorized by the party to make a statement
concerning the subject, or within the scope of
his or her authority and during the existence
of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The same
rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party. (29a)

 The Supreme Court added the word “authorized”

 Additions made are for clarification purposes

Page 17 of 39
 Section 31. Admission by Conspirator

Old Provision Revised Provision

The act or declaration of a conspirator The act or declaration of a conspirator in

relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (27)
furtherance of the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (27)

 “In furtherance…”
o It cannot just be anything relating to the conspiracy, it must be in furtherance of
the conspiracy.
 Jurisprudence:
o The exception provided under Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule
allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the
conspiracy by evidence other than the confession. In this case, there is a dearth of
proof demonstrating the participation of Salapuddin in a conspiracy to set off a
bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman Akbar. Not one of the
other persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation professed that
Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds.
 Mere association with the principals by direct participation, without more, does not
suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy.
(Salapuddin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013)

Section 32. Admission by Privies

Old Provision Revised Provision

Where one derives title to property from
another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, while holding the title, in relation to
the property, is evidence against the former.
(28)
Where one derives title to property from
another, the latter’s act, declaration, or
omission, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former if done while the
latter was holding the title. (31a)

Section 33. Admission by Silence

Page 18 of 39
  The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded claim xxx and defend
himself. It is xxx against human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face
of false accusations. (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 208290, Dec. 11, 2013)
 Silence during custodial investigation is not admission by silence as he has the right to
remain silent during that stage. (People v. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, Nov. 25, 2013)

Section 34. Confession

 No change, added gender inclusivity only

 Extrajudicial confessions are binding only on the confessant and cannot be admitted
against co-accused, except if there is prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence
other than the confession. It must be proven that:
o a)the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
o b)the admission relates to the common object; and
o c)it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy. Mere association with the accused do not conclude that he was a
participant in the conspiracy to commit the crime. (Salapuddin v. CA,G.R. No.
184681, Feb. 25, 2013)

Previous Conduct as Evidence

 Evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did
the same or similar thing at another time.
 Prior involvement in a cash shortage in the bank's branch does not conclusively prove that
she is responsible for the loss of money in the new branch. (Metrobank v. Custodio, G.R.
No. 17380, March 21, 2011)
 Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal
case has committed a crime independent from the offense for which he is on trial. A man
may be a notorious criminal, and may have committed many crimes, and still be innocent
of the crime charged on trial. (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004)

Hearsay (New Subtitle and Provision)

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

Page 19 of 39
  New Hearsay Rule
 Anything stated by the declarant outside trial
 Example: Case for damages, anything stated by a witness outside trial is hearsay.
 Example: Non-verbal conduct – nodding/ shaking head while asking questions to signify
agreement or disagreement.
 2nd paragraph: cases for damages, I am sitting on the witness stand, you can examine
me. Can you now confront me for any of the statements made outside trial?
o Not all, because we have it keep it relevant, we have to confine it to the issue.
 What are the things you may bring up on cross-examination
o (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject
to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition
(prior inconsistent statement);
o (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence
or motive (prior consistent statement); or
o (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her
(identification).
 Identification out of court closer to the time the incident happened is more
reliable than the identification in court during this trial when maybe 3 years
had already lapsed from the time the incident happened.

Section 38. Dying Declaration

 No change
 DEAD MAN’S STATUTE: REQUISITES
o a)the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death;
o b)that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his
impending death;
o c)the declarant was competent as a witness; and d)the declaration is offered in a
criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
(People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015)

Section 39. Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 23. Disqualification by reason of SECTION 39. Statement of decedent or person

death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties
or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind, upon a
of unsound mind. – In an action against an
executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of

Page 20 of 39
claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind. (20a)
unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a
party or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased
person or before the person became of
unsound mind, any statement of the deceased
or the person of unsound mind, may be
received in evidence if the statement was
made upon the personal knowledge of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind at a
time when the matter had been recently
perceived by him or her and while his or her
recollection was clear. Such statement,
however, is inadmissible if made under
circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness. (23a)

 Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "[i]f one party to the alleged transaction is precluded
from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not
entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
account of the transaction." Thus, the alleged admission of the deceased xxx cannot be
used as evidence against [him] as the latter would be unable to contradict or disprove the
same. (Garcia v. Vda. de Caparas, G.R. No. 180843, April 17, 2013)
 Always remember:
o Why do we have rules on disqualifications?
o Why do we have rules on hearsay?
o Why all these rules qualifying testimonial evidence?
o It is because of reliability and trustworthiness
 Hierarchy of evidence:
o Testimonial evidence is at the bottom because it relies on human memory which is
very frail.
 The Court emphasizes that the judge should always look at badges of unreliability.
Because the declarant is no longer around to be questioned.

Section 40. Declaration against Interest

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 38. Declaration against interest. -
The declaration made by a person deceased,
or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to
be true, may be received in evidence against
SECTION 40. Declaration against interest. -
The declaration made by a person deceased,
or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to the declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable person in his or her position would
not have made the declaration unless he or
she believed it to be true, may be received in

Page 21 of 39
himself or his successors in interest and
against third persons. (32a)
evidence against himself or herself or his or
her successors in interest and against third
persons. A statement tending to expose the
declarant to criminal liability and offered to
exculpate the accused is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate
the trustworthiness of the statement. (38a)

 On the last sentence:

o This is important
o I’ve had several cases where there are contrary declarations against interest by
members of the family – they want to save their child, their spouse, their parents,
their siblings.
 Declaration against Interest vs. Admission against Interest
o Declaration against interest is made by a person who is neither a party nor in
privity with a party to the suit. xxx admissible only when the declarant is
unavailable as a witness.
o Admission against interest is made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity
with or identified in legal interest with such party, and is admissible whether or not
the declarant is available as a witness. (Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15,
2010)

Section 41. Act or Declaration about Pedigree

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 39. Act or declaration about
pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to
the pedigree of another person related to him
by birth or marriage, may be received in
evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the
two persons is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The word "pedigree"
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the
places where these facts occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It embraces also facts
of family history intimately connected with
pedigree. (33a)
SECTION 41. Act or declaration about
pedigree. - The act or declaration of a person
deceased or unable to testify, in respect to the
pedigree of another person related to him or
her by birth, adoption, or marriage, or, in the
absence thereof, with whose family he or she
was so intimately associated as to be likely to
have accurate information concerning his or
her pedigree, may be received in evidence
where it occurred before the controversy, and
the relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the
places where these facts occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It embraces also facts
of family history intimately connected with
pedigree. (39a)

Page 22 of 39
  The important addition here is that now we are recognizing adoptive relationships. So we
are not limiting ourselves to birth or marriage or consanguinity or affinity, we added
adoption here
 And we also said that in the absence of a person who is related by birth, adoption or
marriage, then someone who is intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree.
 Because we have numerous cases decided by the SC where we have testimony or
recollection or even diaries or memorials from household help who have been in the family
for a long period of time. And in one case, even a neighbor who grew up with the mother,
went to the same school as the mother, witnessed the birth of the children and saw them
grow up.
 Elements:
o the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;
o the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth, marriage,
or adoption, or with whose family he was so intimately associated;
o the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration; and
o the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy.

Section 42. Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree

 The only addition is the word “adoption”

 Requisites:
o a) a statement by a member of the family either by consanguinity, affinity, or
adoption;
o b) the statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family in respect to the
pedigree of any member of the family; and
o c) the reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the controversy.

Section 43. Common Reputation

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 41. Common reputation. Common SECTION 43. Common reputation. - Common
reputation existing previous to the reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or controversy, as to boundaries of or customs
general interest more than thirty years old, or affecting lands in the community and
respecting marriage or moral character, may reputation as to events of general history
be given in evidence. Monuments and important to the community, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in

Page 23 of 39
inscriptions in public places may be received evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in
as evidence of common reputation. (35) public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation. (41a)

 It is more user friendly. Because of you look at the previous way that the provision was
worded, there is a requirement of antiquity. It must be more than 30 years.
 The SC discarded that requirement (antiquity) to reliability.
 [Test of Reliability] There must be a consensus in the community.
 Over a period of 30 years, the people who are residents of the community could have
moved already, wala nang makakasatisfy sa requirement na ito .

Section 44. Part of the Res Gestae

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 42. Part of the res gestae. —
Statements made by a person 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. (36a)
SECTION 44. Part of the res gestae. -
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto, under the stress
of excitement caused by the occurrence with
respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So,
also, statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the
res gestae. (42a)

 In People v. Putian (G.R. No. L-33049, November 29, 1976), the Supreme Court noted that
if the declaration was made at the time of, or immediately thereafter, the commission of
the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still
continued in the declarant’s mind, it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
 “ … under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence…” added by the SC just for
clarity.
 Translated as startling occurrence.
 Requisites:
o a)that the principal act, the res gestae be a startling occurrence;
o b)the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or
devise a falsehood; and
o c)that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances.
 Res Gestae will be applied if between the occurrence and the time the statement or
declaration is made, the declarant has had no chance to reflect or concoct a story.

Page 24 of 39
  It must be that the declaration is made while the effects of the startling occurrence are
still there.
 Test:
o a)the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with
the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself; and
o b)the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.
 Spontaneity, how determined:
o a) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and
the making of the statement;
o b) the place where the statement is made;
o c) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
o d) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the
statement relative thereto; and
o e) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself. (Manulat v. People,
G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015)
 Variations in the time lapse (still allowed):
o Just a matter of hours
o Days
o Overnight
o 2 days

Section 45. Records Regularly Conducted Business Activity

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 43. Entries in the course of business.
— Entries made at, or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may
be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in
the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty. (37a)
SECTION 45. Records of regularly conducted
business activity. – A memorandum, report,
record or data compilation of acts, events,
conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by
writing, typing, electronic, optical or other
similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in
the regular course or conduct of a business
activity, and such was the regular practice to
make the memorandum, report, record, or
data compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means, all of which are shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on
hearsay evidence. (43a)

Page 25 of 39
  Important
 Will solve a lot of delay
 Elements:
o a) the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to
testify;
o b) the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
o c) the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
o d) the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of
the entrant; and, e)the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty. (Landbank v. Oñate, G.R. No. 192371, January 15, 2014)
o NOTE: No more requirement that the entrant must be dead or unable to testify
and must have personal knowledge of the recorded matter. Adopted Rule 8,
Section 1 of the REE.
 Example: Banks have credit officers who are constantly changing, the account officers do
rotations or transferred somewhere else. Somebody new comes in, this person does not
have personal knowledge of the transactions. But this person has knowledge that the ones
who made the entries had personal knowledge and custody of these documents, and that
this was in the regular course of business of the bank. But before we get to the meat of
the testimony, so many objections are raised already – lack of personal knowledge,
hearsay, etc. So now the SC has made it very clear here that all this things, all this old
objections should no longer derail such kind of testimony.

Section 49. Testimony or Deposition in a Former Proceeding

Old Provision Revised Provision

The testimony or deposition of a witness The testimony or deposition of a witness

deceased or unable to testify, given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence
against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to crossexamine him. (41a)
deceased or out of the Philippines or who
cannot, with due diligence, be found therein,
or is unavailable or otherwise unable to
testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had
the opportunity to crossexamine him or her.
(47a)

 The important thing, of course, is crossexamination. That is a guarantee of due process.

Unless there was an opportunity a corssexamine and it was waived, this cannot be availed
of.
 For the admissibility of a former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have
had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the prior proceeding.
 The issues involved in both cases must, at least, be substantially the same; otherwise, there
is no basis in saying that the former statement was — or would have been — sufficiently

Page 26 of 39
 tested by cross-examination or by an opportunity to do so. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152375, Dec. 13, 2011)
 Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary
investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (PCGG v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194159, Oct. 21,
2015, reiterating Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
 Requisites for applicability:
o a) The person making the hearsay statement is credible;
o b) There must be “substantial basis” for crediting the hearsay (NOT to be confused
with “substantial evidence”)

Section 50. Residual Exception (new)

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

 This is a catch all provision.

 If your particular case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, you
have Section 50.
 You have to give advance notice if you are going to avail of any exception under Section
50.
 Rather than add a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, the Sub- Committee opted
to adopt the residual or catchall exception provided in Rules 803 (24) and 804 (b) (5) [now
Rule 807] of the FRE.
 The catchall exception found in the FRE stemmed from the ruling in Dallas County v.
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. (286 F. 2d 388 [5th Cir. 1961]), which admitted an
old newspaper article to prove that a fire occurred at the court tower during construction.
Although not falling under any of the recognized hearsay exceptions, the news article was
admitted because of “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness based on the fact that
the individual reporting the fire had no motive to falsify and that a false report of a matter
so easily checked by readers of the paper would have subjected the reporter to
considerable embarrassment.”
 The catchall exception should be “used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.”
(Id.)
 What is important is that we give the judge some guarantee of trustworthiness or
reliability.

Page 27 of 39
 Section 52. Opinion of Expert Witness

 The SC added the word “education”.

 The SC thought to add education maybe for clarity or for additional detail.
 Admissibility of opinion of an expert witness who:
o a) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under
inquiry sufficient to qualify him to speak with authority on the subject; and
o b) is familiar with the standard required of a professional under similar
circumstances.
o The principle is that the witness' familiarity, and not the classification by title or
specialty, should control issues regarding the expert witness' qualifications.
(Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
 Two step process:
o Must be qualified
o Must be admitted as an expert
o Then proceed to examination
 How to qualify an expert witness?
o Circulate to the adverse party and the court the CV or resume of the witness.
 There must be a broad latitude given to the judge in instances of admission of the opinion
of expert witnesses.

Section 53. Option of Ordinary Witness

 Admissibility of opinion of an ordinary witness on:

 a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
 b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
 c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and
 d) may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person.

Section 54. Character Evidence not Generally Admissible; Exception

Old Provision Revised Provision

(a) In Criminal Cases: Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of

character is not admissible for the purpose of
proving action in conformity therewith on a
(1) The accused may prove his good particular occasion, except:
moral character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
(a)In Criminal Cases:

Page 28 of 39
 (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution
may not prove his bad moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of
the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable
degree the probability or improbability
of the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral
character of a party in a civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section
14. (46a, 47a)
(1) The character of the
offended party may be proved
if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of
the offense charged
(2) The accused may prove his
or her good moral character,
pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense
charged. However, the
prosecution may not prove his
or her bad moral character
unless on rebuttal.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a
party in a civil case is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases Evidence of
the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has
been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of
character or a trait of character of a
person is admissible, proof may be
made by testimony as to reputation or
by or by testimony in the form of an
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry
is allowable into relevant specific
instances of conduct. In cases in which
character or a trait of character of a
person is an essential element of a
charge, claim or defense, proof may
also be made of specific instances of
that person’s conduct. (51a; 14; Rule
132)
Page 29 of 39
 Not generally admissible because it deflects us from the real issues.
 the “circumstantial use” of character evidence, that a person acted in a similar way in the
past because that is his or her character or he or she has a propensity for doing similar
acts
 Prohibited because it is circumstantial at best and it tends to confuse the issues or creates
unfair surprise or prejudice
 Example: Real issue is damages, but then you introduce evidence that this person is prone
to quarrels etc. at most, what you are proving is circumstantial.
 When is it admissible?
o Criminal Cases
 1) Accused - may prove his or her moral trait pertinent to the charge - the
prosecution, on rebuttal, may prove the accused’s bad moral character
 2) Offended party – character may be proved if it tends to establish
probability or improbability of charge
 Example: In crimes involving moral turpitude, if there is an element of
deceit, the accused may prove his or her good moral character to counter
that particular charge. But in that instance, if the accuse decides to present
proof of his or her good moral character, then the prosecution may also
prove the accused’s bad moral character on rebuttal.
 The offended party may prove character if it tends to establish the
probability or improbability of a charge
 Example: Unjust vexation, the accused annoyingly did something to the
offended party, but then the accusation that the offended party was of a
quarrelsome nature.
o Civil Cases
 Only when moral character of a party is pertinent to the issue of character
involved
 Example: suit for damages based on a vehicular collision. This party, the
one who is responsible, is known to be an alcoholic or a drug user in the
community. And so that may be the reason why the collision occurred.
o Character of a Witness
 Good character of a witness may only be proven after such witness’
character has been impeached
o How to Prove Character:
 Testimony on reputation – traditional form
 Testimony in the form of an opinion – previously not allowed, but now
recognized that testimony on reputation is just “opinion”
 On cross-examination only: the character witness may be asked about
relevant prior specific conduct for the limited purpose of testing knowledge
and credibility of such witness

Rule 131 Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence, and Presumptions

Section 1. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

 Institutionalized what has been in practice.

Page 30 of 39
  Included the definition of Burden of Evidence
 Burden of Proof is the standard that you have to satisfy in a given case.
 Burden of Proof never shifts. Imposed on a party and will not transfer.
 Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or
rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift from
one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of
the case.
 The “burden of proof” remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed.
It is the “burden of evidence” that shifts from party to party during trial. (Republic v.
Mupas, G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015)
 Burden of Evidence will shift from party to party in the course of trial. It is the burden of
going forward, the burden of proving a fact in issue.
 In a criminal case, if you are the prosecution, you have the burden of proof (proof beyond
reasonable doubt), but you also have the burden of evidence because you have to prove
each element. So you’re moving to proof from one element to the next. It just so happens
that one element is covered by a presumption. Example, in cases under BP22, there is a
presumption that there are no adequate funds once you give notice and the check is not
made good within a given of time. In that instance, because of that legal presumption,
the burden (of evidence) shifts to the defense because you have established your fact by
virtue of that presumption.

Section 5. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings

SECTION 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions and proceedings
not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against
whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.

If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations
of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies.
(n)

 Instructional
 Once a legal presumption arises, then the party against whom the presumption arose,
must move forward because the burden of evidence has shifted to him or her.
 In the 2nd paragraph, if considerations of policy are of equal weight, they cancel out each
other.
 This amendment was taken from Rule 301 of the FRE and clarifies that presumptions
should affect only the burden of evidence or production, referred to as the “bursting
bubble” approach to presumptions.
 As for the second paragraph, the Supreme Court has held that, in case of conflicting
presumptions, “it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption, and determine
what logical or social basis exists for each presumption, and then determine which should
be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail over the other.” (People v.
Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995) Thus, between the presumption that “a
young Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true” and the presumption of

Page 31 of 39
 innocence, the latter should prevail because it “is founded upon the first principles of
justice, and is not a mere form but a substantial part of the law.” (Id.)
 Bursting Bubble Approach
o If you present countervailing evidence to overthrow a presumption, then the
bubble bursts, the presumption is gone – it is negated.

Section 6. Presumptions against an Accused in Criminal Cases

SECTION 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a presumed fact that

establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the
basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic
fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)

 Example: Presumption of regularity of performance of official duties as against the

presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is weightier.
 You cannot convict an accused on the basis of a mere presumption. If that is all that the
prosecution has, then there must be an acquittal.
 The model of this amendment is Rule 303 (b) of the URE and is designed to deal with a
situation in a criminal case where the prosecution relies solely upon a presumption to
establish guilt or the element of a crime and not any other evidence. The Court may view
the presumption in such a case as conclusive or as shifting the burden of proof.

Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence

Old Provision Revised Provision

SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION; ITS SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION; ITS

PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party as to any matters stated in the
direct examination, or connected therewith,
with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon the
termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party on any relevant matter, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his or
her accuracy and truthfulness and freedom
from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the
issue. (6a)

 Before, we allow cross examination on any matter stated in the direct examination or
connected therewith. But now, the SC has changed that. Now, it says, that a witness may
be examined on any relevant matter. There is no longer any restriction that it be limited
to matters taken up in the direct or connected therewith.
 Shift from the American Rule, the Scope-of-Direct Rule, which limits cross-examination to
matters taken up in the direct examination or anything connected therewith, to the English
Rule, or the Wide Open Rule, which permits cross on any relevant matter.

Page 32 of 39
  This is more consistent with the definition of evidence under Rule 128 Section 1.
“ascertaining the truth regarding a matter of fact” because if you restrict it to matters
taken up in the direct examination, there might be some kind of half-truth or not a whole
view of the truth or evidence if we do not change the language of the rule.

Section 12. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction or Crime (new)

For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final
judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of
one year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty.

However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an
amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n)

 Relate this to Character Evidence

 GR: Evidence of prior conviction or prior charge – NOT admissible
 Exceptions:
o If the crime of which the witness was punished was a crime punishable in excess
of 1 year.
 Reason for the rule: the Court thought that if an individual was convicted
of light offenses or minor crimes, it does not necessarily affect his or her
credibility. It is not necessary a stain on his integrity. It should have little
impeachment value.
o A crime involving moral turpitude

Section 15. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses

Old Provision Revised Provision

On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude
from the court any witness not at the time
under examination, so that he may not hear
the testimony of other witnesses. The judge
may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one
another until all shall have been examined.
(18)
The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall
order witnesses excluded so that they cannot
hear the testimony of other witnesses. This
rule does not authorize exclusion of (a) a party
who is a natural person, (b) a duly designated
representative of a juridical entity which is a
party to the case, (c) a person whose presence
is essential to the presentation of the party‘s
cause; and (d) a person authorized by a
statute to be present.

The court may also cause witnesses to be kept

separate and to be prevented from conversing
with one another, directly or through

Page 33 of 39
 intermediaries, until all shall have been
examined. (15a)

 GR: The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they
cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.
 Exception:
o (a) a party who is a natural person,
o (b) a duly designated representative of a juridical entity which is a party to the
case,
o (c) a person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party‘s cause;
and
o (d) a person authorized by a statute to be present.

Authentication and Proof of Documents

Section 19. Classes of Documents

Old Provision Revised Provision

For the purpose of their presentation in For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or evidence, documents are either public or
private. Public documents are: private.

a)The written official acts, or records of the Public documents are:

official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country; a)The written official acts, or records
of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the
b)Documents acknowledged before a notary Philippines, or of a foreign country;
public except last wills and testaments; and

b)Documents acknowledged before a

c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of notary public except last wills and
private documents required by law to be testaments; and
entered therein.

Page 34 of 39
All other writings are private. (20a) c) Documents that are considered
public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force
between the Philippines and the
country of source; and

d) Public records, kept in the

Philippines, of private documents
required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (19a)

 Admissible without proof of due execution and genuineness.

Section 20. Proof of Private Documents

Old Provision Revised Provision

Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
a) By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only
be identified as that which it is claimed
to be. (21a)
Before any private document offered
as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must
be proved by any of the following
means:
a) By anyone who saw the document
executed or written;
b) By evidence of the genuineness of
the signature or handwriting of the
maker; or
c) By other evidence showing its due
execution and authenticity.

Any other private document need only be

identified as that which it is claimed to be. (20)

 Due execution and authenticity must be proved.

 The SC said we should not be limited to evidence under a) and b)
 The SC added this other medium (c) to cover all other evidence not falling with a) and b)

Section 22. How Genuineness of Handwriting Proved

 It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own
independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge

Page 35 of 39
 can do without necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is
mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
Comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing
ones. Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself,
to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.” (Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, G.R. No. 205681, July 1,
2015)

Section 24. Proof of Official Record

Old Provision Revised Provision

The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible
for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal
of his office. (25a)
The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible
for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy,
and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such
officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, which is a contracting party
to a treaty or convention to which the
Philippines is also a party, or considered a
public document under such treaty or
convetion pursuant to paragraph (c) of
Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its
equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by
such treaty or convention subject to
reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.

For documents originating from a foreign

country which is not a contracting party to a
treaty or convention referred to in the next
preceding sentence, the certificate may be
made by a sectretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul,
or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his or her
office.

Page 36 of 39
 A document that is accompanied by a
certificate or its equivalent may be presented
in evidence without further proof, the
certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved. The
certificate shall not be required when a treaty
or convention between a foreign country and
the Philippines has abolished the requirement,
or has exempted the document itself from this
formality. (24a)

 This particular provision was added because of the Apostille convention (took effect
May14, 2019)
 It abolished the requirement of consularization.
 What is consularization?
o When we secure a diplomatic or consular legalization of our public documents or
notarial documents from a foreign country.
o Our documents are originating from another country, they are going to presented
in court in the PH. So we need some form of authentication. Our old provisions of
our rules required this form of authentication.
o No longer needed under the Apostille Convention. All you need is a certificate
which you can secure from the DFA.

Offer and Objection

Section 35. When to Make Offer

 Institutionalized the oral offer of evidence, and the offeror of the testimony of wtiness in
evidence must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
 The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made after the presentation of a
party’s testimonial evidence.
 Courts will not accept evidence not offered formally.

Section 39. Striking out Answer

Old Provision Revised Provision

Should a witness answer the question before
the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court
shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order
the striking out of answers which are
Should a witness answer the question before
the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, or where
a question is not objectionable, but the answer
is not responsive, or where a witness testifies
without a question being posed or testifies
beyond limits set by the court, or when the
witness does a narration instead of answering
the question, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the

Page 37 of 39
 incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise objection and order such answer, testimony or
improper. (n) narration given to be stricken off the record.

On proper motion, the court may also order

the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper. (39a)

Rule 133

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 4. Circumstantial Evidence, when sufficient

Old Provision Revised Provision

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction if: conviction if:

a)There is more than one circumstance; a)There is more than one circumstance;

b)The facts from which the inferences are b)The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and derived are proven; and

c)The combination of all the circumstances is c)The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt.

Inferences cannot be based on other

inferences. (4a)

Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of Expert Witness, how determined

SECTION 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. – In any case where
the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion
in determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider the
following:

a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;

b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;

c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case;
and

d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)

Page 38 of 39
 This new provision gives guidance to judges in determining weight to be given to expert
opinion. It hews to the basic sense expressed by the US Supreme Court in Daubert v.
Merrel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the judge must have considerable leeway in the matter
and that the listing of particular factors was meant to be “helpful” rather than “definitive.”
 Just because they are the expert, it does not mean that we have to receive everything
that they say to the letter.
 We still must exercise our discretion (judges).

- TRANSCRIPT ENDS –

Online Lecture may be accessed through this link:

https://www.facebook.com/Live-Lecture-in-Evidence-by-J-Singh-107192447654943

Page 39 of 39