Evidence 2ND Exam 2018 TSN - Final PDF

REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE 2 ND EXAM TSN
MANRESA 2018
Transcription based on the Lectures of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one

RULE 130 being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all
the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS Do not view originality in terms of time of creation, you determine
the subject of inquiry instead.
AUGUST 1, 2018
0:00:01 – 0:26:00 | Alexander Abonado Original here does not mean the first paper written in contrast to a
copy or transcript being later. The original depends upon the issue
I want to talk about the rules of admissibility of documents. The to be proved. It is immaterial whether the document was written
same thing that we talked about in the rules of admissibility of before or after another was copied from another, or was it itself
objects. First thing that we need to take note here is: what is a used to copy from as long as its contents are the subject of inquiry.
document or what consists in documentary evidence? To illustrate that we go to the example of Dean Inigo, with respect
to libel cases. For libel it is an imputation of a vice or defect and
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence there is that requisite of publication of the imputation of that vice
consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, or defect. In other words there is that element of publicity.
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents. (n) Under article 355, any person who shall publish, exhibit or shall
cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or
The most important thing that we need to remember there would by similar means shall be responsible for the same. The editor or
be the last part: offered as proof of their contents. author of the book or pamphlet or the editor or business manager
of the daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication shall be
Because even if paper is being offered into evidence but it is not responsible for the defamation contained therein in the same
offered as proof of their contents. Meaning it is offered as proving extent as if he were the author thereof.
the physical attributes of paper or a document cannot properly
classify that as documentary evidence. Why is it that the law here talks about publication or exhibition or
causing the publication or exhibition?
Remember also what we discussed previously relating to multiple
admissibility of evidence such that when you talk about a There are several modalities therefor by which libel may be
document, if you’re offering it for the purpose of proving the committed.
contents and it’s not admissible for the simple reason that it is
covered by an exclusionary rule, like best evidence rule/parole How is a news article published? Reporter types up a story (true or
evidence rule, it can still be offered as proof of its physical false), then submits it to his editor. Then the editor publishes a
characteristics…so that’s the concept of multiple admissibility of story in the newspaper.
evidence.
But since we are talking here of the original of documents, in a
The definitions of both object evidence and documentary evidence prosecution for libel which is the original?
– you need to really know them by heart. Because it’s been asked The story as typed or the story as published? We have to ask: what
in the Bar how many times already. is the subject of inquiry? It depends.
Next thing we need to remember, we need to skip section 3 for If the subject of inquiry was who wrote the article – the original
now because the more logical way of discussing documentary would be the story as prepared or typed by the author.
evidence would be first to determine what is the original of a
document (Section 4) If the issue to be established is whether the published story is
libelous or not, the original is the story which appeared in the
Section 4. Original of document. — newspaper.
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are
the subject of inquiry. What is the subject of inquiry? Unsay gi awayan nato diri? unsay
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about tumong?
the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals. If it would be who wrote the article?
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one - Then identify the perpetrator: then that would be the
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all story as prepared or typed by the author.
the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
If it would be if it is libelous or not then you have to look at the
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the original in terms of that which appears in the newspaper.
subject of inquiry – which begs you not to view the term originality
in terms of time. Dili na siya panahon kung unsay nauna, but What about telegrams?
rather which one the contents of which would be the subject of In a suit against a telegram company for failure to transmit a
inquiry, that’s the original of a document. message the original is the message submitted to the company for
transmission.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals. –
ABONADO ANDIT DEIPARINE DEL ROSARIO DELOS SANTOS LIM MALIGAD MANLIGOY TAN VIOLA YU 1
MANRESA 2018
If the suit is for damages against the company because of delay in Because the registries of properties does not deal in mere private
transmission, the original would be the message as received by the instruments. So if you have a mere private document you cannot
recipient. cause the transfer of title from one name to another. It has to be in
a public document.
If the subject of inquiry is the inaccuracy of the transmission of the
telegram, the originals would be both the originals as sent and You know a notary public, you want to sell your land therefor you
received. Because by then you need to make a comparison. need to have a deed of sale drafted prepared then notarized.
What are considered as originals under the law? How many copies do you think a notary public would be keeping?
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about 1 copy to the buyer, 1 to the seller, 1 copy retained by the notary
the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally public, 1 copy to the clerk of court for submission. So at least 4
regarded as originals. That is known as the DUPLICATE copies and all of them are equally regarded as originals.
ORIGINAL RULE.
Distinguish that from mere copy certifications, under the rules on
Any such copies may be introduced in evidence without Notarial practice, naa tay ginatawag copy certification. So you’re
accounting for the non-production of the other copies. Because any actually having something reproduced which is already a
way what you are going to produce here would be the duplicate photocopy for example. But the notary public will now attest that
original. that is a faithful reproduction of a record that he keeps in his
Examples here would be: office. That is copy certification. That is not an original.
But documents notarized by a lawyer pursuant to a deed of sale or
1. If a data clerk makes an entry of a transaction which is a contract of sale is actually considered as a duplicate original.
repeated several times for the files of each department of
a company, each document where the entry is made is an BPI v. SMP
original as long as the entries were made at or near the
time of the transaction in the regular course of business. SMP undertook to supply polystyrene products to Clothespak in
the amount of $118,500. As payment Clothespak issued postdated
2. When lawyers prepare pleadings: lawyers print out or checks and the sales executive of SMP executed a provisional
reproduce how many copies of the pleadings, what is receipt in triplicate with a notation: “materials belong to SMP, Inc.
important here would be the signature, if original, than until your checks clear.”
that copy would be considered an original.
Meaning there is a reservation of ownership that can only be
3. Writings with identical contents made by printing, discharged by encashment of a check or when consideration of the
mimeographing, lithography, or other similar methods contract already fulfilled. The checks bounced.
executed at the same time are considered originals.
Thus, each newspaper sold in the newsstand is an original in itself. In the meantime, in a case filed by Far East Bank (FEB), one of
those banks subsumed by BPI in a merger long time ago.
2004 Rules on Notarial practice
Clothespak was subjected to a writ of preliminary attachment
Rules 6 section thereof provides that there is a certain requirement which included the polystyrene products. FEB secured a favorable
for keeping duplicate original copies. So when the instrument is a judgment which became final and executory which led to the
contract. The notary public shall keep an original thereof as part of execution against Clothespak’s properties, inclusive of the goods
its records and enter in said records a brief description of the earlier attached.
substance thereof and should give to each entry a consecutive
number beginning with no. 1 of each calendar year. What is the significance of the notation that “materials belong to
SMP, Inc. until your checks clear.”
He should also retain a duplicate original copy for the clerk of
court. The law itself actually mandates that there has to be a For that, we need to be reminded of the distinctions between a
duplicate. contract of sale and a mere contract to sell. In an ordinary contract
of sale, delivery transfers ownership, but in a contract to sell there
Situation: might be a reservation of ownership despite the fact that there is
already delivery.
Selling land. Remember that a contract of sale is valid if it is in
writing or by word of mouth, partly in writing and by word of The fact that the products were found in the possession of
mouth and even implied by the conduct of the parties. But you Clothespak does not necessarily mean that it is owned by
need to remember that for greater efficacy, the law actually Clothespak. SMP filed an affidavit of third party claim (terceria)
requires certain requirements. over the polystyrene products.
It anchors its claim of ownership over the goods by virtue of the
We call that requirements for convenience. In sale of property that conditional receipt and presented it during trial. FEB objected on
is covered under the Torrens system or placed under the the ground that SMP presented the triplicate copy without
operations of the Torrens systems, must be in a public document. presenting the original.
Issue: whether the triplicate copy containing the notation:

MANRESA 2018
“materials belong to SMP, Inc. until your checks clear” is an CAPITAL SHOES VS. TRAVELER KIDS (Sept. 24, 2013)
original.
When carbon sheet are inserted between two or more sheets of
If it has significance and received into evidence then the third writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside
party claim of SMP will actually have some credence there na dili sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby,
dapat siya maapil sa execution because it does not belong to produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature
Clothespak. being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made
the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on
SC ruled: the receipt presented by SMP is considered an original. are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be
Considering that the triplicate copy of the provisional receipt was introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the
executed at the same time as the other copies of the same receipt nonproduction of the others.
involving the transaction.
Sir’s story: he used to work at a credit cooperative. Part of his job

to look at irregularities. Where a seller usually prepares two (2) copies of invoices for a
particular transaction, giving one copy to a client and retaining the
In order for you to pay, naa ginapadala na collector. Then the other copy, Section 4(b) of Rule 130 is applicable. Meaning, it is
collector responsible for receiving the cash paid by the borrower considered as an original.
issuing a receipt in triplicate (white, green, pink). Inserting carbon
sheets so that whatever imprint you make on the first page will Bar Question (1997):
also be triplicated to the other copies.
When JZE loaned a sum of money to Bangs, JZE typed a single
So ideally, whatever is written in the first, the same in copy of the promissory note, which they both signed. JZE made
the second and the same in the third page. two photocopies of the promissory note, giving one copy to
Bangs and retaining the other copy, JZE entrusted the
Ihatag ang puti sa borrower as proof na nagbayad siya then I turn typewritten copy to his counsel for safekeeping. The copy with
over ang two other copies to two different departments. So these JZE’s counsel was destroyed when the law office was burned by
are all supposed to be original copies of one transaction. But later Maja kay nagselos.
on we learned that borrowers are complaining nga ngano kuno
ginasingil pa sila. Gipadal-an na ug demand letter eh, kay based a. In an action to collect the promissory note, which is
on our records wa pa sila kabayad dako pa kaayo ug utang, then deemed to be the “original” copy?
ang interest naga taas naga dako.
b. Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be
They presented the white receipts saying they have already fully considered “duplicate” originals?
paid including interest. How is it based on our records naa pay
utang pero based sa gipakita nga resibo fully paid na siya. Answers: (The answer is just CODAL.)
What I did was confirmation of accounts. 1. The original is the one typed and signed by both parties
and which was lost when the office of the counsel was
That was the time na I knew na ginabinuangan mi sa among burned. It is the one the contents of which is the subject
collectors. (ploy of collectors to effectuate the fraud: inserting of inquiry; AND
paper between the receipts, dili na kaayo reliable na ang mga
carbon because there is a way to skirt that, we have to be very 2. The photocopies are not duplicate originals. They
careful, we have to scrutinize these documents, etc.) cannot be deemed as having been made at the same
time with the original because they were not signed like
Capital Shoes v. Traveller the original.
Sept 24, 2015
Which again talks about carbon sheets.

“Xxx (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the
When carbon sheets are inserted to two or more sheets of writing
paper so that the writing of the contract upon the outside sheet transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.”
including the signature of the party to be charged over dye,
produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signatures
being reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the To be considered originals under this provision, there are certain
REQUISITES that must be complied with:
surface. Of course exposes the impression all of the sheets so
written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them
maybe introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the 1. There must be entries made and repeated in the regular
non-production of the others. course of business;
2. The entries must be made at or near the time of the

0:26:01 – 0:52:00 | Angel Deiparine transaction.
MANRESA 2018
Atty JZE (looking for a CPA): Explain the difference between a RAMOS VS. CA (Nov. 18, 1991)
journal and a ledger.
Ramos, the bank manager, and several others were prosecuted for
Student: The journal is where you put the entries of the debits and
Estafa. Apparently, their modus operandi here was that the
credits, the actual transactions. The ledger is the summary of all
depositors would issue worthless checks and Ramos, being the
the journal entries, sir. In other words, for every transaction,
bank manager, he can sign of all withdrawals and encashments of
journal entry is prepared and it is recorded or typewritten in a
checks even if they were drawn against uncleared check deposits.
journal entry voucher. Now that is basically written or encoded in
Walay sulod, in other words. So, it would be logical question that
a single document. So, that’s on a per transaction basis.
in this case, whoever was in cahoots with Ramos, shared with him
the amount of money that they were able to encash despite the fact
Q: Continue talking about ‘Debit’ and ‘Credit’…
na ang cheke walay pondo.
Student: For example, if I will be having sales for today, so I will
Evidence presented by the prosecution included all the audit
be having a journal entry debiting cash for what I have received
worksheets, bank ledgers and Xerox copies of the dishonored
and then crediting sales because that’s my income. Now, it’s on a
checks and check return slip. Ramos objected on the ground that
per transaction basis. In a ledger, all of the transactions for
these documents were not at all originals.
example in a single day, will be summarized in a ledger, so all of
the debits and credits will be summarized in a ledger. For
Ruling: According to the Supreme Court, entries in the account
example, a single entry or a single journal amounting to let’s say
ledgers of the depositors which are on file on the bank may be
10,000.00 and in a day you had 100,000 worth of journal, so in a
regarded as originals.
ledger that would be summarized into 100,000.
When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
Atty JZE: She’s saying that if you made a lot of sales, what you
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all
received---CASH. What you part with is your credit, like
the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
inventory nimo.
So, the journals will record individual transactions according to
So, original siya even if it’s just a ledger.
the amounts. So, if you have 10 sales in a day, they will all appear
in the ledger, where the transactions are going to be summarized.
So, sales no. 1, sales no. 2, and so on and so forth.
Section 3 – Best Evidence Rule.
This is what it means, actually. The entry is repeated in the
regular course of business. One being copied from another, at or Original document must be produced; exceptions – when the subject
near the time of the transaction. All of them are equally regarded of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
as originals. admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases
So, journal, that’s where the first time you enter (referring to a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
Student’s example): be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of
the offeror;
CASH 10,000 b. When the original is in the custody or under the control
SALES 10,000 of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and
the latter fails to product it after reasonable notice;
So every time there’s cash, you post there 10,000. Every time c. When the original consists of numerous accounts or
there’s sales, you post there again 10,000. So, your original entry other documents, which cannot be examine in court
and then you have the journal. You repeat that entry in the regular without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
course of business and have it reflected in a document called a established from them is only the general result of the
‘ledger’. whole; or
d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a
That’s what this means. Remember lang the requirements here. public officer or is recorded in a public office.
There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of
business. It cannot be something that is from out of the blue or
happens once every blue moon.
The entries must be made at or near the time of transaction. So, the BEST EVIDENCE RULE: A MISNOMER (1994 BAR)
lapse of time between the original entry and the transfer entry
must be near ra gyud sya. When you hear the term ‘best evidence,’ it’s like saying that it is
the most superior evidence in the hierarchy of evidence. We know
Apply that now to a case for estafa. for a fact that when we talk about documents it’s merely second to
object evidence. Object evidence being evidence of the highest
That is Section 4. Let’s back track to Section 3. order.
It’s often misunderstood. It’s a source of misconception and given

a meaning it does not deserve. Despite the word “best”, the rule
does not proclaim itself as the highest and most reliable evidence
in the hierarchy of evidence. The term “best” has nothing to do
MANRESA 2018
with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types of the buy bust operations.
evidence. It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence.
More accurately, it is the “original document” rule, or the At the trial of Mateo for violation of RA 9165, prosecution
“primary evidence” rule. presented in evidence, among others, photocopies of the
confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were
We discussed already the different types of evidence. Naa primary offered to prove that Mateo had engaged, at the time of his arrest,
evidence, naa pud tay secondary or substitutionary. We recall that in illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
we define secondary or substitutionary evidence as that type of
evidence which indicates a more original source. Meaning, kung Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, attorney general (defense
makakita ka ug photocopy, ang ma-imagine nimo is naa gyud ni counsel) objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the
gigikanan na original na photocopy ani siya. Now, we know this confiscated marked genuine peso bills.
from human experience, you photocopy an original, klaro pana. If
you photocopy a copy of the original, klaro pa na. But the longer Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense
the series of photocopying, muhanap na sya. Mao pud na sya ang counsel? Briefly explain your answer. (5%)
gina-mean sa best evidence rule.
A: It’s practically the same question in 1994.
Why do we need the original document? Because it is the most
accurate. It is the one that in all probability has not been altered. What we need to remember when we talk about documents, they
That’s why we call it the best evidence. must be offered as proof of their contents. The best evidence rule
does not apply, even to paper, when they are not offered as proof
We’re not saying it is the most superior of evidence. We’re just of their contents, but rather its physical conditions and other
saying that in order for you to have the best evidence when it physical attributes.
comes to a document, then you have to present the original
document. Lee vs People
When will this be applicable? Remember that the subject of
inquiry must be the contents of a document. If the subject of inquiry When the best evidence rule is not applicable:
is something else, then you do not apply the best evidence rule. If there is
no document, do not apply the best evidence rule. 1. Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
appearance or condition of physical objects; or
The rule applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of
a writing when the evidence introduced concerns some external 2. Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from
fact about a writing like its existence, execution or delivery the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
without reference to its terms, the rule cannot therefore be
invoked. 3. When a party uses a document to prove the existence of
an independent fact, as to which the writing is merely
Take note: In order for the best evidence rule to apply, the contents collated or incidental.
of the document must be the subject of inquiry.
Bar Examination Question (1994): The above 1, 2 and 3 refers to matters that are COLLATERAL.
Meaning, they are not directly related.
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked COLLATERAL FACTS RULE
P100.00 bills used in the “buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the
A document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue
introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best
involved in the case on trial need not be proved. Where the
Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence
purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but
in lieu of the original.
merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible the testimony
of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing the
a. Is the photocopy object or documentary evidence?
original of the document need not be presented.
b. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? Which of
course refers to the objection by Ace saying na mao ni
Take note, that in all its verbosity, what the collateral facts rule
sya ang original. Therefore, it validates the best
simply mean is that it is not the very fact in issue. But it may be
evidence rule.
admitted in to evidence because it can be considered a collateral
matter which we learned in Rule 128, Sec. 4.
A: It’s object evidence. It is not documentary evidence, because it
is not offered as proof of its contents. Photocopy is admissible in
xxx Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
evidence because the best evidence rule does not apply to object
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
evidence. (Object evidence which is addressed to the senses of
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
the court.)
Bar Question 2017

Police officers arrested Mateo in a buy bust operation and
confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked
genuine peso bills worth P5,000 used as buy bust money during Hypothetical problem:
MANRESA 2018
We jump a little bit to Rule 132 relating to presentation of

Gerald was prosecuted for murdering Matteo. The prosecution evidence. Before you know when you should object, you need to
alleged that he poisoned Matteo’s drink while they were dining at know when evidence is actually offered.
the restaurant on October 31, 2016.
What is offer? It is actually presenting a document for the
Gerald denies being at the said restaurant on the said date and, consideration of the court because the court any evidence which
thus, he could not have been the one who poisoned Matteo. (Alibi) has not been formally offered. Usually, what you do when you
offer is, you tell the Court the purpose of evidence you are
The prosecution presented as witness Piolo who brought a presenting. Before a witness may testify, what you need to tell the
photocopy of a credit card imprint with Gerald’s name and court is this: “Your honor the testimony of this witness is offered
signature on it. The photocopy also contains the date and time to prove the following matters your honor; 1. That he is the
when the credit card was allegedly swiped. Gerald questioned the plaintiff; 2. That the defendant A secured a loan from him; 3. That
admissibility of the photocopy because it was not original and is he has not been paid and such othe matters as would aid his cause
therefore violative of the Best Evidence Rule. of action or as would aid his defense depending on the party you
are representing.” That’s offer.
a. What’s the fact in issue?
b. Whether Gerald killed Matteo. When it comes to documents and objects, later on, we will know
that it is only offered after the presentation of the parties’
Under Rule 128, does the photocopy have such a relation to the testimonial evidence. Once all witnesses have already testified, all
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence? the documents and objects presented during trial must be formally
Gipatay ba ni Gerald si Matteo? NO. The receipt does not directly offered. The counsel, the proponent of the evidence, then go over
prove whether Gerald Killed Matteo. what he has presented so far, the documents and objects, and then
tell the court the purpose of the document. That’s the difference
Is it “collaterally relevant”? YES. The photocopy reasonably tends between testimonial evidence on one hand and documentary and
to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. object evidence on the other. The timing of the offer.
The credit card imprint places Gerald at the scene of the crime
which is contrary to his alibi. If he was at the scene of the crime, it For testimonial evidence, the offer is made before the witness
would not be improbable for him to have the opportunity to testifies. Later on we will the effects of lack of offer. For
poison Matteo. documentary and object evidence, after the presentation of the
parties’ testimonial evidence. We now know when evidence is
Applicability of the Collateral Facts Rule offered. When do we object to evidence offered?
The photocopy of the credit card imprint is merely “collateral” to Remember, you do not make an objection until it has been offered.
the issue involved in the case. It need not be proved. The purpose That’s the rule of thumb. Objection to evidence offered orally must
of presenting it is not to prove its contents, but merely to give be made immediately after the offer is made. If it’s testimony of a
coherence to or to make intelligible the testimony of Piolo witness, the counsel will tell the court that “the testimony of the
regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, i.e. that Gerald witness is now offered your honor to prove the following matters
was at the restaurant at the time of the alleged poisoning. Thus, etc.”, after offer, you object. You have to object immediately.
the original of the imprint need not be presented. Kay dili man
siya mao ang very fact in issue. It is merely a collateral matter. Objection to a question compounded in the course of oral
examination shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall
When the document is only collaterally in issue, the best evidence become reasonably apparent and finally, an offer of evidence in
rule does not apply. A document is collaterally in issue when the writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice unless
purpose of introducing the document is not to establish its terms a different period is allowed by the Court.
but to show facts that have no reference to its contents like its
existence, condition, execution or delivery. Let’s go back to the example I gave to you earlier. You are from
across the room and you know that what he is holding is a mere
TAKE NOTE: The Best Evidence Rule is an exclusionary rule. photocopy, when do you actually object? You wait otherwise, the
When you say an exclusionary rule, you cannot present certain objection will be premature. When do you object? After offer.
forms of evidence. As any other exclusionary rule, the best
evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the trial or for failure How are documentary and object evidence formally offered? Is it
of the other party to object. orally or in writing based on Rule 132? The general rule is you do
it orally. When the proponent of evidence, the proponent for
Effect of failure to object: The secondary evidence becomes example, the party is already done with presenting all of his
primary evidence. You will now be estopped from questioning its witness, he is now about to rest and because there is already no
originality. (Heirs of Dela Cruz vs CA, 1998) testimonial evidence, he no longer has documentary and object
evidence. You cannot present documentary and object evidence
To know when to object, we need first to know, when evidence is without a witness. Since he no longer has a witness, he has to
offered. (Rule 132, Sec. 35) make a formal offer orally. That’s the general rule.
0:52:01 – 1:18:00 | Anton Maligad It is only when the court allows the party to make a formal offer of
exhibits in writing that it is made in writing. But technically, under
Rule 132, the general rule is already the exception rather than it
MANRESA 2018
being offered orally. Invariably, the parties will offer their provision of law which defines loss and you still apply that to a
evidence in writing. procedural loss.
Spouses Tapayan vs Martinez Destruction is the obliteration of a document such as by tearing,

shredding or burning. It also includes acts of alteration that would
To set this rule (the Best Evidence Rule) in motion, a proper and render the contents of a document unintelligible for the purpose of
timely objection is necessary. When a party fails to interpose a which it was offered in evidence.
timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in
evidence, such objection shall be considered as moot. If the subject of inquiry is what is stated in that document and it’s
totally redacted, for all intents and purposes, it is destroyed. It is
Under the Best Evidence Rule, what will you object to? The already intelligible for the purpose for which it was offered in
document presented is not an original. That’s the opening sentence evidence. You may be able to present secondary evidence of the
of the rule. same.
Unavailability may either be physical or legal impossibility.

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no Physical unavailability may refer to cases where the original
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document consists of inscriptions on movable objects or monuments and
itself. gravestones. Legal unavailability is when it may be physically
available where the document is beyond the territorial or coercive
Let’s look at the exceptions. If you want to prove something and jurisdiction of the court. This means that it cannot be produced by
that something is stated in a document. You better have the means of court processes under Rule 21, on Subpoena.
original.
If the Subpoena does not tell you to bring documents, it means that
1. the proponent or the party must present the original document it is a Subpoena Ad Testificandum. But if the subpoena directs you
and not a mere photocopy thereof. So long as the original is to bring or produce documents in court, that is a Subpoena Duces
available, no other evidence can be substituted for the original. Tecum. A Subpoena Duces Tecum necessarily includes a Subpoena
Ad Testificandum.
What should be done when the original cannot be presented?
When will the exceptions apply? The party must file a legal Remember what I said about the justification of loss, destruction
justification for the failure to present the original. That’s the time and unavailability and there’s that process of laying the basis.
that he is allowed to present secondary or substitutionary proof.
ONG CHING PO vs. CA (December 20, 1994)
With that, we can now state the Best Evidence Rule saying that the
original of a document must be produced unless the proponent Secondary evidence is admissible when the original document
can justify unavailability in the manner provided by the Rules. If were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of
the proponent can justify, a copy can be presented. Another way of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former
saying it, the proponent has to lay down the basis of the admission existence of the document. The correct order of proof is as follows:
of the copy in lieu of the original. That’s laying the basis. You have
to justify the unavailability of the document for you to be able to 1. prove its existence
present secondary evidence. 2. prove its execution
3. prove that it is lost, destroyed or unavailable
The question next is how do you justify or what grounds does the 4. present secondary evidence to prove its contents.
law consider as allowable justification? This is where the
exceptions apply. Take note that his order may be changed if necessary in the
discretion of the court. This is the process of LAYING THE
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot BASIS. Because it could be that you derive the fact of existence or
be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the loss from the contents.
offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control If you are already successful in laying the basis, what will you now
of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and do? What will now prove the document?
the latter fails to product it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or Rule 130, Section 5. When original document is unavailable. -
other documents which cannot be examined in court When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its existence and
established from them is only the general result of the the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may
whole; and prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
public officer or is recorded in a public office. stated.
Loss, destruction and unavailability Take note of the particular phrase “recital of its contents in some
authentic document”.
Under Article 1189, a thing is lost when it perishes, goes out of
commerce, disappears, if it’s existence is unknown. That’s the only
MANRESA 2018
As in an actionable document, you plead an actionable document seeking secondary evidence must lay the foundation for its
either by attachment or make reference to it or copy the entire introduction, subject to the following requisites:
actionable document in your pleading and then it’s properly
pleaded. So, it is a recital of the contents of the actionable 1. That the original exists;
document in an authentic document known as either a complaint, 2. That said document is under the custody or control of the
answer or a reply. adverse party;
3. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the
Another is Land Titles and Deeds. The Certificate of Title is merely adverse party reasonable notice to produce the original
a reproduction of the Decree of Registration. The Decree of document; and
Registration is a recital of the ultimate facts in a case for titling or 4. That the adverse party failed to produce the original
original registration. The judgment of the court is actually document despite the reasonable notice.
repeated in the Decree of Registration and the Decree of
Registration is actually repeated in the Certificate of Title itself. What you need to remember in this provision is that the fact that
the original document is in the custody or under the control of the
1:18:01 – 1:43:09 | Benrich Tan adverse party does not necessitate secondary evidence. You have
to give him opportunity to produce it. It’s only when he fails to
The decree of registration is a recital of the ultimate facts in a case. produce it after reasonable notice that you wil now be allowed to
So the judgement of the court is repeated in the decree of present secondary evidence (ex. photocopies). After you comply
registration, which is repeated in the certificate of title itself, and with these requisites, you apply now Section 6.
the recital is contained in an authentic document.
In Section 6, notice the phrase “secondary evidence may be
Citibank v. Teodoro (2003) presented as in the case of its loss”. It means you apply Section 5 (a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
HELD: Production of secondary evidence requires compliance by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated).
with the following:
1) The offeror must prove the execution or existence of the What is the effect of the refusal or failure of the adverse party to
original; produce the original is justified?
2) The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability; and
3) The offeror must show that the unavailability was without • It does not give rise to the presumption of suppression of
bad faith on his part. evidence, or create an unfavorable interference against him. It
only authorizes the presentation of secondary evidence.
Dela Cruz v. CA (1998) (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 727, 2008 ed.)
HELD: It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
can be presented, all duplicated and/or counterpart must be documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss
accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only
original document itself can be regarded as established until all its the general result of the whole; and
parts are unavailable.
• Atty JZE: “all duplicated and/or counterpart must be Elements:
accounted for”: A lot of people forget about this. They go
directly to laying the basis, not realizing that when you prove Secondary evidence may be presented if:
loss,destruction or unavailability, you actually have to
account for all the original accounts. So if lima ang nabuhat 1) The original consists of numerous accounts or other
before the originals, you have to account for the documents
loss,destruction and unavailability of all five originals.
o A good example of this would be books of accounts,
receipts and similar documents;
(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 2) These documents cannot be examined in court without great
produce it after reasonable notice; loss of time; and
Cross-reference with: 3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole.
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's
custody or control. — If the document is in the custody or under the o This means that the purpose for the introduction of
control of adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to such evidence is not to examine all the documents or
produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its pages of documents but merely to give the judge a
existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence summary from which he may draw a logical
may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a) inference as to the probability or improbability of
the fact in issue.
The mere fact that the original document is in the custody or under
the control of the adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the Judges are human beings, and their patience is inversely
introduction of secondary evidence to prove its contents. The party proportional to the amount of evidence it has to receive. I’ll give
MANRESA 2018
you an example. My client filed a case against a multinational • Judicial economy, expedience and dispatch.
corporation for a claim of P23 million due to shortages of payment
by the company to him over the course of five years. You can only (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
imagine the amount of documents we kept and used as claim to officer or is recorded in a public office
reach 23.9 million (let’s say 3 thousand pages). Do you expect the
court to go over them one by one? What we’re trying to prove is Cross-reference with:
that the claim is 23.9 million. That’s the fact we’re trying to Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a
establish, the general result of the whole. How about the adverse public record. — When the original of document is in the custody of
party? Would it be prejudicial on the part of the corporation to not public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be
be able to scrutinize every part of the document, in order to contest proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
the claim? So we need a guideline, and this is where the case of thereof.
Atlas v. CIR comes in.
Example: You want to admit into evidence your birth certificate.
Atlas v. CIR (2007) It’s kept in the local registrar. So when you request it there, you
aren’t given your original birth certificate, because public records
1. The party who desires to introduce as evidence such are supposed to be irremovable (Rule 132, Section 26). That’s why
voluminous documents must, after motion and approval by the the law allows mere certified copies issued by the public officer
Court, present: with the custody thereof.
a) a SUMMARY containing, among others, a chronological People v. Abella

listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the HELD: If the document merely corroborates or substantiates
invoices or receipts; and testimony, the BER is not applicable.
b) a CERTIFICATION of an independent Certified Public Another secondary evidence of a public record: Official
Accountant attesting to the correctness of the contents of publication (Herrera, Vol. V, p. 203, 1999 ed.)
the summary after making an examination, evaluation
and audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The One final non-codal exception to the best evidence rule would be
name of the accountant or partner of the firm in charge the case of Estrada v. Desierto.
must be stated in the motion so that he/she can be
commissioned by the Court to conduct the audit and,
thereafter, testify in Court relative to such summary and Estrada v. Desierto (2001)
certification pursuant to Rule 32 (Trial by Commissioner)
of the Rules of Court. FACTS:
o Atty JZE: There’s a summary that is certified thereto In the wake of EDSA II, President Estrada was constrained to leave
by a CPA that he examined and audited and found Malacañang, VP Arroyo took her oath as the next President.
to be accurate. Instead of the court going over the Estrada contends that he is merely a president on leave. Part of the
documents one by one, and judging them evidence considered by the Supreme Court in declaring that
individually of its correctness, the court has to rely President Estrada has in fact resigned were newspaper accounts of
on the oath of the CPA. Going back to the example, diary of then Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara. According to
I filed a motion (which was granted), and I was reports of the Angara diary: Angara asked Senator Pimental to
allowed to present a summary. But you have to advise Estrada to consider the option of dignified exit or
imagine how thick the judicial affidavit I filed (3 resignation. Estrada did not disagree but listened intently. At
cartons). 9:30pm, Senator Pimental repeated to Estrada the urgency of
making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the proposal a
2. The method of individual presentation of each and every sweetener by saying that petitioner would be allowed to go abroad
receipt, invoice or account for making, identification and with enough funds to support him and his family. Estrada
comparison with the originals thereof need not be done before the expressed no objection to the suggestion for a graceful and
Court or Clerk of Court anymore. It is enough that the receipts, dignified exit but said he would never leave the country. Due to
invoices, vouchers or other documents covering the said accounts this, the SC declared Estrada to have resigned as President. In the
or payments to be introduced in evidence must be pre-marked by Motion for Reconsideration, Estrada points out that the admission
the party concerned and submitted to the Court in order to be into evidence of mere newspaper accounts of the Angara diary
made accessible to the adverse party who desires to check and violated the Best Evidence Rule as the original itself was not
verify the correctness of the summary and certification. Likewise, presented.
the originals of the voluminous receipts, invoices or accounts must
be ready for verification and comparison in case doubt on the • Atty JZE: Clearly this was not an original. Does any of the
authenticity thereof is raised. exceptions in the BER apply? None. So is Estrada correct,
based on BER?
• Atty JZE: It has to be accessible to the adverse party, who has
the right to reasonable inspection. If he wants to retotal, go HELD:
ahead.
It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only copy
Rationale for the Exception of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer
MANRESA 2018
on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not, however, in all respects, and are considered as originals. Ineluctably, the
violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on evidence, law's definition of "electronic data message," which, as aforesaid, is
states that: Production of the original may be dispensed with, in interchangeable with "electronic document," could not have
the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the included facsimile transmissions, which have an original paper-
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document based copy as sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as received.
and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring These two copies are distinct from each other, and have different
production. legal effects.
• Atty JZE: I don’t know where the SC got this, where Estrada
does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document.
What was the situation at the time? Was it right for Estrada AUGUST 2, 2018
going back to office or would public interest be better served
if he simply transitioned? This won’t be the last time I’ll 0:00:00 – 0:26:00 | Christian Yu
criticize this case (refer to the Hearsay Rule later),because the
ouster of Estrada is based on secondary evidence and hearsay, ORIGINAL OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT
with the latter not admissible in evidence.
RULE 4 Section 1. Original of an electronic document. – An
electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout
or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
RULE 4 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE data accurately.
It has to be an output readable by sight.
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is
in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with When you write, think as if you are the exception to the exception
identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same to the right against self incrimination – No person can be
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by compelled to be a witness against himself.
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately What’s the exception?
reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be -Purely physical or mechanical acts, like the taking of sample from
regarded as the equivalent of the original. your body.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be But an exception to the exception will be what?
admissible to the same extent as the original if: -When you are ask to write, to give sample of your handwriting.
a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the Why? Because when we write, it involves the intelligence. So when
original; or you write, use your intelligence.
b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the original. Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. –
When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced
MCC INDUSTRIAL V. SSANGYONG (2007) by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or
by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
Why a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
evidence. reproduces the original,
such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the
The definitions under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, its IRR original.
and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, at first glance, convey the
impression that facsimile transmissions are electronic data Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be
messages or electronic documents because they are sent by admissible to the same extent as the original if:
electronic means. The expanded definition of an "electronic data (a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
message" under the IRR, "xxx [is] not limited to, electronic data original; or
interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy." (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the original.
However, Congress deleted the phrase, "but not limited to,
electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex More or less it’s the same as our Sec. 4 regarding Original of
or telecopy," and replaced the term "data message" (as found in the Document under Rule 130 –
UNCITRAL Model Law ) with "electronic data message."
Section 4. Original of document. —
In an ordinary facsimile transmission, there exists an original xxx
paper-based information or data that is scanned, sent through a (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
phone line, and re-printed at the receiving end. In a virtual or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are
paperless environment, technically, there is no original copy to equally regarded as originals. xxx
speak of, as all direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same,
MANRESA 2018
Remember that: Gipa produce nimo pero you are not obliged to use it or make it
part of your evidence for trial.
When the law actually refers to the term – “document” specifically
the Rules of Court, we will now going to include electronic When you look at Rule 27, this is s mode of discovery.
document. And similarly, what happens here is that there is production and
there is also inspection.
More of that when we go to the Parol Evidence Rule.
So there is that commonality between the 2 provisions.
MCC INDUSTRIAL V. SSANGYONG G.R. 170633, OCT. 17, Now, the distinctions –
2007
RULE 130, SECTION 8 RULE 27, SECTION 1
A facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic How is the It is procured by mere The production of
evidence or an electronic document. document notice to the adverse document is in the
It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best procured: party, which is a nature of a mode of
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. condition precedent for discovery and can be
the subsequent sought only by proper
1. It is not electronic in form although it is transmitted introduction of motion in the trial
electronically; secondary evidence by court and is permitted
2. The facsimile will always be substitutionary evidence if you’re the proponent. or given only upon
talking about the original contents (as a general rule). good cause shown.
It presupposes that the It contemplates a
RULE 130, SECTION 8. Party who calls for document not bound document to be situation wherein a
to offer it. – produced is intended document is either
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects as evidence for the assumed to be
the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. proponent who is favorable to the party
presumed to have in possession thereof or
Simply means that while a party is given an opportunity to have knowledge of its that the party seeking
the document produced on his behalf for him to inspect it, he is contents. its production is not
not obliged to make an offer of it as evidence. You cannot force sufficiently informed of
him. But after inspection, he the contents of the
may elect not to offer it same.
Effect Of Not Offering A Document In Evidence After Calling For as evidence.
Its Production And Inspection Precisely because it is a
mere mode of
No unfavorable inference can be drawn for not offering a discovery.
document in evidence if the party who calls for its production or (kahinanglan pa nimo
inspection does not offer the same in evidence. mahibal-an)
There is a presumption under Rule 131 regarding the adverse So take note again of the subtle differences of rule 130 section 8
presumption of suppression of evidence that if you do not present and rule 27 section 1.
evidence that is within your power to present, it might be adverse
to you cause of action or defense. Now rule 3 section 1 on the rule on electronic evidence.
That is not applicable in section 8.

As functional equivalent of paper-based documents
It brings to mind what you have probably discussed in Civil
Procedure, specifically under Rule 27, Section 1 and that is RULE 4 Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent
Production or Inspection of documents or things. of paper-based documents. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers
to the term writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
RULE 27, Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. — or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce
and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on So the best evidence rule for example refers to the term document.
behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, It is already deemed to include an electronic document.
books, accounts, letters, XXX,
not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to So when the rules of court in section 2 defines what documentary
any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, evidence is, it is already deemed to include electronic documents.
custody or control, XXX. (1a)
So what does it hind to us?
Why is there a similarity? Very simple, that whenever we read rules that refer to documents.
Because when you look at Rule 130, Sec. 8, it talks about We are also suppose to take into consideration that the term
the production of a document and subsequent inspection. The document applies to electronic evidence or electronic documents.
effect being, you are not required to offer it into evidence.
MANRESA 2018
Lets go back to 1st year a little bit shall we.

1403 number 2 is what? In the civil code, that is the statute of Relate that to the practice in the 1600’s ‘word of honor’. It is a
frauds right? promise made by a prisoner not to escape. This allows the
Remember the import of the statute of frauds. conditional release of the prisoner.
And by the way not the entirety 1403 is statute of frauds. Its only Extrinsic evidence- Evidence that can be found beyond an
1403 #2. The rest of them are different. instrument or a document.
Remember diba that a contract is unenforceable if there is no note
or memorandum that evidences it. It is not a requirement for the Parol Evidence rule is actually a mode of exclusion. When parties
validity of a contract but rather it is a limitation on a parties ability reduce their agreement in writing, the writing becomes supreme
to enforce the same by means of court action. It could be that the and supersedes everything they have discussed prior to the
contract is valid and binding between the parties to it. But can you execution of the contract. A party therefore, cannot say something
prove it in court in case of breach? That is the problem. different from what the contract says—he cannot add to, or modify
the terms of the contracts.
Art 1403 (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as
set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement In the different stages of the life of a contract as provided in the
hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, case of the San Miguel v Sps. Huang, there’s preparation, birth,
or some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and and death.
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, After the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object and
or a secondary evidence of its contents. considereation which are to constitute the contract, such terms will
be reduced in writing. Can we later on say that because it was not
“Without a note or memorandum.” convenient for you, you would say “Charot lang.”—that is not
And compare that to rule 3 section 1 with the rule on electronic allowed. When you reduce a contract into writing, it means that
evidence. anything else not so included is deemed waived.
“Memorandum or any other form of writing.”
You are ordinarily not allowed to introduce evidence different
0:26:01 - 0:52:00 | Emille Dane S. Viola from what the contract says if it has the effect of changing, or
modifying, or adding to the terms of the contract as written—this
Does this mean that the Statute of Frauds—which is a limitation on is what the Parol Evidence rule means.
your ability to prove something and therefore evidentiary in
nature, does it already include an electronic document? So if it is not in the contract, in means simply that it is
inadmissible. The stipulations may be valid, but you cannot prove
While Statute of Frauds may appear in substantial law, it is it in court.
actually an evidentiary rule, thus the SOF would actually allow the
note or memorandum that would prove that contract to be in Ex.
electronic form. Maja borrowed money from Ramon, in contract of loan, it was
specifically stated that it was payable in 1 year. Ramon
subsequently told Maja that she can pay it in 2 years. When 1 year
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (PER)
passed, Maja failed to pay and Ramon changed his mind and
demanded payment.
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as We know for a fact that they agreed after the execution of the
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the contract that Ramon granted Maja 2 years to pay. Why is it that the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms law would not allow Maja to testify as a general rule?
other than the contents of the written agreement.
Reasons (General Rule):
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his a. Documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence.
pleading:
b. Whatever is not written is waived.
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; The rule is based on the presumption that parties have
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent made the writing the only repository and that whatever
and agreement of the parties thereto; is not found in the writing is understood to have been
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or waived and abandoned.
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. Note: There is a big difference under the Parole Evidence
Rule between a condition precedent and a condition
The term "agreement" includes wills. subsequent.
Parol comes from the French word ‘parole’ which means ‘word or
‘speech’, so when talking about Parol evidence, these are evidence
by word—oral / testimonial evidence or Evidence Aliunde.
MANRESA 2018
Condition Precedent- may be established by Parol It si only for the purpose of Rule 130 Sec 9 that a will is considered
Evidence because there’s no varying of the terms for the an agreement.
reason that there’s no contract yet in existence.
What do you call a will that is a product of an agreement?
Condition Subsequent- a condition subsequent to Disposition Captatoria.
integration, or the reduction of the contract into writing.
It may not be established by parol evidence because a The question is, despite the fact that a will is clearly not an
contact already exists. agreement, why is it that the PER applies to wills? It is because
dangers sought to be avoided by that part of the rule which is the
c. Parole Evidence is most prone to fabrication. varying of the terms of the contract by mere testimony is present in
the making of wills and they are deemed to be more prevalent in
Oral testimony can always be influenced, it can always as much as the maker who is the decedent can no longer object to
be biased. The purpose of the parole evidence rule is to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as hi voice is already
give stability to the agreements and to remove the silenced by death.
temtaion and possibility of perjury which would be
afforded if parol evidence is admissible. Ex.
Matteo died leaving a will wherein he gave his friend Gerald
Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they 10,000. When the will was subject to probate, Gerald appeared as a
may have been entered into, provided all the essential voluntary heir testifying that before Matteo died he told him that
REQUISITES for their validity are present. the amount bequeathed was actually 10,000,000.
However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in Can Gerald be allowed to testify that it is not 10k, but 10mil?
order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be
proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and NO. No person can be allowed to change the decedent’s
indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the testamentary intent by oral testimony.
following article cannot be exercised.
Going back to SOF, it is not a limitation on the validity of the RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
contract, it is a limitation on what you can enforce—what you can
prove in court. The same thing applies with respect to the parol
evidence rule. Rule 3 Sec 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
While it is not a limitation on the validity of the contract, it is a admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws
requirement that must be taken into consideration as a condition and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
precedent to a party’s ability to prove the same.
Rule 2 Sec 1(h). – “Electronic document" refers to information or
Even if the contract is valid in it’s oral form, contracts being the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other
generally and essentially consensual, it is virtually futile if you modes of written expression, described or however represented,
cannot sue upon it or if you are barred by the conclusive presence by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
of a written document relative to the same. which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
REQUISITES of PER: electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any
printout or output, readable by sight or other means, which
1. There must be an agreement; accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
2. The terms of an agreement must be reduced into writing. document. For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest; document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
4. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement. message".
In order for the rule to apply, there must be an agreement (meeting How do you apply this definition to a will? Is it not a fact that by
of the minds), which must be reduced into writing and the means of a will, a right may be established.
resulting contract is then covered by the PER.
Will the PER apply in Electronic documents? Can an agreement be
Take note that this general understanding of contracts does not in a digital or electronic form? YES, therefore for the rest of the
apply to the last part of the rule which provides that the term agreements covered by the PER an electronic agreement or
agreement includes wills. contract is covered.
We all know that a will is not an agreement. It is a strictly a How about a will? Is a will made in electronic form possible?
personal and unilateral act, however by force of the rules and in an
apparent legal fiction, a will is an agreement as well although there In other jurisdictions, e-wills have already gained a lot of
is clearly no meeting of the minds. acceptance like in the State of Nevada which is the only state in the
US providing for guidelines for creating e-wills; Ohio on the other
hand has trial court decisions declaring e-wills to be valid; Indiana
MANRESA 2018
does not have an e-will statute, and it does not specifically It is quite hard. There is no electronic seal. That’s the problem
recognize e-wills but it allows videographic representations of the there. What notary publics have is that bakal to seal the paper as
wishes of a testator. proof of being notarized.
Ex. So, arguably if e-wills would be allowed, there has to be a lot of

Without making a will, the testator has himself videotaped and he changes in the Civil Code specially to safeguards with respect to
says that 1M will go to my daughter X, 1M will go to my daughter storage and non-alteration.
Y, and everything else will go to my mistress—In Indiana, this is
not allowed if it stands alone. According to E-Commerce Act, an electronic document or
electronic signature would only be applicable to commerce or
The videotape maybe admitted if he has previously made a will— transaction. And a will is not a transaction.
it can then prove testamentary intent.
OBITER (Sir Espejo)
E-wills are more convenient with the state of technology right But speaking from evidentiary stand point, electronic
now. Touchscreen tablets can actually record your handwriting; holographic wills may be possible.
you can make your signature in that manner. There is just a
question of authentication and forgery because if something can be
easily done electronically it can also be altered or undone Is an electronic will covered by the parole evidence rule? In this
electronically. jurisdiction, NO.
Nevada will statute provides that “no will executed in this state But some of the countries like South Africa and India allows e-
except such electronic wills or holographic wills as are mentioned wills. So, it may be covered under parole evidence. But again, not
in this chapter is valid.” So they specifically allow electronic wills in our jurisdiction.
and in respect to an electronic will, it must be written, created and
stored in an electronic record, containing the date and electronic Second Requisite: Agreement reduced to writing
signature of the testator which includes without limitation at least Q: Is it required that the agreement should be in a public
one authentication characteristic of the testator, etc. instrument for the applicability of the Parol Evidence Rule?
INCIONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS (1996)
In the Philippines, we only allow holographic will which is
required to be entirely written, dated and signed, by the hand of Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a
the testator and a notarial will which has attestation and public document. What is required is that the agreement be in
subscription requirements. writing as the rule is in fact founded on long experience that
written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that
which rests in fleeting memory only. Thus, for the parol evidence
ELECTRONIC WILL rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular
form, or be signed by both parties.
Can an e-will be possible in the Philippines?
Third Requisite: The dispute is between the parties or their
In the case of holographic will, it does not require notarization—is successors-in-interest
it possible that an e-will be entirely written, dated and signed by
the testator? With the current state of technology, you can because LECHUGAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS (1986)
there are application that can take down your handwriting, just The rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by
date it, and sign it. either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one
of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the
The reason why a holographic will must be entirely written, dated written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the
and signed by the hand of the testator is because it is easier to instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the
forge a signature or to forge a date, than the entire text of the will. relation established thereby. Thus, if one of the parties to the case
is a complete stranger to the contract involved therein, he is not
bound by this rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence against
0:52:01 – 1:18:00 | Edsam Andit the efficacy of the writing.
Can you do an electronic notarial will? So, if it is a third party, he can introduce parole evidence.
The dispute under the parole evidence rule is only between the
Possible but if a will is done via electronic will, it can easily be parties and/or their successors-in-interest.
forged.
Fourth Requisite: There is a dispute as to the terms of the
Can you affix your signature electronically (e-will)? agreement
Yes. Theoretically pwede siya. You make a pdf of the will and affix If the dispute between parties who are contractually bound refers
or attach your signature using computer applications. to matters extraneous to the agreement or with respect to rights
and obligations that do not emanate from it, the Parol Evidence
But can a NOTARY PUBLIC notarize a will electronically? Rule does not apply.
MANRESA 2018
Stated differently, the terms of the agreement must be the very fact
in issue. If it is not the very fact in issue then the parole evidence Example
rule is not applicable. X makes a specific gift shares of stock in ABZ Corp. But X does
not possess stocks in ABZ but in ABC Corp. So, in effect X clearly
meant his stocks in ABC Corp. despite giving a false description in
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE his will. As long as there is enough in the will to make a
presumption that what was meant by the testator is his stock in
Under Section 9, a party may present evidence to modify, explain, ABC Corp.
or add to the terms of the written agreement by putting in issue in But again, the INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY as an exception, may be
his pleading any of the following: cured by parole evidence.
Example
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written X leaves a will. And X stated that he is giving a gift to his nephew.
agreement; But he has 2 nephews. So, such intrinsic ambiguity may be cured
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent by parole evidence.
and agreement of the parties thereto;
c. The validity of the written agreement; or MARQUEZ vs. ESPEJO (2010)
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. When the parties admit the contents of written docs but put in
issue whether these docs adequately and correctly express the
true intention of the parties, the deciding body is authorized to
1ST EXCEPTION: INSTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR look beyond these instruments and into the contemporaneous
IMPERFECTION and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine such
intent.
Intrinsic Ambiguity/ Latent Ambiguity Rule 130, Sec 9 specifically provides that Parol Evidence Rule is
exclusive only as "between the parties and their successors-in-
Example In a will there is a provision “I will give to A something”. interest." The PER may not be invoked where at least one of the
parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the
The rule presupposes that, in order in order for parole evidence to written doc in question, and does not base his claim on the
be curative of an ambiguity, there has to be something to start with instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument.
in the first place. But if it is extrinsic ambiguity, it amounts to no
description at all. Evidence aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or add
to its meaning when a provision in the instrument is capable of
BORILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS (1992) more than one interpretation.
In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the Example

subject matter of a deed or other writing, there must be a
description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence; the PALANCA vs FRED WILSON COMPANY
writing must at least give some data from which the description (37 Phil 5)
may be found and made certain. Parol evidence is not admissible
to identify the property where the description thereof is so vague A Chinese immigrant, X, as manager of a company entered into a
as to amount to no description at all. In other words, parol contract with B Company for the purchase of distilling apparatus
evidence is not permitted to supply a description, but only to for P10,000.
apply it.
He purchased such apparatus with a specification that
So, in the absence of anything that negates the resolution of a it should have a capacity of 6,000 liters a day. After using such
question outside of the agreement, then you cannot cure that by apparatus, X complained that it only produces 480 liters of
parole evidence. You can only apply a description, but it cannot alcohol per day and not 6,000 liters and filed a case for breach of
supply a description. contract against B company.
Going back to the example, “I give something to A”. Something is
the only clue in the will. Now if you allow parole evidence to B company contended that it did not breach its contract
supply a description other than the word “something” it can be stating that the capacity of 6,000 liters may be achieved in 24
anything. What if the witness will say that that something is the hours of operation. Thus, there is no breach of contract to speak
moon or the stars. Parole evidence rule would disallow the same. of.
The situation is different if there is only a mere imperfection of the
description. This relates to topic in succession. So, what does the contract say? Simply, the capacity of 6,000. But
A false or mistaken description does not vitiate would apply kay for X, it meant producing capacity. For B Company receptive
imperfect lang ang description. So, considering the language of the capacity.
will, in aid of any admissible extrinsic evidence the court comes to Pero ang word lang man kay capacity susceptible of two or more
the conclusion that the testator intended to pass “something” and interpretations.
that it can be determined what that something is, then the fact that
the testator gave it a false description in his will does not … in Can parol evidence be admitted to give interpretation to the term
effect regarding the subject matter intended by the testator. The “capacity” which is susceptible of 2 or more interpretations?
principle may be applied in whatever part of the description. YES! Parol Evidence may be admitted.
MANRESA 2018
1:18:01 – 1:44:00 | Jennifer Lim EXAMPLES OF VOID CONTRACTS FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING
(Continuation of Palanca case)
Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the
And so, it became La Tondena which became the distributor of beginning:
Ginebra San Miguel. 1. Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
2nd EXCEPTION: MISTAKE 2. Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
3. Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of
MAGELLAN vs. CA (August 22, 1991) the transaction;
4. Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
A mistake as an exception to the parol evidence rule. It must be a 5. Those which contemplate an impossible service;
mistake of fact mutual to the parties. Furthermore, the rules on 6. Those where the intention of the parties relative to the
evidence, as amended, require that in order that parol evidence principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained;
may be admitted, said mistake must be put in issue by the 7. Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
pleadings, such that if not raised inceptively in the complaint or in
the answer, as the case may be, a party cannot later on be (3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the
permitted to introduce parol evidence thereon. transaction. Remember, Walay consideration.
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM BY DEAN INIGO
Situation: A sells to B his land for P1million. They sign a deed of

3rd EXCEPTION: IMPERFECTION sale which provides- “In consideration of 1 MILLION PESOS,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged in full, I hereby sell this
This simply means that the writing is incomplete and does not property to B xxx”.
express the whole agreement of the parties. Here, there is a failure
of the parties to lay down all the terms and conditions which are to Nabayran na siya. Every deed of sale of a lawyer will contain that
constitute the agreement. The exception of which to a contract – receipt of which is hereby acknowledged in full. It attests to the
written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in its terms that the fact na nabayran na ang seller.
contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from the
mere reading of the instrument. In short, failure of the agreement But B says that he has to go to the bank to secure manager's check
to reflect the true intention of the parties. as P1 million is tool large an amount to be paid in cash. A agrees to
wait for B, while B brings with him the deed of sale and the title of
the land. But B never came back as he went straight to the Registry
REVIEW ON REFORMATION of Deeds to have the title of the property transferred to him.
Nakabutang sa contract- receipt of which is hereby

Art. 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the
acknowledged in full. In a case for annulment of sale, what is
parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the
your ground? Can you prove it under the parol evidence rule?
instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of
General Rule: No, because the contract already says nabayran na
mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties
ka. A cannot prove it; any attempt on his part would be
may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such
objectionable on the part of the other party. However, since he is
true intention may be expressed.
filing a case for the annulment of the sale, he can raise in another issue for
the said instrument to prove lack of consideration.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a
meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not
reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract.
OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE YOU CAN RAISE QUESTIONS
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
Reformation is not a remedy because mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct, or accident are vices of consent, not a mere imperfection
in the agreement. 1. FORGERY
2. FRAUD and ILLEGALITY
Is it not a fact that these mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or 3. FALSE REPRESENTATION under the case of
accident prevents the meeting of the minds that result to affecting Woodhouse vs. Halili (July 31, 1953).
the validity of a contract? So, what is the defense under the parol
evidence rule with respect to defenses or exceptions that relate to WOODHOUSE vs HALILI
the invalidity of the contract? Is that not provable by parol
evidence? The answer is YES BUT maski mao ang exceptions, the The statement of the plaintiff was not sought to be introduce
party must raise the invalidity of the contract. to change or alter the terms of the agreement, but to prove
how he induce the defendant to enter into it – to prove the
representations or inducements, or fraud, with which or by
which he secured the other party's consent thereto.
According to the SC, fraud and false representation are an
MANRESA 2018
incident to the creation of a jural act, not to its integration integration. They are covered because they are deemed integrated
and are not governed by the rules on integration such as the in writing. (Woodhouse vs. Halili, July 31, 1953)
parol evidence rule.
WHAT WILL NOT BE COVERED?
SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT 1. SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS
Even if the subsequent agreements have the effect of
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their adding to, or changing or modifying or even altogether
successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. abrogating the contract of the parties. Even if there is a
subsequent writing, as long as there is proper pleading of
Question/s: Why is this exception? Why are you allowed to the existence of the subsequent agreement, you will
present parol evidence on subsequent agreements as an exception always allow parol evidence of subsequent agreements.
to the general rule? Why are you allowed to change terms of the It happened after the writing. That is not covered, it is
written agreement? When the parties executed the written one of the exceptions and dili siya prior or
agreement, they have yet to enter into a subsequent agreement. contemporaneous.
They will still integrate to it. The parties cannot incorporate into
the contract or instrument something they will still agree upon in 2. COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS
the future. Although oral and contemporaneous with writing,
meaning by word of mouth lang and at the same time as
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION: when they reduced their agreement into writing but are
considered as separate and distinct agreements. Dungan
Maja borrowed money from JZE. For this, Maja signed a sa written agreement and made orally, dili na siya
promissory note in favor of JZE which fixed the maturity date on considered sa parol evidence rule. Also known to be
August 15, 2016. When August 15, 2016 came, Maja did not pay. contemporaneous oral agreements or in layman's terms,
Thus, JZE sues Maja for payment of the due account. Maja's side agreements or inducement.
defense in her answer is that the amount is not yet due because
after the execution of the promissory note, for unwritten MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
considerations, JZE agreed to extend the period of payment to VS. COURT OF APPEALS
until January 14, 2017. (October 30, 1996)
Factual situation: This case happened a long time ago in 1949.

The National Airport Corporation informed the owners of the
What are Maja's defense and evidence here? Her evidence is her various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport that the government
testimony. That they entered into a subsequent oral agreement will purchase their lands for the expansion of the airport. Take
which happened after the execution of the promissory note. That is note that this Lahug Airport is now an I.T. Park. The airport is
a subsequent agreement. now in Mactan, a different island. The landowners were
convinced to sell their properties; otherwise, the government will
Will the court consider it as admissible? Is it under the be forced to institute expropriation proceedings in court. They
exception? YES. The existence of other terms agreed to by the were also assured that their properties will be returned to them
parties after the execution of the written agreement. You have to when they are no longer used by the airport. Ibalik lagi sa
specifically plead it. You have to put in issue in your pleading, the inyoha, promise. So, some of them decided to sell their property.
fact that there was a subsequent agreement. Ultimately, Maja can
testify orally in court that the subsequent oral agreement that she Ouano (one of the owners) did not want to sell at first, However,
had with JZE. The extension in fact resulted in the novation of because she was reassured by the promise that the land will be
their previously agreed upon maturity date. returned to her when it is no longer in use, she was persuaded to
enter into a contract of sale. Sige, ibaligya nako pero ibalik sa
What you need to remember is the law only guarantees it’s akoa ha inig dili na ninyo gamition. So, there’s a side agreement
admissibility but not the believability. Dili pasabot na gidawat na that convinced Ouano to sell the property because anyway
sa korte nga iyaha nang ginatuohan. The parties cannot mabalik man sa iyaha as a buy-back promise.
incorporate in the contract or agreement something that they will
still agree on in the future, making it an exception to the parol Vercide (another landowner) testified that in a meeting called by
evidence rule. the National Airport Corporation, the landowners were given
documents to sign, and he asked for a rider or certification which
would indicate that the land will be returned to him should it not
SUMMARY: be used by the airport. He testified that it was only after the rider
was give to him that he signed the document of sale.
SCOPE OF THE RULE
There’s corroboration that that side agreement actually exists.
WHAT WILL BE COVERED? There’s already that promise pero gipabutang jud nako sa
contract sa ride, unlike Ouano na only an oral promise that it will
Only PRIOR (before) and CONTEMPORANEOUS (dungan) be sold back to her. Years later, President Aquino sold the
agreements which are deemed to have been merged in the writing property back to the owners of the land.
conformably to the integration of the agreement rule or rules on
MANRESA 2018
The grandchildren of Ouano tried to repurchase the properties Why is that an exception?
originally owned by their grandmother. On October 2 1991, they When the parties executed the written agreement, they
wrote to Capt. Antonio Oppus, the manager of MCIAA, have yet to enter into the subsequent agreement. The
signifying their intention to repurchase the properties originally parties cannot incorporate in the contract or instrument
owned by their grandmother. Capt. Oppus denied their request something that they will still agree on in the future.
because the deed of sale covering the properties does not contain
any condition relating to the right of repurchase. These In our hypothetical case, there is an extension of a contract of loan
properties, it was explained, had become the absolute properties and that is not written in the promissory note. Therefore, it is an
of the National Airport Corporation. agreement after the execution of the PN. What is the evidence of
the party claiming the extension of loan? That they entered into a
This area now is basically owned by Ayala and Prime Builders subsequent oral agreement which happened after the execution.
which explains why they wanted to buy-back the land. Because of Is that admissible?
the area value of the land, National Airport Corporation might Yes, that is covered in the exception “the existence of other terms
want to sell it as well for their profit. Now kung buy-back, it will agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
be the same price as those na pag baligya sa imo. MCIAA will not execution of the written agreement.”
make any money out of it. Hence, the grandchildren filed a case In fact, if you look at the effect, Maja can testify orally in court on
for reconveyance with the regional trial court. the subsequent oral agreement that she had with JZE. The
extension in fact resulted in the novation of their previously
1:44:01 – 1:51:01 | Gillian Grancho agreed-upon maturity date
But what you need to remember is, even if that particular
(Continuation of MCIAA Case) testimony refers to the exception under the parole evidence rule,
the law only guarantees its admissibility.
The grandchildren of Ouano filed a case for reconveyance with the Pwede dawaton. But it does not guarantee that the testimony
RTC. MIAA contended that in the absence of any rider providing received by the court will be believed. The guarantee is only with
for such right to repurchase, no evidence could be received to respect its admissibility, not its believability.
establish that such a right exists as it would violate parole
evidence rule. Going back to the summary:
So, pwede bang i prove sa mga grandchildren ni Ouano nga naay • PRIOR AND CONTEMPORANOEUS AGREEMENTS
repurchase agreement or not? which are deemed to have been merged in writing
conformably to the “integration of the agreement rule” are
HELD: covered. If it’s prior or at the same time as the written
According to SC, generally no.
agreement, they are deemed waived. (WOODHOUSE vs.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or HALILI)
add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading, the failure of the written agreement to express the true • SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS on the other hand are not
intent of the parties thereto. covered, despite the fact that such agreements may have the
effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even altogether
The fact which private respondents seek to establish by parol abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the
evidence consist of the agreement or representation made by NAC
writing.
that induced Ouano to execute the deed of sale; the vendors and
their heirs are given the right to repurchase should the
government no longer need the property. • COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS which, although oral and
contemporaneous with the writing, are separate and distinct
Where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the moving agreements. This are also known as CONTEMPORANEOUS
cause of the written contract, or where the parol agreement forms ORAL AGREEMENTS or “SIDE AGREEMENTS” (also not
part of the consideration of the written contract, and it appears covered).
that the written contract was executed on the faith of the parol
contract or representation, such evidence is admissible. Citing again MCIAA v CA (with additional discussions)
So pwede, gi allow sila.

FACTS:
August 9, 2018
Ouano did not want to sell at first but he was assured that it will
0:00:01 – 0:19:00 | Gillian Grancho be returned to him if it will not be used. In fact, another
landonwner, Vercede, who ask the buy back agreement, be placed
(Review on Subsequent Agreements) as a rider in the contract agreement. With it comes to Vercede,
there’s no problem since it’s part of their agreement
The reason why I included Vercede in the facts is to show that
Rule 130 Sec 9(d)—The existence of other terms agreed to by
there was really an inducement that if they will not use the
parties or their successor in interest after the execution of the
property, they promise that it will be sold back to the landowners.
written agreement.
There’s really some truth to it.
MANRESA 2018
• In MCIAA, the contract neither contained nor prohibited

The grandchildren of Ouano filed a case for reconveyance with the a right or repurchase. According to the SC, there was no
RTC. MIAA contended that in the absence of any rider providing inconsistency.
for such right to repurchase, no evidence could be received to
establish that such a right exists as it would violate parole
But what you need to remember here is that
evidence rule.
• The contract, the subject matter of the written
If you notice, MCIAA only argues about the general rule here. agreement, is different from that of the
contemporaneous oral agreement, then the later is a
ISSUE: : Is it one of the exceptions? separate and distinct agreement and, therefore,
provable by parol evidence.
HELD: Yes.
Pag separate sya or at least separable, pwede dawaton
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the ang extrinsic evidence .
terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading,
the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of Otherwise if they refer to the same thing, the parole
the parties thereto among other exceptions. evidence should not be admitted as a general rule, unless
you’re able to cite an exception.
The fact which private respondents seek to establish by parol
evidence consist of the agreement or representation made by NAC • If the two agreements refer to the same subject matter,
that induced Ouano to execute the deed of sale; the vendors and
the test is to determine whether or not the
their heirs are given the right to repurchase should the
government no longer need the property. contemporaneous oral agreement is separable. If the
oral agreement is separable then it is considered separate
Where a parol contemporaneous agreement was the moving and distinct and therefore provable by parol evidence.
cause of the written contract, or where the parol agreement forms
part of the consideration of the written contract, and it appears Let us apply that to the MCIAA case.
that the written contract was executed on the faith of the parol
contract or representation, such evidence is admissible. The contract and the oral contemporaneous agreement refer to the
same subject matter—the same land. So, we have to determine
But it is recognized that proof is admissible of any parol collateral whether it is separable or not purely for academic purposes, since
parol agreement that is not inconsistent with the terms of the the SC already ruled on na walay problema. But if it happens in
written contract though it may relate to the same subject matter. another case, what will you do?
What does case law tell you?
Atty JZE: What are we talking about here?
VILLARICA vs. CA 28 SCRA 189-193 (1968)
Remember that the contract of sale from Ouano to NAC walay
nakabutang anything about a right to repurchase or foreclosing a right to A right of repurchase (like that in MCIAA) is not a right granted to
repurchase. Walay nakabutang. vendor by the vendee in a subsequent instrument, but is a right
reserve by the vendor in the same instrument of sale as one of the
Ang pangutana nako sa inyo karon, if it’s not incuded in the contract and stipulations of the contract. Once the instrument of absolute sale is
then later on it is claimed, would you therefore say that it is consistent or executed, the vendor can no longer reserve the right to repurchase,
inconsistent with the written agreement? and any right thereafter granted to the vendor by the vendee in a
separate instrument cannot be aright of repurchase but some other
All I can say is that supposition of the parties saying na they have the right like an option to buy.
right to repurchase and the contract does not say anything, dili sya
prohibited. but it does not necessarily say that it is allowed
Assuming that it was really a right to repurchase, as that in
The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing MCIAA, it should have been incorporated in the original deed of
does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of existing sale just like what Vercede did. He insisted that it be placed as a
evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol rider.
agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be Ingon sa SC (in Villarica case), if the right of repurchase appears in
received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement a separate agreement, it cannot be considered a right to
contains any reference to such collateral agreement, and whether repurchase. It is simply an option to buy. And we know what
the action is at law or in equity. happens in an option to buy, if dili nimo i grant, if you violate a
mere option to buy, all you have is a remedy to sue for damages. If
Pwedeng dawaton even if the written agreement does not say about it, you remember Equatorial v May Theater.
whether prohibiting it or specifically allowing it. That’s what the
Supreme Court is saying.
LAUREANO vs. KILAYCO 34 Phil 148
Take note, very important as far as I’m concerned,
• The courts should allow extrinsic evidence, if it is not An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct agreement, separate
INCONSISTENT with the written agreement. from the sale itself, although the two agreements are usually
MANRESA 2018
contained in one and the same document. be done because they failed to put it in issue in their pleadings in
exception to the parol evidence rule.
In Luareano, the agreement to reconvey was actually similar to the
one in MCIAA, as it was also and inducement to the signing of the
deed. More or less the same facts, what is the difference between MCIAA
and the case of Republic vs Roque? Simple. In MCIAA, that was
precisely the pleading of the claimants here, the grandchildren of
0:19:01 – 0:45:00 | Kemarie Manligoy Juano; that it did not express the true intent of the parties or that
there are terms other than what is written in the contract that
LAUREANO vs. KILAYCO 34 Phil 148 existed which became the inducement by which Juano was forced
or persuaded to sell the land to the government. It was properly
An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct agreement, separate pleaded in their complaint. But, in the case of Republic vs Roque,
from the sale itself, although the two agreements are usually maskin parehas ug facts, wala natarong ug plead sa ilahang
contained in one and the same document. pleading. You have to put as issue in your pleading any one of the
exceptions of the parol evidence rule.
In Laureano, the agreement to reconvey was actually similar to the
one in MCIAA, as it was also an inducement to the signing of the That’s the main point of inquiry. Was there proper pleading? If
deed. It is actually separable even if it is of the same subject matter. there is failure to plead, you follow the case of Republic vs Roque
But, we have already have the case of MCIAA where the SC ruled but if there is proper pleading of the issue, then you follow the
that, “that is the right of repurchase and therefore, it is provable by case of MCIAA vs CA.
parol evidence.”
SPS. ABELLA V. SPS. ABELLA (G.R. NO. 195166, JUL. 8, 2015)
Let me bring your attention to the case of Republic vs Roque,
October 10, 2016 which in a way is similar to the case of MCIAA. In sum, two things must be established for parol evidence to be
admitted:
REPUBLIC V. ROQUE (OCT. 10, 2016)
1. First, the existence of any of the four exceptions has been
In 1978, the Republic through the DPWH approached Roque and put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected
company and asked them to sell a portion of the land at to by the adverse party;
government dictated prices lower than the market value. The
Republic is supposed to use the land for Pres. Marcos’ National Remember that the Parol evidence rule is a rule of
Government Center Project. Roque, et al. alleged that they were exclusion and therefore previously prohibited evidence
persuaded to sell to the government on the latter’s promise that it like testimony pending to change or modify or add to
will return the sold properties to them should the National terms of the agreement may be admissible if there is
Government Center (NGC) Project not materialize. (this is failure to object. It is waived by failure to object.
practically the same with MCIAA)
2. Second, that the parol evidence sought to be admitted
The government denied making the promise on the ground that it serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by
is not written in the contract. (Practically the same defense as in the the presenting party.
case of MCIAA)
Like for example, intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement and becauase of
According to the SC here, he who alleges must prove his case. In
that what happens? The debtor is being made liable
this case, the respondents have the burden to prove that the sale
despite the fact that based on their understanding of the
was subject to the condition that the government would return the
agreement, the debtor has no liability. Remember that it
sold properties to them should the NGC Project not materialize.
is your ultimate fact.
However, they failed to discharge this burden. They failed to
present copies of the deeds of sale to show that the sale was
attended with the alleged conditions. Pursuant to the parol
evidence rule, no evidence of contractual terms is admissible other SPS. PARAS v. KIMWA (APR. 8, 2015)
than the contract itself. On this level alone, the respondents failed
to discharge their burden. Furthermore, the respondents failed to Again, the SC here reiterated that a party must put in issue in his
put in issue in your pleading the failure to express the parties true pleading any of the four (4) items enumerated raising any of these
agreement. items as an issue in the pleading such that it falls under the
exception is not limited the party initiating the action. If the
In Ortanes vs CA, the respondents alleged the existence of oral defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract
conditions which were not reflected in the Deed of Sale. A witness mentioned in the complaint does not express the true intent or
testified in court that the sale was subject to the oral conditions, the agreement of the parties, then the parol evidence is admissible to
Court held that the parol evidence was inadmissible because prove the true agreement of the parties. Moreover, as with all
among others, teh respondents failed to expressly plead that the possible objections to the parol evidence, a party’s failure to timely
Deeds of Sale did not reflect the parties’ intent. Instead, they object is deemed a waiver and parol evidence may then be
merely alleged that it was subject to four (4) conditions which they entertained. Apart from pleading these exceptions, it is equally
tried to prove during trial. The Court emphasized that this cannot imperative that the parol evidence sought to be introduced points
MANRESA 2018
to the conclusion proposed by the party presenting it. Meaning, it another.

should be relevant tending to induce believe in the existence of
flaw, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by the 2. What about a suretyship? Is it covered by the Statute of
party seeking to introduce parol evidence. Frauds?
The answer is NO. It is not covered by the Statute of Frauds

So, basic test of relevancy lang ang gihapon. for the simple reason that it is not one of those enumerated. It
is not a special promise to answer for the debt, default or
Other permitted collateral agreements, just take note, Inducement miscarriage of another. A suretyship is also not a
and representations which led to the execution of the agreement representation with respect to the credit of another person.
may be proven by parol evidence because they do not vary the What happens when you act a surety? You are principally
terms of the agreement. It simply clarifies the state of mind of the liable. Meaning, there is no need for a debt, default, or
parties when they entered into the agreement. miscarriage of another. Being a surety, you are not simply
representing to another person that a person who wants to
borrow has a credit. You are actually not saying that when
Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and
you are a surety. You are saying that regardless of what
collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the
happens, you can be held liable because a surety is liable as an
making of the same or part of the consideration thereof; similar
original promissor. He is solidarily liable.
again to MCIAA and similar again to the Republic vs Roque.
“Sir, I am surety. My principal debtor was the one who got all
of the money.” And then, here comes the creditor asking me
A condition precedent not stipulated in writing is provable by to pay without even going to the principal debtor. Can I
parol evidence. Why? Because before the happening of the object? The answer is No, you cannot because you are
condition precedent, there is no written agreement yet to which charged as an original promissor.
the parol evidence may apply. Perfect example there would be
against, Sales.
There is a big difference between the two. In short, not covered by
the Statue of Frauds.
Contact to sell where transfer of ownership is subordinated to the
condition of full payment of the purchase price. Remeber that that
Agreements not covered by the Parol Evidence Rule
happens before the execution of the agreement. There is no
agreement yet until and unless there is payment of the purchase
price. • All other agreements, whether prior and
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, if the issue
PNB VS. SEETO, 91 PHIL. 756 revolves around fraud and false representation since
they are incidental to the execution and not to the
Verbal assurances given by the indorser of an out-of-town check to integration of the agreement.
the employees of the bank where it was presented for encashment
that he will refund the amount should the check be dishonored by This is fraud. In effect, when you say fraud or false
the drawee bank is a collateral agreement separate and distinct representation, what are you actually raising here? You
from the indorsement by virtue of which the 1st bank was induced are raising the validity of the written agreement. So, it is
to cash the same and therefore provable by parol evidence. T not covered by the Parol Evidence Rule.
because that is inducement.
• All other agreements, whether prior and
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, when third
Any prior or contemporaneous conversation in connection with a
parties, who are not privy thereto, are involved.
note or its indorsement may be proved by parol evidence. (again
Meaning, if you are a 3rd party, you cannot seek refuge
indorsement)
under the provisions of the Parol Evidence Rule. Hence,
not covered by the Parol Evidence Rule. (LECHUGAS
An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which VS. COURT OF APPEALS)
cannot be embodied in the instrument without impairing its credit
may be proved by parol evidence also. (again indorsement) Cases to take note on Parol Evidence Rule:
The fact that parties who did appear to have signed as principals
ILEU-FFW vs. INTERPHIL LABS (December 19, 2001)
did so as merely sureties is provable by parol evidence. Now, take
note that there is a big difference between the term surety and
term guarantor. The parol evidence rule cannot be invoked in tribunals not strictly
bound by the rules of evidence. Practically, any other evidentiary
rule not bound ang tribunals; the tribunals are not strictly bound
Questions: (Guarantor vs Surety)
even the Best Evidence Rule. Before labor tribunals, anything goes.
You submit affidavits, there is no requirement of further
1. Is guaranty covered by the State of Frauds? Is a contract of testimony. There is no requirement of direct examination. What
Guaranty covered by the Statute of Frauds? you submit is the basis already of the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
If you recall under Article 1403 (2), it is considered a special
promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of
In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor
MANRESA 2018
Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity Applies to all kinds of writing,
are not controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence are not Applies only to documents whether contractual in nature
applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. which are contractual in nature or not.
except wills which are
agreements only for the
particular purpose of the Parol
How do you contradict a written agreement? What is the quantum evidence rule.
of proof required?
0:45:01 – 1:11: 03 | Lara delos Santos
MANZANO V. PEREZ (Aug. 9, 2001)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE versus BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Oral testimony cannot, as a rule, prevail over a written agreement
of the parties. In order to contradict the facts contained in a PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
notarial document as well as the presumption of regularity in the
execution thereof, there must be clear and convincing evidence It presupposes that the original It is the original document that
that is more than merely preponderant. document is available to the is precisely not available or
court. there is a dispute if the writing
(Originailty is not an issue at presented in court is the
the moment.) original.
Remember that the quantum of proof required in civil cases is
It prohibits testimony that It prohibits the introduction of
merely preponderance of evidence but if you are going to
tends to add to or modify secondary evidence whether or
contradict the terms of a document, you have to prove your point
testamentary disposition. not it varies the contents of the
by clear and convincing evidence. Let’s do that when we go to
original.
Rule 133, the different quanta of proof.
Applies only to documents Applies to all kinds of
CITIBANK vs. SABENIANO (Oct. 12, 2006)
which are contractual in nature writings, whether contractual
(except wills). in nature or not.
When a document is presented to prove its existence or condition,
it is offered not as documentary, but as real evidence. Parol
evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is allowed. May be invoked only if the May be invoked by any party
controversy is between the to an action whether he has
The Parol Evidence is not applicable because it is not presented as parties to an agreement and participated or not in the
a document. It is not offered as proof of its contents but rather an their privies. writing.
existence or condition making it object evidence not covered by the
Best Evidence Rule, not covered by the parol evidence rule.
The timing of the objection The proper time of objection is
depends on the for mtaken by always after the presentation
evidence ali unde.*** of the party’s testimonial
DISTINCTIONS evidence.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE It applies to any type of

contract and its purpose is to
make sure that the parties’
Presupposes that the original The original document is not
final understanding, liberally
document is available in court. available or is a dispute as to
expressed in writing shall not
whether writing presented for
be changed.
The originality of a document is not consideration by the court is
the issue as of the moment. actually original.
Fourth distinction:
Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
terms of the written agreement. secondary evidence regardless When should a party object?
of whether or not it varies the It depends on the type of evidence and it would depend on what
contents of original. the law dictates to be the proper time for such evidence to be
offered.
Covers different issues
What is offer of evidence?
You tell the court, inform the other party, that the purpose of the
evidence is so and so.
When do you make an offer with respect to the testimony of a

witness?
At the time the witness is called to testify.
MANRESA 2018
(ie. “Your honor, the testimony of A is offered to prove the witness), objections shall be interposed as soon as the grounds
following matters…”) therefore can become reasonably apparent.
What about documentary and object evidence? If the objectionable nature of the testimony is apparent from the
It shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial offer prior to the testimony, objection to evidence offered orally
evidence. must be made immediately after the offer is made.
(Remember: a witness may be identifying, testifying or sponsoring
a documentary or object evidence.) Example: In the course of an examination the question of the
lawyer was:
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately “You mentioned that you did not pay the debt because you had
after the offer is made. a subsequent agreement to extend the period of time to pay.
What is this agreement all about?”
(ie. Lawyer: “This evidence is offered to prove the following matters,
your Honor: The lawyer is asking the witness about an agreement that is not
1. He wiretapped the telephone of the accused. found in the document. So you have to object:
2. Upon wiretapping, he learned that the accused killed B.)
“Objection your honor, the question calls for an answer that is
Will you object? Of course. That is inadmissible! So during offer, outside the terms of the written agreement which violates the
he stated already the contents of the evidence, you can Parole Evidence Rule.”
immediately object. That is objection after an offer is made.
What about for the testimony from the offer prior to the
Objection to a question propounded in the question of the oral testimony? It could take this form:
examination of a witness, shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefore shall become reasonably apparent. Lawyer: “The testimony of the defendant is offered to prove
that sometime after the loan agreement, the defendant was
Let’s say for example, you testify in violation of the parole verbally granted an extension to pay the debt and for other
evidence rule: purposes material to his defense, your honor.”
“Mr. Witness, what else did you agree with the plaintiff that is
not contained in the contract?” How do you object? You object to the testimony as offered.
You are actually asking the witness if there is anything more, an “Your honor, the testimony seems to modify the terms of the
agreement between the parties that does not appear in the written agreement by means of parol evidence.”
agreement. This is objectionable between the Parole Evidence Rule.
An offer of evidence in writing objected to, must be done within STATUTE OF FRAUDS versus PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
thee days after notice unless a different period is allowed by the
court. In any case, the grounds for the objection must be specified. STATUTE OF FRAUDS PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
New Civil Code. Article 1403 Rules of Court. Rule 130,

How about the Best evidence Rule? When shall it be interposed? (2) Section 9
Objection shall be interposed when the document is offered. Its object is to prevent perjured Nothing to do with the
Meaning, after the party’s presentation of testimonial evidence. testimony in proof of certain manner of proving
contracts in the Statute of agreements. Its object is to
Is the rule the same with regard to the Parol evidence Rule? Frauds. (enumeration is prohibit alteration, change,
No. What you are objecting to is the parol evidence itself, one that exclusive as a general rule) modification, variation or
is extrinsic, outside the terms of the agreement; which tells you contradiction of the terms of a
that, the objectionable evidence is more or less testimonial. Why? written agreement
Because one would be witnessing about something that does not
appear on the document itself.
Clearly, does not apply to wills By fiction of law, treats wills
But you can also take it such as, the parol evidence might be in
as agreement and thus it made
another form like a document. If that is the case, the timing of the
applicable to wills
objection should be the same as that of the Best evidence Rule—
after the document has been offered.
Rules of unenforceability which A rule of integration which
So if it is testimonial evidence, when do you object? applies to the absence of applies where there is a
It depends. If the objectionable testimony is in the course of the writing written agreement
examination or if the objectionable nature of the testimony is
apparent prior to the testimony. Bars proof of an agreement Bars the existence of terms
outside the agreement
If the objectionable testimony is in the course of the examination,
meaning, question and answer (the lawyer asking a question to a
MANRESA 2018
MARKET DEVELOPERS vs. IAC and UY, G.R. No. 74978 August 22, 2018
(1989)
0:00:01 – 1:09:56 | Angel Deiparine
We see no reason why the second agreement of the parties to
deliver the petitioner's cargo to Roxas City instead of Kalibo, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Aklan, should not be recognized simply because it was not in
writing. Law and jurisprudence support the validity of such a It is evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness. It is sometimes
contract. The parol evidence rule is clearly inapplicable because called viva voce evidence or evidence by the living voice. In this
that involves the verbal modification usually not allowed a kind of evidence, a human being is actually called at the witness
written agreement admittedly still valid and subsisting. In the stand. He will be asked questions and he is supposed to answer
case at bar, the first written agreement had not merely been questions asked of him.
modified but actually replaced by the second verbal agreement,
which is perfectly valid even if not in writing like the first. As has The person who gives a testimony is called a witness. The person
been correctly held: who brings the witness to the witness stand is the proponent of
such witness.
No principle of law makes it necessary that a new contract upon
the same subject between the same persons shall be reduced to
writing because the old contract was written. Competency with respect to a witness
Take note that competent evidence means evidence that is not

excluded by the law or these rules. When we apply the term
QUA CHEE GAN vs. LAW UNION AND ROCK INSURANCE ‘competency’ to a witness, it means that the witness is qualified to
, take the witness stand and testify on a particular matter in a
G.R. No. L-4611, December 17, 1955 judicial proceeding.
Qua Chee Gan seeks to recover the proceeds of certain fire Thus, if a witness cannot perceive OR even if he can perceive, he
insurance policies, issued by the Law Union, upon certain cannot remember what he has perceived, then he will be
bodegas and merchandise of the insured that were burned on incompetent to testify.
June 21, 1940. The insurance company alleges that xxx the
policies were avoided for breach of warranty, xxx since the If he has no personal knowledge of an event, the truth of which he
bodegas insured had an external wall perimeter of 500 meters or wants to prove, he is also incompetent to testify. Competence of a
1,640 feet, the appellee should have eleven (11) fire hydrants in witness, therefore, refers to the qualifications that would allow
the compound, and that he actually had only two (2), with a him to testify in court.
further pair nearby, belonging to the municipality of Tabaco.
If you recall in the hierarchy of reliable proof, testimonial evidence
HELD: the appellant is barred by waiver (or rather estoppel) to would normally rank lowest---
claim violation of the so-called fire hydrants warranty. The 1. Object Evidence
insurance company was aware, even before the policies were 2. Documentary Evidence
issued, that in the premises insured there were only two fire 3. Testimonial Evidence
hydrants and two others nearby, owned by the municipality of
Tabaco, contrary to the requirements of the warranty in question. But we need to remember that in the presentation or introduction
of evidence, whether it be object, demonstrative or documentary
The appellant company, in this particular case, so worded the evidence, it needs the intervention of a witness.
policies that while exacting the greater number of fire hydrants
and appliances, it kept the premium discount at the minimum of Object, demonstrative or documentary evidence must be
2 1/2 per cent, thereby giving the insurance company a double sponsored by a witness.
benefit. No reason is shown why appellant's premises, that had
been insured with appellant for several years past, suddenly The admission of any evidence requires identification by the
should be regarded in 1939 as so hazardous as to be accorded a witness. It is a legal truth that identification precedes
treatment beyond the limits of appellant's own scale of authentication. Without a witness, evidence can never be
allowances. Such abnormal treatment of the insured strongly authenticated.
points at an abuse of the insurance company's selection of the Even the so-called “self-authenticating” documents need a witness
words and terms of the contract, over which it had absolute to identify the document.
control.
Presumption of Competency
These considerations lead us to regard the parol evidence rule,
invoked by the appellant as not applicable to the present case. It General Rule: A person who takes the witness stand is presumed
is not a question here whether or not the parties may vary a to be qualified to testify. A party who desires to question the
written contract by oral evidence; but whether testimony is competency of a witness must do so by making an objection as
receivable so that a party may be, by reason of inequitable soon as the facts tending to show incompetence are apparent.
conduct shown, estopped from enforcing forfeitures in its favor,
in order to forestall fraud or imposition on the insured.
MANRESA 2018
Thus, the burden of proving that the witness is not qualified to because Section 36 (Rule 130) explicitly requires that the witness
testify rests upon the person who opposes the testimony on the can only testify only to facts which he knows of his personal
ground of competency. knowledge. Meaning, those that are derived from his own
perception.
QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS People vs. Sota

November 29, 2017
Rule 130 Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as
provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can xxx Anyone who is and aware of a relevant event or incident, and
perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to
others, may be witnesses. others can be a witness.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or Although, this is a mere obiter, not really mind blowing
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not jurisprudence, but take note of how the SC worded it. It is not
be ground for disqualification. anymore limited to observation of a witness; it can be experience
or awareness.
Qualifications of Witnesses under Section 20
Ability to make know his perception to others
1. The witness must be able to perceive;
2. In perceiving, he can make known his perception to This ability involves two factors:
others;
1. The ability to remember what has been perceived (CAPACITY
Additional qualifications: OF RECOLLECTION); and
3. He must take either an oath or an affirmation (Section 1, 2. The ability to communicate the remembered perception
Rule 132); (CAPACITY OF COMMUNICATION).
The fact, for example, that the witness does not Deaf-mutes are not necessarily incompetent to become
believe in God disqualifies him from taking an witnesses.
OATH. And remember, it is the taking of an oath
that makes a person liable for perjury. Does this They are competent if they can understand and appreciate the
mean an atheist cannot become a witness anymore? sanctity of an oath, can comprehend facts they are going to
A: If he is an atheist, it does not mean he cannot be a testify on, and can communicate their ideas through a
witness anymore. He is allowed to take instead an qualified interpreter (People vs. Tuangco).
AFFIRMATION.
Meaning, through sign language. Then, the interpreter takes
4. He must not possess any of the disqualifications an oath that what he interprets would be precisely what the
imposed by law or the Rules. witness signed[sic].
Take note of the 4 requirements. It is deemed integrated in these Oath or Affirmation

requirements that the witness must be able to testify based on his
personal knowledge. Bawal ang secondhand information.
If a person is unable to understand the duty to tell the truth, he is
disqualified to be a witness. An oath or affirmation is necessary for
We will learn in Rule 130 Section 36, if the testimony of a witness is
the witness to recognize the duty to tell the truth. The oath of the
proposed to prove the truth of a particular matter of fact, yet he
witness signifies that he is swearing to the Creator to tell the truth
has no personal knowledge of it, it is practically ‘chismis’.
and nothing but that truth, and that if he does not, he will later
answer for the falsehood told. A lie as told in the witness stand
Rule 130, Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
subjects the witness to perjury.
knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to
JZE on oaths ending with “So help me God”:
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
I always liken it to an obligation. It is like a promise coupled with a
provided in these rules.
curse. If you knowingly tell a falsehood in court, the curse is so
bad that the law would rather not define it and so it says, ‘So help
Ability to Perceive me God.’
You must be able to see it, hear it, smell it, touch it, and taste it. It Not all may want to take an oath for reasons of religion or the lack
is, therefore, absurd to ask a blind person of what he saw or a deaf thereof, thus, the rule in this jurisdiction affords the courts the
person of what he heard because that is contrary to their ability to flexibility to deal with those who refuse being sworn, by requiring
perceive. the witness to make an affirmation.
Corollary to this capacity to perceive is the requirement that the

witness must have personal knowledge of the facts and In sum, the witness is required to have the following capacities:
circumstances surrounding the subject matter of his testimony
MANRESA 2018
1. Capacity of Observation perjury or false testimony.

2. Capacity of Recollection xxx
3. Capacity of Communication
4. Capacity of Discernment- It is the ability to distinguish A party declared in default is not disqualified to be a witness
between the truth and falsehood.
5. Capacity of Appreciation of Duty- It is the appreciation Cavili vs Florendo
of the duty to tell the truth in court. October 9, 1987
Second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 20: Q: If a person is declared in default, he loses his standing in court.
If the defaulted defendant is only one of several defendants, does
loss of standing means loss of qualification to become a witness for
xxx Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, his co-defendants?
or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall
not be a ground for disqualification. There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in
default from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties.
• Religious and political belief The law does not include default as one of the exceptions thereto.
• Interest in the outcome of the case The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the
• Conviction of a crime operation of cause of disability other than those mentioned in the
Rules It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the
Interest in the outcome of the case – What would make you construction of statutes that an express exception, exemption or
interested in the outcome of the case? It’s either you are a party or saving clause excludes other exceptions.
you have an interest common with a party (like Husband- accused;
Wife- witness). xxx
A party in default loses his right to present his defense, control the
People vs. Boniao proceedings and examine or cross-examine the witnesses. He has
no right to expect that his pleadings will be acted upon by the
Relationship does not by itself preclude the trial court from court nor may he object to or refute evidence or motions filed
believing such testimonies or impair the witnesses’ credibility. against him. There is nothing in the rule, however, which
They are not disqualified by the Rules on that ground alone. The contemplates a disqualification to be a witness or an opponent in a
Court has held that it should not be lightly supposed that relatives case. Default does not make him an incompetent.
would callously violate their conscience, to avenge the death of
their loved one by blaming it on persons whom they believe to be As opposed to a party litigant, a witness is merely a beholder, a
innocent thereof. spectator or onlooker, called upon to testify to what he has seen
hear or observed. As such, he takes no active part in the contest of
Therefore, the interest on the outcome of the case is not considered rights between the parties. Cast in the cited role of witness, a party
a ground for disqualification. in default cannot be considered as ‘a part in the trial.’
Thus, if you want to put doubt on the witness because of Therefore, a party in default may thus be cited as a witness by his
relationship ties, you do not disqualify the witness, what you do is co-defendants who have the standing and the right to present
to impeach the testimony of the witness. Or to cast doubt as to the evidence.
veracity of the testimony on the ground that ‘maybe’ the witness is
lying because of a relationship. But you are not asking for the
disqualification of the witness on that ground. CIVPRO REVIEW (not sure if relevant, but I included anyway)
Conviction of a crime As a review, what are the remedies of party declared in default?
To move or ask for relief from the order of default (MOTION TO
The mere pendency of a criminal case against a person does not LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT). So, you have to file with the court a
disqualify him from becoming a witness. As a matter of fact, motion showing you are a victim of Fraud, Accident, Mistake or
conviction of a crime does not disqualify such person from being Excusable Negligence, and that you have a meritorious defense.
presented as a witness, unless otherwise provided by law.
Q1: How many affidavits are there (accompanying your Motion to
It depends now upon the appreciation of the court whether or not Lift Order of Default)?
it believes that the witness who is a criminal is trustworthy. A: There are two. First is affidavit showing you are a victim of
FAME, and second is your Affidavit of Merits.
But the law also tells you that there are instances that the law itself
does not allow you to be a witness. Perfect example is Article 821 Q2: Is that your only remedy if you’re a party declared in default?
of the Civil Code. A: Recall Rule 37, Motion for New Trial on the ground of FAME,
where the law again requires you to submit two affidavits again.
Article 821, Civil Code. The following are disqualified from being
Q3: What else?
a witness to a will:
A: Rule 38, Petition for Relief from Judgment. Rule 47, Annulment
xxx
of Judgment on the ground of Fraud.
2. Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document,
MANRESA 2018
Even a mental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a

Q4: What else? witness.
A: On exceptional cases, certiorari.
If you want to challenge the competency of the witness, the burden
is upon you to prove that the witness cannot testify.
Drunkenness as a ground to disqualify a witness
People vs. Delos Santos
People vs. Melendres August 30, 2001
April 30, 2003
A mental retardate is not, by reason of such handicap alone,
JZE: The SC said that for as long as his testimony is coherent, then disqualified from testifying in court. He or she can be a witness,
he is not disqualified as a witness. The burden lies upon the depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. If
person who questions the competence of the witness to testify, on the testimony of a mental retardate is coherent, the same is
the ground of drunkenness, to prove that he is incompetent to admissible in court. Thus, we have in several cases upheld the
testify. conviction of the accused based mainly on statements given in
court by the victim who was a mental retardate.
JZE: You may be qualified to testify as a witness, but if you come
to court clearly drunk, you can be held in contempt of court. But b. Immaturity
does it affect your qualification to be a witness? No.
Minority, per se, is not a ground for disqualification. But if you are
SC: As to the alleged mental derangement of Rodrigo, it is true a minor but at the same time you have mental immaturity that you
that during his testimony in open court on December 15, 1993, he are incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which you are
was uncooperative, defiant and even disrespectful to the court. going to be examined, AND you cannot relate them truthfully,
The trial court even cited him for direct contempt and ordered his then you are disqualified.
incarceration. However, it appeared from the order of the trial
court that Rodrigo’s defiance at that time was not a result of his Incapability of perception + Incapability of relating them
alleged mental incapacity but because he was drunk. Moreover, truthfully= child is disqualified from testifying.
while the prosecution admitted that Rodrigo has experience “some
mental shock sometime ago”, no evidence was presented by the People vs. Galas
defense to impeach him on ground of incompetence. September 24, 1994
Insofar as children are concerned, only those whose mental

Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity maturity is such so as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating truthfully
Rule 130, Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental are disqualified.
incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be
witnesses: It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent
witness if they meet the following criteria: (a) capacity of
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of
for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently communication.
making known their perception to others;
Wigmore: “No rule defines any particular age as conclusive of
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapacity. In each instance, the capacity of a particular child is to
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are be investigated.”
examined and of relating them truthfully.
It has to be looked at in a case-to-case basis to determine if whether
a. Mental Incapacity or not the child has the capacity to be a witness.
We’re not talking about children here. If we talk about children, Who determines that? It’s the trial judge.
that’s letter (b).
The decision rests primarily with the trial judge who sees the
Mental retardate- Does it affect your ability to testify? NO. proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or
lack of intelligence and may resort to any examination which will
tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his
understanding of the obligations of an oath. (People vs. Mendoza,
People vs. Dela Cruz February 22, 1996)
July 11, 2002
People vs Golidan
Here the witness is already 20 years old but her mental capacity is January 11, 2018
that of an 8-year old child. According to the SC, that does not
obviate the fact of her competency. Its only effect was to consider A child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court
her testimony from the point of view of an 8-year old minor. determines upon proper showing that the child’s mental maturity
is such as to render him incapable of perceiving the facts
MANRESA 2018
respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts

truthfully. The testimony of the child of sound mind, with the When it comes to child witnesses, per se, you apply the RULE ON
capacity to perceive and make known the perception can be EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES.
believed in the absence of any showing of an improper motive to For anything else not covered by the Rules, you apply the Rules of
testify. Once it is established that the child fully understands the Evidence.
character and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full
credence. Section 2. Objectives. The objectives of this Rule are to create and
maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable
and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WINTESS children to testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the
ascertainment of truth.
Section 6. Competency.— Every child is presumed qualified to be
a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency In People vs. Baring, what is important at this point and we do not
examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when hesitate to reiterate is that forensic examination- inclusive of
it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the physical examination and forensic interview- of sexually assaulted
child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from children must be conducted with maximum sensitivity to the
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. young victim’s feelings of vulnerability and embarrassment. Great
care must be observed in order to make the examination less
xxx stressful lest they be more traumatic to the victim than the very
assault itself. The value of collecting evidence should always be
Based on Section 6, remember our basic formula: weighed against the emotional cost of the procedure and
examination of the child.
1. Capacity of Observation
2. Capacity of Recollection Thus, you have to avoid the use of invasive methods. You cannot
3. Capacity of Communication treat a child witness similarly to how you treat an adult witness.
4. Capacity of Discernment
5. Capacity of Appreciation of Duty Section 3. Construction of the Rule. ---Construction of the
Rule.— This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best
This time, there is more emphasis on the last two requirements interests of the child and to promote maximum accommodation of
that we added. child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the
accused.
Same formula when it comes to an adult witness and a child
witness. It’s always the best interest of the child, but without setting aside
the Constitutional rights of the accused.
JZE: Remember in that 2018 case, the SC said ‘tama na ang panahon na
gina brush aside lang nato ang testimonies kay tungod bata ang witness.’ Section 4. Definitions.
The SC made here a survey of jurisprudence that detailed the rulings
relating to the testimonies of child witnesses. It’s actually a nice case to (a) A “child witness” is any person who at the time of giving
read. We will go back to that case later. testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse
cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by
Every witness is presumed qualified to testify. When Section 6 the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself
talks about competency examinations, that is not limited to child from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because
witness. of a physical or mental disability or condition.
You can actually conduct competency examinations of other (b) “Child abuse” means physical, psychological or sexual abuse
witness who are not children but whose qualifications to testify are and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act No. 7610 and other
in doubt. related laws.
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. Unless otherwise provided, (c) “Facilitator” means a person appointed by the court to pose
this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are questions to a child.
victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It
shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal (d) “Record regarding a child” or “record” means any photograph,
proceedings involving child witnesses. videotape, audiotape, film, handwriting, typewriting, printing,
electronic recording, computer data or printout, or other
So it practically applies to everybody in a criminal case, whether memorialization, including any court document, pleading, or any
the accused, victims or witnesses. And, pwede criminal and non- copy or reproduction of any of the foregoing, that contains the
criminal cases. name, description, address, school or any other personal
identifying information about a child or his family and that is
In relation to Section 1, we have Section 32. produced or maintained by a public agency, private agency or
individual.
Section 32. Applicability of ordinary rules. The provisions of
the Rules of Court on deposition, conditional examination of (e) A “guardian ad litem” is a person appointed by the court where
witnesses, and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character. the case is pending for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a
MANRESA 2018
witness to a crime to protect the best interests of the said child. Obencio vs. Murillo
(f) A “support person” is a person chosen by the child to accompany A judge’s failure to appoint a guardian litem to a child was one of
him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to the grounds of administrative liability of the presiding judge.
provide emotional support for him.
‘may be a member of the Philippine Bar’
(g) “Best interests of the child” means the totality of the
circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the It’s not mandatory that the guardian ad litem is a member of the
survival, protection, and feelings of security of the child and most Philippine Bar. It is optional. There is a reason why there is a
encouraging to his physical, psychological, and emotional special mention of lawyers. It is because of what is contained in
development. It also means the least detrimental available Section 5(c).
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the
child. Section 5
xxx
(h) “Developmental level” refers to the specific growth phase in (c)The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings but
which most individuals are expected to behave and function in shall not participate in the trial. However, he may file motions
relation to the advancement of their physical, socio-emotional, pursuant to Sections 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the guardian ad
cognitive, and moral abilities. litem is a lawyer, he may object during trial that questions asked of
the child are not appropriate to his developmental level.
(i) “In-depth investigative interview” or “disclosure interview” is an xxx
inquiry or proceeding conducted by duly trained members of a
multi-disciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or Only a lawyer will be able to competently object. There are
child protective services for the purpose of determining whether oblations, though.
child abuse has been committed.
Obligations of a Guardian Ad Litem
C. Facilitator – As opposed to a Facilitator, an Interpreter’s
qualifications are simply linguistic. Section 5
xxx
There’s a need for a facilitator because judges and lawyers tend to (b) The guardian ad litem:
be older. Children/Millenials are difficult to understand, and the
same way children may not perceive it similarly with older people, (1) shall attend all interviews, depositions, hearings, and trial
that is why you need a facilitator. proceedings in which a child participates;
E. Guardian Ad Litem- This is different from ‘guardian’ in (2) shall make recommendations to the court concerning the
guardianship proceedings. This is a guardian for the purpose of welfare of the child;
that particular case only. It is a must.
(3) shall have access to all reports, evaluations, and records
There is this case that the court said, the failure of the court to necessary to effectively advocate for the child, except privileged
appoint a guardian ad litem for a child victim, led to disciplinary communications;
sanctions of a judge. That is how important it is.
(4) shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of resources and
Section 5. Guardian ad litem. special services to the child;
(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a (5) shall explain, in language understandable to the child, all legal
victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to promote the best proceedings, including police investigations, in which the child is
interests of the child. In making the appointment, the court shall involved;
consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his
familiarity with the judicial process, social service programs, and (6) shall assist the child and his family in coping with the
child development, giving preference to the parents of the child, if emotional effects of crime and subsequent criminal or non-
qualified. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the criminal proceedings in which the child is involved;
Philippine Bar. A person who is a witness in any proceeding
involving the child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem. (7) may remain with the child while the child waits to testify;
xxx (8) may interview witnesses; and
May be a member of the Philippine Bar. (9) may request additional examinations by medical or mental
health professionals if there is a compelling need therefor.
A person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the child xxx
cannot be appointed as guardian ad litem for the obvious possible
conflict of interest.
MANRESA 2018
Privilege of a guardian ad litem or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
Section 5 (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be

xxx examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or
(c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings but his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
shall not participate in the trial. However, he may file motions professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary,
pursuant to Sections 9, 10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the guardian ad stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
litem is a lawyer, he may object during trial that questions asked of client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
the child are not appropriate to his developmental level. which has been acquired in such capacity;
(d) The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns regarding (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
the child to the court through an officer of the court designated for cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
that purpose. examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient
(e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
concerning any information, statement, or opinion received from enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
the child in the course of serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the reputation of the patient;
court finds it necessary to promote the best interests of the child.
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person
(f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have acted in good making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to
faith in compliance with his duties described in Sub-section (b). or any advice given by him in his professional character in the
course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister
While it is the privilege of the guardian ad litem to be notified of or priest belongs;
all hearings and proceedings, and it is his duty to attend the same,
he is not considered a party entitled to participate in the case. (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
But once again, he may file motions, he may make objections. confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure.
Motions a guardian ad litem may make:
1. Appointment of an interpreter Any information, statement or opinion received from the child in
2. Appointment of support persons the course of serving as a guardian ad litem is privileged
3. A motion for an order that the testimony of a child be communication.You cannot inquire into it.
taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised
to the courtroom by live-link television RECAP of other things that are privileged communication. You
4. For an order for the chair of the child or that a screen or cannot inquire into it; it cannot be subpoenaed :
other device may be placed in the courtroom in such a
manner that the child cannot see the accused while 1. Bank Deposits (Secrecy of Bank Deposits) but in a way, na dilute
testifying na nah ang secrecy.
5. For an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony a. Human Security Act- Under this law, if you are
of the child and that it can be recorded and preserved on suspected of being a terrorist, the Court of Appeals may issue an
videotape as a substitute for testimony Order for law enforcement agencies to inquire into your bank
6. Issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child deposits.
under Section 31. If you are suspected of financing terrorism, there is even
no need for a court order. The AMLC can just inquire directly into
If the guardian ad litem is not a lawyer, how can he explain these your bank deposits.
proceedings to the child? So better gyud ang lawyer.
The guardian ad litem is presumed to have acted in good faith in
Section 5(e) is called as the “Guardian Ad Litem Privileged compliance with his duties prescribed in subsection (b).
Communication Rule”.
AUGUST 23, 2018
Later on when we will go to Section 24, Rule 130, there are
different kinds of privileged communication. 0:00:01 = 0:28:00 | Angel Deiparine
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Sec. 9. Interpreter for child.—

communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to
matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino
language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, or other similar
be examined without the consent of the other as to any reason, an interpreter whom the child can understand and who
communication received in confidence by one from the other understands the child may be appointed by the court, motu
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
MANRESA 2018
In one case which we will discuss later, the Supreme Court took
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only judicial notice na ang bata, normally, dili na mamakak.
person who can serve as an interpreter for the child, he shall not be
disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. The Q: Why is it na paunahon nimo ug testify ang interpreter who is
interpreter, however, who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of also a witness?
the child. A: So that he will not pattern his testimony to the testimony of the
child who is presumed to be giving the correct account of things.
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true Para dili mag-collusion.
and accurate interpretation.
Kung unahon nimo ang bata, all that the interpreter witness would
have to do will be to listen to the testimony of the child and then
(recording started late)… later on when he testifies he simply corroborates the testimony of
the child.
When the recording started, JZE was discussing about his experience of
witnesses in the witness stand needing interpreters. South Cotabato Section 9 (c)
experience, etc. An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and
Conclusion of the story is THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT. accurate interpretation.
You may skip this part, but I included it in the TSN anyway. For
reference. Sec. 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child.—
…and then counsel will ask a question in English interpreted or (a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a
translated by the interpreter into the language understood by the facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to understand
witness, then the witness will answer. or respond to questions asked. The facilitator may be a child
You know what? I hate that. psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor,
teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.
Because usually, in practice, the way that you can easily catch a
witness telling a lie is to expose the lie by a series of questions that (b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for
the witness should answer successively, also spontaneously. the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the
That’s the way you try to expose that the witness is inconsistent or facilitator. The questions shall either be in the words used by
telling a lie. counsel or, if the child is not likely to understand the same, in
But the problem is kung bisaya or tagalog ang witness, you have to words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the
wait for the interpretation, the translation into English. So I ask a meaning intended by counsel.
question, translated by the interpreter and then answered by the
witness in the language, translated into English by the interpreter (c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose
before I can ask my next question. questions to the child according to the meaning intended by
counsel.
So it takes a whole time. That was the problem.
That was one of the reasons why judicial affidavit is now required, Section 10 (a)
because now, translations are already given in advance by the
affiant, or the person who made the judicial affidavit. There’s a difference between an interpreter and a facilitator.
The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator
if it determines that the child is unable to understand or respond
Section 9(b) Discussion. to questions asked.
If interpreters are required from adult witnesses, with all the more The facilitator may be a child’s psychologist, psychiatrist, social
reason that it would be required for a child witness. worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent or
Take note in letter (b) that if a witness or member of the family of relative.
the child is the only person who can serve as the interpreter for the They are not simply people who understand the language. These
child, meaning, in that particular place where trial is being held, are people with special qualifications. They have special
where the child witness is being presented, nobody else knows the competence.
language of the child. These people have a special relationship with the child.
For example, you’re in Manila, and ang child witness is an Those are the qualifications, not purely linguistic. Dili kay
Ilonggo, nobody in the court room would know Ilonggo, who nakasabot ka lang saiyahang inistorya pwede na ka mahimong
would interpret? Only the family members or other witnesses who facilitator.
may or may not be relatives who understand the language or Section 10 (b)
speak the language. So, pwede sila. If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for the
parties shall pose questions to the child only through the
He shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the facilitator.
child. The interpreter, however, who is also a witness, shall testify So, you tell the facilitator the question, the facilitator will pose the
ahead of the child. question to the child. So, it’s simply a filter. That person is simply a
filter.
Now, you need to remember, we have this idea that children are Purpose: To ensure that the questions posed would be asked in a
presumed to be unable to lie. manner that is welcomed to the child.
MANRESA 2018
completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party,
The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel. OR, if judge, or hearing officer.
the child is not likely to understand the same: in words that are 3. The court may allow the support person to hold the
comprehensible to the child and which convey the meaning hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to provide
intended by counsel. emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings.
It’s the facilitator that has a tougher job because you have that 4. The court shall instruct the support persons not to
added obligation to context. prompt, sway, or influence the child during his testimony.
If you’re an interpreter, all you have to do is translate from one
language to another. But if you are a facilitator, you have to give Remember, there’s an instruction na dili ka mag prompt, sway, or
context. The context should be one understandable to the child. So influence.
mas lisod ang trabaho.
But there are instances when a child witness is being examined in
Section 10 (c) court na kinahanglan ug prompting from the support persons.
The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to Not necessarily prompting as to what to answer, but prompting na
the child according to the meaning intended by counsel. “sige na tubaga na”, “uy ayaw kahadlok. Tubaga lang.” Pwede ingon
ana.
Q: How do you distinguish an interpreter from a facilitator
under the rule on examination of child witnesses? But you cannot influence the child as to what to say. That will no
longer be a spontaneous answer.
Interpreter Facilitator
An interpreter is needed when A facilitator is needed when the b. If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness, the
the child does not understand child is unable to understand or court may disapprove the choice if it is sufficiently established that
the language or is unable to respond to the questions asked the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the
communicate in the said by the judge/lawyer. child would pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the
language. content of the testimony of the child.
Dili sya kasabot. Not necessarily
So, it’s translation. because dili niya masabtan saiyang c. If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the
developmental level, but because court, his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony of
the child is unable to respond to the the child.
questions when asked by a lawyer.
An interpreter’s qualification is A facilitator’s qualification is Sec . 12. Waiting area for child witnesses.— The courts are
purely linguistic. not purely linguistic. encouraged to provide a waiting area for children that is separate
from waiting areas used by other persons. The waiting area for
Simply, he can translate the He has a special qualification children should be furnished so as to make a child comfortable.
question in English or Filipino like relationship, training and
into a language understood by expertise. Waiting area for child witnesses
the child.
The duty of the interpreter is The duty of the facilitator is to It’s just an encouragement for the courts to provide a waiting area
to make a true and accurate pose questions to the child for children.
interpretation or translation. according to the meaning
intended by counsel. Children are not supposed to wait together with all the other
personalities inside the courtroom.
Under the rule of examination on child witnesses, both the
interpreter and facilitator perform their duties de officio That would be in a way traumatic to see people in handcuffs being
(appointed by the court). led to the courtroom, people shouting at one another, probably,
especially when cross examination becomes heated.
SECTION 11. Support Persons
The child should be comfortable. Because coming to the court is
a. A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a already an uncomfortable experience for the child.
deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one
or two persons of his own choosing to provide him Section 13, just read it.
emotional support.
xxx Sec. 13. Courtroom environment.— To create a more comfortable
environment for the child, the court may, in its discretion, direct
Pwede parents, pwede friends, pwede any relative or any person and supervise the location, movement and deportment of all
for that matter. persons in the courtroom including the parties, their counsel,
child, witnesses, support persons, guardian ad litem, facilitator,
Xxx and court personnel. The child may be allowed to testify from a
1. Both support persons shall remain within the view of place other than the witness chair. The witness chair or other
the child during his testimony. place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his
2. One of the support persons may accompany the child testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a
to the witness stand, provided the support person does not frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the
MANRESA 2018
child. The witness chair or other place from which the child
testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the Last part: Normally, for ordinary adult witnesses, you are not
opposing party and his counsel, if he chooses to look at them, allowed to testify in a narrative form. One question answered by
without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. The judge one fact; another question answered by another fact. You are not
need not wear his judicial robe. allowed to narrate your story because your answer will no longer
be responsive to the question.
Nothing in this section or any other provision of law, except
official in-court identification provisions, shall be construed to It is very difficult to obtain a fact from a child. Hence, the court
require a child to look at the accused. allows the child to narrate until the question is finally answered.
Accommodations for the child under this section need not be Genil vs. Judge Rivera (January 23, 2006)
supported by a finding of trauma to the child.
What would be the effect if the judge displays blatant insensitivity
to the child by allowing the defense counsel to approach the child
Sec. 14. Testimony during appropriate hours.— The court may and allowing to examine the child vigorously? It is a ground for
order that the testimony of the child should be taken during a time administrative liability on the judge. The court may motu proprio
of day when the child is well-rested. exclude the public from the courtroom to protect the right to
privacy of the child; if requiring the child to testify in open court
Sec. 15. Recess during testimony.— The child may be allowed would cause psychological harm to him; if it would hinder the
reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct, cross, re- ascertainment of truth or result in his inability to effectively
direct, and re-cross examinations as often as necessary depending communicate due to embarrassment, fear or timidity; and if the
on his developmental level. evidence to be produced is of such character as to be offensive to
decency or public morals
Sec. 16. Testimonial aids. — The court shall permit a child to use
dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins, Sec. 20. Leading questions.— The court may allow leading
or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will
testimony. further the interests of justice.
Assume for example that the case is for acts of lasciviousness Rule: Question answered by one fact.
committed upon the child.
A leading question is one answered by a yes or a no. It is not the
Unsa man, ipa demonstrate nimo saiyaha kung asa sya gigunitan? witness who is testifying but it is the counsel who leads the
That would be so invasive. witness into answering a yes or a no. The fact is already supplied
What can you do? by the counsel. The witness merely affirms or negates the question.
There’s an anatomically-correct to doll.
”Nak, palihog ug tudlo kung asa diri sa doll ka gigunitan. Kung ikaw Example: “You were at the scene of the crime, were you”
nang doll, asa ka gigunitan sa akusado?” That’s the use of
anatomically-correct doll. Reason for prohibition: The witness must testify based on his
personal knowledge. The court will not determine of the witness
But you do not bring the doll of Barney, for example. It is not has a personal knowledge if the counsel is the one giving the facts
anatomically-correct doll. and the witness merely affirms or negates.
Sec. 17. Emotional security item. — While testifying, a child shall People vs. Perez (February 5, 2003)
be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket,
toy, or doll. As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules
provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years
Lahi pud ni sya. Lahi ni sya katong testimonial aid na doll. as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without
prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax
Sec. 18. Approaching the witness. — The court may prohibit a the truth out of their reluctant lips.
counsel from approaching a child if it appears that the child is
fearful of or intimidated by the counsel. The Court has repeatedly stated that it is highly inconceivable for a
child of tender age, inexperienced in the ways of the world, to
0:28:01 – 1:16:11 | Anton Maligad fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination
of her private part, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her
family’s honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a
Sec. 19. Mode of questioning.— The court shall exercise control strong desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.
over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the
ascertainment of the truth; (2) ensure that questions are stated in a
form appropriate to the developmental level of the child; (3) People vs Santos (2006)
protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment; and
(4) avoid waste of time. As a child of such tender years not yet exposed to the ways of the
The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative world, she could not have fully understood the enormity of the
form. bestial act committed on her person. Indeed, studies show that
MANRESA 2018
children, particularly very young children, make the "perfect in the case. Such an order may be made to protect the right to
victims." They naturally follow the authority of adults as the privacy of the child or if the court determines on the record that
socialization process teaches children that adults are to be requiring the child to testify in open court would cause
respected. The child's age and developmental level will govern psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or
how much she comprehends about the abuse and therefore how result in his inability to effectively communicate due to
much it affects her. If the child is too young to understand what embarrassment, fear, or timidity. In making its order, the court
has happened to her, the effects will be minimized because she has shall consider the developmental level of the child, the nature of
no comprehension of the consequences. Certainly, children have the crime, the nature of his testimony regarding the crime, his
more problems in providing accounts of events because they do relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial, his
not understand everything they experience. They do not have desires, and the interests of his parents or legal guardian. The
enough life experiences from which to draw upon in making sense court may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if
of what they see, hear, taste, smell and feel. Moreover, they have a the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to
limited vocabulary…. With her limited be offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, on
motion of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court
comprehension, the child could not have a perfect way of relating personnel and the counsel of the parties.
that she had been sexually abused.
In ordinary trial, the prosecution may 1,2,3, or more witnesses
depending on the capability of the prosecution to present. There is
Sec . 21. Objections to questions.— Objections to questions a chance that the witness’ testimony may be overheard by his co-
should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead, confuse, witness. The co-witness, in turn will know how the other was
frighten, or intimidate the child. cross-examined. Hence, they will be able to prepare. That’s the
reason why they are allowed to be excluded from the courtroom...
If you mislead or confuse the witness the proper ground for to prevent collusion among the witnesses. The purpose of this rule
objection is that it is MISLEADING. is to ensure that there as an appearance of impropriety.
MISLEADING QUESTION – one that is contrary to what the Compare this with Rule 132, Section 15:
witness has testified or one which the witness has not testified to Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or
yet. 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
Example: 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
“You said that at the time the police approached you, what were you examined.
doing?” “I was sitting down”.
Remember: The distinction between exclusion in excluding a child
Upon cross-examination you asked the witness again. witness and exclusion under ordinary rules or ordinary adult
witnesses
“You mention earlier that when the police approached you, you were • Exclusion of Child witness: Reason: protection of privacy
standing.” • Exclusion under Ordinary Rules: Reason: To prevent
That is misleading. You are trying to confuse the witness. You are collusion of testimony among witnesses
trying to make the witness backtrack on his testimony that he said
he was sitting down but the truth was that he was standing.
Sec . 24. Persons prohibited from entering and leaving
courtroom.— The court may order that persons attending the trial
Sec . 22. Corroboration.— Corroboration shall not be required of a shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the
testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be child.
sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment
subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non- Sec. 25. Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the
criminal cases. child is a victim or a witness.—
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for
In criminal cases, you establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For an order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside
civil case, it has to be preponderance of evidence. the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link
television.
Positive eye witness identification by a child witness is sufficient to Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section,
convict. That has been the consistent ruling of the SC including the he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to the
case of People vs Rama. judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of
applying for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced
People vs Rama (January 25, 2010) that the decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to apply will
His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a cause the child serious emotional trauma, he himself may apply
finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment. for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days
Sec. 23. Excluding the public.— When a child testifies, the court before the trial date, unless the court finds on the record that the
may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
including members of the press, who do not have a direct interest (b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine, with notice to
MANRESA 2018
the parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child through digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be made part of
live-link television. the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers, or in some provided in Section 31(b).
comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the
support person, guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the Examination of child witness is not done in open court. Take note
parties. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues of the specific object of Section 25.
at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the
courtroom. Sec . 26. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other devices to shield
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, child from accused.—
whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of (a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order
live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed
consider the following factors:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the
(1) The age and level of development of the child; accused while testifying. Before the guardian ad litem applies for
(2) His physical and mental health, including any mental or an order under this Section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or
physical disability; counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of Section 25(a)
(3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced of this Rule. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons and
by him; describing the approved courtroom arrangement.
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse; (b) If the court grants an application to shield the child from the
(5) Any threats against the child; accused while testifying in the courtroom, the courtroom shall be
(6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party; arranged to enable the accused to view the child.
(7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court
or elsewhere; Examination of child witness is not done in open court. Take note
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was of the specific object of Section 25.
discussed with him by parents or professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days Sec . 27. Videotaped deposition.—
prior to testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses; (a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an
(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and
members of his family regarding the events about which he will that it be recorded and preserved on videotape. Before the
testify; and guardian ad litem applies for an order under this Section, he shall
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and
formalities of court procedure. third paragraphs of Section 25(a).
(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by (b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open
live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child court at trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child
would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, be taken and preserved by videotape.
his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must (c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a
be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness child. Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts
of the testimony of the child. thereof, and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall
(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. The
television: other persons who may be permitted to be present at the
proceeding are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in (1) The prosecutor;
the presence of the guardian ad litem; one or both of his support (2) The defense counsel;
persons; the facilitator and interpreter, if any; a court officer (3) The guardian ad litem;
appointed by the court; persons necessary to operate the closed- (4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);
circuit television equipment; and other persons whose presence (5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be
are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
well-being of the child; (6) One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and
(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall interpreter, if any;
be in the courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be (7) The court stenographer; and
transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing (8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties, (d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to
accused, victim, and the public unless excluded. counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be
(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the violated during the deposition.
court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited (e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is
purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow the unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused, the court
child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the
on a television monitor. deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the
(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-
taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking link television in accordance with Section 25 of this Rule. If the
into consideration the best interests of the child. accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that
(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, the child be able to view an image of the accused.
MANRESA 2018
(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the
stenographically recorded. The videotape and the stenographic alleged victim.
notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is
pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record. Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was
deposition that it finds just and appropriate, taking into the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence
consideration the best interests of the child, the constitutional
rights of the accused, and other relevant factors. Reason for the exception: You are not talking about the fact that
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be the child was habitually engaged in sexual conduct or that the
subject to a protective order as provided in Section 31(b). child has a sexual predisposition. You are trying to say that it
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to could not have been me who abused the child because it was
testify for a reason stated in Section 25(f) of this Rule, or is somebody else. I have evidence to prove that it wasn’t me.
unavailable for any reason described in Section 4(c), Rule 23 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit into evidence Requisites:
the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at
the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial,
therefor. specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a
party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and
ground of newly discovered evidence. The court may order an Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at
additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion.
evidence.
Sec . 31. Protection of privacy and safety.—
Sec . 30. Sexual abuse shield rule.— (a) Confidentiality of records.— Any record regarding a child shall
. be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon written request
(a) Inadmissible evidence.— The following evidence is not and order of the court, a record shall only be released to the
admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
sexual abuse
. (1) Members of the court staff for administrative use;
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in (2) The prosecuting attorney;
other sexual behavior; and (3) Defense counsel;
. (4) The guardian ad litem;
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the (5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and
alleged victim. (6) Other persons as determined by the court.
. (b) Protective order.— Any videotape or audiotape of a child that
(b) Exception.— Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior is part of the court record shall be under a protective order that
by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused provides as follows:
was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible. (1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
A party intending to offer such evidence
must:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, person mentioned in Sub-section (a) to any other person, except as
specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for necessary for the trial.
which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a
different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and (3) No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least or any part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he
three (3) days before the hearing of the motion. has received and read a copy of the protective order; that he
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the
in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, protective order; and that in case of violation thereof, he will be
and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. The motion and subject to the contempt power of the court.
the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal
and protected by a protective order set forth in Section 31(b). The (4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made
child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers available to the parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall
except with his consent. bear the following cautionary notice:
It renders inadmissible certain forms of evidence against a child “This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a
who is a victim of abuse. Such as: protective order issued by the court in (case title), (case
number). They shall not be examined, inspected, read, viewed, or
Evidence offered to prove the alleged victim engage in other copied by any person, or disclosed to any person, except as
sexual behavior. provided in the protective order. No additional copies of the tape
or any of its portion shall be made, given, sold, or shown to any
person without prior court order. Any person violating such
MANRESA 2018
protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court and agency which may have been involved in the case. (Art. 200, P. D.
other penalties prescribed by law.” No. 603)
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person Sec . 32. Applicability of ordinary rules.— The provisions of the
except as ordered by the court. Rules of Court on deposition, conditional examination of
witnesses, and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and
any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for Sec. 33. Effectivity.— This Rule shall take effect on December 15,
safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion 2000 following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
of a party. circulation.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until
further order of the court. AUGUST 29, 2018
(c) Additional protective orders.— The court may, motu proprio or 0:00:01 – 0:50:00 | Anton Maligad
on motion of any party, the child, his parents, legal guardian, or
the guardian ad litem, issue additional orders to protect the privacy MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE
of the child.
Section 22 Disqualification by Reason of Marriage—During their
(d) Publication of identity contemptuous.— Whoever publishes or marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
causes to be published in any format the name, address, telephone against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
number, school, or other identifying information of a child who is in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
thereof, or an immediate family of the child shall be liable to the descendants or ascendants.
contempt power of the court.
(e) Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence.— A child has a This is also called the Spousal Immunity Rule.
right at any court proceeding not to testify regarding personal
identifying information, including his name, address, telephone It forbids the husband or the wife to testify against the other,
number, school, and other information that could endanger his without the consent of the affected spouse except in those cases
physical safety or his family. The court may, however, require the authorized by the rule.
child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the
interest of justice. The prohibition in this rule extends not only to a testimony
adverse to the spouse, but also to a testimony in favor of the
(f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes.— Any videotape or spouse.
audiotape of a child produced under the provisions of this Rule or
otherwise made part of the court record shall be destroyed after This rule applies in both:
five (5) years have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. • Criminal cases;
(g) Records of youthful offender.— Where a youthful offender has • Civil cases
been charged before any city or provincial prosecutor or before Although does not limit the applicability of this rule to judicial
any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped, cases.
all the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and
may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any The law is silent on whether the Marital Disqualification Rule
purpose whatsoever. applies to judicial cases or administrative cases—in other words it
applies to both.
Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits
him, or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and Illustration:
subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P. D. No. 603, If a case is filed against you, your opponent cannot compel your
all the records of his case shall also be considered as privileged spouse to testify against your consent.
and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone except to
determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under 2 Parts of the Rule
Article 192 of P. D. No. 603 or if he may be granted probation The Marital Disqualification Rule consists of two parts:
under the provisions of P. D. No. 968 or to enforce his civil 1.) An Incapacity—a disqualification for the other, a
liability, if said liability has been imposed in the criminal disqualification to obviate perjury;
action. The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under
any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or 2.) Privilege not to testify against the other—in order to
misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case prevent disunion and unhappiness. A right to prevent
or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made domestic disunion and unhappiness. The rule prevents
to him for any purpose. the husband/wife from being each other’s
condemnation.
“Records” within the meaning of this Sub-section shall include
those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of Why is the rule a disqualification designed to obviate perjury
Investigation and with any police department or government whether for or against?
MANRESA 2018
Remember, especially for those who are married already, your best It should be ordered that for the sake of domestic peace, there is a
friend is usually your husband or your wife. Likewise, your worst prohibition from exhibiting facts about the marriage to strangers.
enemy can also be your husband or wife.
The worst cases are between husband and wife like annulment, REQUISITES:
declaration of nullity of marriage, custody of children, and marital 1.) Marriage must be valid and existing when of the
infidelity cases. spouse’s testimony is offered
Now in a court setting, where there is no longer domestic harmony Valid—So, it simply means that there has to be a valid marriage. It
between husband and wife—the husband and the wife are the has to be an existing marriage—it does not cover mere common
worst litigants. law relationships (live-in relationships). Illicit marriages are not
covered.
Basis/Rationale of the Rule
Riano: The rule is based on society’s intent to preserve the When the marriage is dissolved under the grounds provided by
marriage relations and to promote domestic peace. A spouse law, like annulment or declaration of nullity—then the rule can no
testifying against the other creates a side inimical to society’s longer be enforced.
interest. The rule prohibiting a testimony in favor of the other
spouse is intended to discourage the commission of perjury. It is Effect: Whatever you tell your mistress is fair game.
pursuant to public policy or public interest. Your mistress can testify against you, your
paramour can testify against you.
[US vs. Concepcion]: The Supreme Court held that the basis of the
rule is said to be the considerations of public policy growing out of Existing—meaning that the marriage should still subsist.
the martial relation. To allow one to testify for or against the other Therefore, the rule has no applicability to cases where the marriage
would be to subject him or her to great temptation to commit of the spouses has already been annulled or declared null and
perjury and to endanger the harmony and confidence of the void.
marital relation.
If the testimony for or against the other spouse is offered during
[People vs. Francisco; Alvarez vs. Ramirez] the existence of the marriage, it does not matter that the facts
The Court has assigned the reasons for the rule: subject of the testimony occurred before the marriage.
1.) Identity of interest between husband and wife—which
brings us back to Civil Law. Specifically the prohibition It only matters that the other spouse objects to the testimony.
of donation between spouses, because they are
considered as unitas personarium or one person under the Illustration:
eyes of the law;
Before H and W got married, W, witnessed the murder done by H,
2.) If one were to testify for or against the other, there is a but she never reported what she witnessed to the authorities.
consequent danger of perjury;
Barely 6 months in to their marriage, W became a battered wife
3.) The policy of law is to guard the security and and to get even with the husband she decided to report the
confidences of private life, even at the risk of an murder to the police.
occasional failure of justice and to prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and The wife is reporting on a fact that occurred prior to the marriage
and now the wife wants to be the witness for the State.
4.) Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is
danger of punishing one spouse through the testimony Issue: May the wife testify for the prosecution in a case for murder
of the other. filed against the husband?
Held: No, she cannot testify upon the objection of the husband.
Constitutional Basis The situation is clearly covered by the Marital Disqualification
Rule. It is because the marriage is valid and existing.
The 1987 Constitution declares that Marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be Issue: What if the marriage is annulled?
protected by the State—not only as an institution, not only as a
basis of family life, but everything else that might destroy it. Held: The wife can now testify against the husband. The
prohibition no longer applies, because the testimony is to be
Including, again, the compulsion of one spouse to testify against offered after the existence of the marriage.
the other.
Issue: In addition, what if the murder of the victim by the
This is based on the principle/s, which deem that it is more husband took place during the marriage, may the husband
important to preserve the marriage relation, as one full of successfully object to the testimony on the ground that the facts
confidence than affection, and that this is regarded as more subject to the testimony, occurred during the existence of the
important to the public welfare than the exigencies of the law suits. marriage?
MANRESA 2018
Example
Held: No, the husband cannot successfully object as long as the • The testimony is given and the litigant spouse remains
testimony is offered after the resolution of the marriage. silent; or
• The testimony is already given and he decides to cross-
Ratio: Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, the time of the examine
occurrence of the facts subject of testimony—does not matter.
Whether it happened before the marriage or during the marriage Waiver of the benefit of the Marital Disqualification Rule
it really does not matter. Every exclusionary rule, such as the Marital Disqualification Rule
can be waived. The benefit of any exclusionary rule in evidence
It is non-consequential, that the testimony of the said spouse can be waived.
occurred before or during the marriage.
How do you waive it?
Because, the only time element that matters here is that the You either object or by the act of cross-examination.
testimony is offered during the marriage.
The testimony is prohibited only over the objection of the affected
Review: spouse. It is the latter spouse who has the right to object to the
What does not matter? competency of the spouse-witness.
• The time that the acts occurred—whether it was before or
during the marriage; It goes without saying, therefore, that the testimony is admissible
What matters? where no objection is interposed by the spouse who has the right
• That the testimony is offered during the marriage. to invoke the prohibition.
2.) The other spouse must be a party to the action, whether In other words, the benefit of the rule may be waived—impliedly
civil or criminal or expressly.
One of the spouses must be a party to the action as a plaintiff,

complainant, or petitioner. People vs. Pansensoy (2002)
Or have been hailed to court as a defendant, respondent, or Objections to the competency of the husband and wife to testify
accused. in a criminal prosecution against the other may be waived as in
the case of other witnesses generally.
Thus, if one spouse is a mere witness for a party and the other
spouse’s testimony is offered either to corroborate or rebut the The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made
testimony of the other spouse—the rule does not apply. when he or she is first offered as a witness.
Illustration: In this case, the incompetency was waived by the appellant’s

fault to make a timely objection to the admission of Analie’s
There is a case, and my wife was taken as a witness. The testimony.
prosecution does not believe that any of the testimonies given by
my wife are true. You have to be quick in objecting to the testimony.
So, the prosecution got me as a witness to rebut the testimony of People vs. Francisco (1947)
my wife.
Husband was charged with the commission of crime—murder.
Issue: Can that be done? During his testimony, he openly pointed to his wife as the
culprit.
Held: Yes, because none of us are parties to the action.
He is deemed to have waived his objection to the latter’s
testimony if the latter is called upon by the prosecution to rebut
3.) The litigant spouse has not given his/her consent to the his testimony.
testimony
He waives it already
Types of Consent:
1.) Express Consent—If the litigant spouse manifests in Take Note: If the litigant-spouse already waived the rule, by
open court that he is not objecting to the testimony of the himself, employing his other spouse as his own witness he cannot
other spouse object later on if his opponent cross-examines his spouse.
Example:
• If the litigant spouse objects to the testimony It is because that would be unfair.
• You get an interested witness, in the form of a spouse.

1.) Implied Consent—If the litigant spouse does not object • The spouse testifies in favor of the party-spouse and then
when the testimony is offered or when he cross-examines the witness-spouse cannot be even cross-examined by
the spouse witness. your Opponent?
MANRESA 2018
• That would be unfair, because you are opening the doors Where the civil case is against the relatives of the wife the rules
already. still applies and the exception is not applicable.
So in a way it is already an ‘opening of the doors’ exception. Thus, if the wife sues the father of the husband for a collection of a
loan, then the husband may be barred from testifying against the
If you got your spouse as a witness, then you cannot later on object wife upon the objection of the latter. This is because the civil case is
if the spouse is cross-examined. not by one against the other, but between a spouse and a parent of
the other.
General Rule: Neither the husband, nor the wife may testify for or
against another in any case, where one of the spouses is a party. Take note of the phraseology of the exceptions:
“in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
Exceptions to the Marital Disqualification Rule crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. (Emphasis)
1.) In a civil case by one against the other; Reiteration: So, if it is a case of one spouse against the parent, in
order for the exception to apply—it has to be a criminal case. But,
Example: In filing a case against my wife. Likewise, my wife if it is a mere civil case, then the exception is inapplicable.
filed a case against me—such as a Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage. 2nd Exception: Criminal Cases
In a suit for annulment of marriage, one spouse cannot testify
It is going to be weird if I file a case for Declaration of Nullity against another.
of Marriage against my wife and she cannot testify against me
or that I cannot testify against her—its going to be weird. Take Note: That in criminal cases, the rule is vastly different. In a
criminal case, the privilege of one to testify against the other is not
2.) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the confined to crimes committed by one against other, but covers
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants; crimes committed against the direct descendants or ascendants of
the other—like the latter’s children or parents.
Example: Bigamy, adultery, concubinage and similar crimes
but not limited to these crimes—any crime to be exact. However, crimes committed against the spouse’s collateral
relatives—like uncles, aunties, cousins, or nieces are not covered
Take Note: Only the litigant-spouse owns the right to object. by the exception.
There are other exceptions that do not apply or are not found
in the codal provisions. For example, the next exception: So if the wife sues the husband for fraudulently embezzling the
paraphernal funds of the former, then the exception applies.
3.) When the testimony was made outside (before or after) the
marriage; Also, if the wife is sued for adultery, then the husband cannot be
barred from testifying against the other.
It is a situation where the rule no longer applies. The marriage
is annulled or the spouses are divorced. Rationale of the 1st two Exceptions (Civil and Criminal
Exceptions):
4.) When the marriage relations are so strained that there is no Why are these cases not subject to the general rule of the
more consideration for applying the said rule. application of the Marital Disqualification Rule?
Despite the fact that they are still together under the eyes of the It is because; the identity of interests that is usually present in the
law—they are still husband and wife in the eyes of the law. marriage has already disappeared.
Cardano vs. Daquigan The consequent nature of perjury based on that identity of
interests is now non-existent.
To apply the exception:
There must be an offense or attacks that directly or vitally In such a situation, the security and confidence of private life;
impairs the conjugal relation. which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence will leave a void in an unhappy home.
1st Exception: Civil Case Take Note: That the phrase “or the latter’s direct descendants or
In order for the other spouse to testify against the other in a civil ascendants” did not appear in the Old Rule.
case, the case must be a civil case by one against the other.
Plaintiff—Husband People vs. Natividad (Under the Old Rule)
Defendant—Wife
The wife cannot testify against her husband without consent, even
So, if it’s the husband against the father of the wife or the sister of if the accused is guilty of killing her own child.
the wife—the exception does not apply.
It is because the phrase “or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants” did not appear in the Old Rules.
MANRESA 2018
Maximo filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying

Present Rules: The present rules have been harmonized already, against him, pursuant to the Marital Disqualification Rule.
with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of “Cardano vs.
Daquigan”, allowing the wife to testify against the husband for This is not a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
raping her own daughter. the other. It is a crime committed by a husband against the sister
and not against the wife.
What type of crimes is covered under the 2nd exception?
It has to be an offense that directly attacks or directly or vitally This is also not a criminal case committed by one against the
impairs the conjugal relation. latter’s descendants or ascendants. A sister is a collateral blood
relative, not a descendant or descendant.
It comes within the exception to the statute that one should not be
a witness to the other, except in a criminal prosecution for a crime Take note, that this is arson of the house belonging to the wife’s
committed by one against the other. sister. Arson is a crime for destruction against property and is not
a crime against a person—of the sister.
People vs. Castañeda
But, the added evidence here was that when Maximo set fire the
The wife can testify against the husband in a case for falsification house he knew that his wife was there.
of the wife’s signature in a public document to sell the share of
the wife in the conjugal property, because it is a crime committed Held:
by the husband against the wife. So the Supreme Court, took note of that. The act of Maximo in
setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law, knowing that his wife
People vs. Francisco (Read in Full) was there and in fact he alleged intent in injuring the latter, then
it is an act that is totally an alien to the harmony and confidences
This is the case wherein the husband, accused the wife of being of the marital relation—which the Disqualification primarily
the one who committed the crime. So, according to the Supreme seeks to protect.
Court, the State must have the right to offer the rebutting
testimony in question even against the objection of the accused. It The criminal act complained of, had the effect of directly and
is because it was the latter himself who gave rise to its necessity. vitally impairing the conjugal relations.
It may be said that it was the accused-husband’s fault in thinking It underscores that fact that the marital and domestic relations
that he would have more chances in convincing the court of his between her and the accused husband have becomes so strained
pretended innocence if he pointed to his wife for having cause that there is no more harmony, peace, or tranquility to be
the death of the child. Instead of simply denying that he was the preserved.
author of the fatal act.
In such a case, identity of interest is not existent. In such a
To this we would, counter by saying that if he was to be allowed situation, the security and confidences of private life; which the
this convenience to make this choice and thereby impute the act law seeks to protect, are nothing more but ideals, which through
upon his spouse, then justice would be partial and one-sided if their absence shall leave a void in an unhappy home. There is no
both the State and the wife were to be absolutely precluded from longer a reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule.
introducing the latter’s rebutting testimony.
So you are opening the doors. So, you cannot later on complain. The 0:50:01 – 1:21:45 | Benrich Tan
State must be given its right to rebut the testimony.
In such a situation, the security and confidences of private life
4th Exception: Marital Relations are so strained that there is no which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals which
more consideration to apply the said rule. through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.
Thus, there is no longer any reason to apply the Marital
To apply the exception, there must be an offense that directly Disqualification Rule.
attacks or directly affects the conjugal relations.
Comments: To my mind, that is the most important exception,
Alvarez vs. Ramirez because it isn’t found in the Rules of Court itself. It is a doctrinal
exception, which has come out in the bar exams three times
Facts: already. Also despite being a 2005 decision, it’s the latest case
Susan Ramirez is the complainant in a criminal case for arson of regarding marital disqualification.
her house against the accused Maximo Alvarez. Maximo is the
estranged husband of Esperanza Alvarez, the sister of Susan. At
the time of the alleged arson committed by Maximo, Esperanza Applicability of Strained Relations Doctrine to Non-Criminal
was living with her sister. Cases
Susan filed a case against Maximo the husband of her sister— The strained relations doctrine stemmed out of Alvarez v.
Esperanza. Esperanza was called to the witness stand as the first Ramirez, which is from a criminal case for arson. The question that
witness against Maximo. confronts us is: Would relationships be strained only if the act that
MANRESA 2018
allegedly strained it is a criminal offense? Is it limited therefore to Will the rule apply in the Philippines? YES. A sub poena duces
criminal cases in order to apply the doctrine? tecum necessarily includes sub poena ad testificandum, as stated
for in Section 1,Rule 21. Documents do not testify by themselves,
Example #1 (Civil Case): since they have to be sponsored by witness. However, a subpoena
J and K are married. K’s family has money and property. Through ad testificandum does not necessarily include a sub poena duces
the intercession of the wife, the husband was able to persuade his tecum. It has to be specified in the writ that the witness should also
parents-in-law to lend him money and to authorize to mortgage bring with him documents.
their properties so that he could use them to raise capital for his
business. Unknown to the wife and her family, the husband
squandered the money on luxuries instead of propagating the Marital Disqualification Rule (130.22) in relation to Marital
business. He was unable to pay the loans to all his creditors Privileged Communication (130.24a)
including his wife’s family. This is a favorite source of bar exam questions. What you need to
really get in mind is Alvarez v. Ramirez and Ordonio v. Aquino.
In a civil case file by the wife’s parents against the husband to
recover the squandered amounts, can the wife testify against her AUGUST 30, 2018
own husband? Can mere civil suits recover under the strained
relations? 0:00:01 – 1:06:00 | Benrich Tan
Look at the marital disqualification rule and its exceptions. This DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH OR INSANITY
situation fits neither. Thus, the only way that the wife can testify OF ADVERSE PARTY
against the husband is if is covered by the strained relations
exception, which to my mind, is applicable in a civil case. It’s just a Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
matter of argument. You can contend that the conjugal union is adverse party. – Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons
vitally impaired by the act of embezzlement. However, take note in whose behalf a case if prosecuted, against an executor or
that there is no decided case that applies the strained relations in a administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or
civil case. against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person or against such person
Example #2 (Civil Case (Annulment)): of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
Kris Aquino and James Yap’s annulment proceedings. As Kris’ before the death of such deceased person or before such person
counsel, can you use her words spoken in media against James? became of unsound mind.
You can’t, not under the marital disqualification rule, but under
the hearsay rule. The only way to skirt the latter is if the source of Other Names for the Provision
the statement is brought to court to testify. But if they were still
married at the time, then it shall be shunned by the marital This provision is otherwise known as:
disqualification rule, unless there is strained relations.
• Dead Man’s Statute
A misnomer, because it might lead the layman to
Example #3 (Impeachment Proceedings):
suspect that it only applies to situations where a
The COMELEC Chair’s wife made a revelation in the media that
person is dead.
he has a lot of ill-gotten wealth. He explained that they were gifts
from his friend Divina, whenever he handled cases back when he
• Survivorship Disqualification Rule
was the PCGG Chair and currently as COMELEC Chair. Later, he
Another misnomer, because you’re talking about a
changed his stance, and alleged that his wife was having an affair.
claim against an insane person, and you cannot claim
to be the survivor, because both of you actually
Based on what happened, the House of Committee and
survived.
Impeachment voted not to send the articles of impeachment, but
this was overruled by the plenary of the House of Representatives.
• Surviving Parties Rule
If you are the COMELEC Chair, you are an impeachable officer. So
can the wife testify before the impeachment court about the
alleged ill-gotten wealth? “Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party”
is still the best way to articulate this provision.
Again, Section 22 does not distinguish between criminal case, civil
case, administrative case or impeachment proceedings. She cannot
testify, unless there is strained relations. But clearly, the In relation to the Parole Evidence Rule (130.9)
relationship is already strained by the exposure to the media.
Under the situation under the Parole Evidence Rule, we’re talking
about a will that is considered by fiction of law as an agreement.
American Rule
Example:
The testimony covered by the Marital Disqualification Rule not In Gerald’s will, there is a bequest of P200k to a certain Mateo.
only consists of utterances but also the production of During the probate of the will, Mateo claimed that Gerald told him
in the event of Gerald’s death, Mateo would get P2M.
documents.You cannot bring to court documents against your
husband damning to him, and vice versa.
Remember that if you talk about the parole evidence rule, Mateo
cannot prove by extrinsic evidence that the bequest was P2M and
MANRESA 2018
not P200k. That is not allowed under the Parol Evidence Rule. To
state otherwise would mean that there would be a lot of spurious To guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard
claims against the estate of the deceased person. The law levels the to the transaction on the part of the surviving party and thereby
playing field, in a way that the person is already dead and cannot put the parties upon equal terms. Its purpose is to close the lips of
make any further refutation, so whatever he expressed in the will the plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the defendant, in
is his final testamentary deposition. order to remove from the defendant the temptation to do
falsehood and the possibility of fictitious claims against the
deceased (Tan vs. CA).
The Parol Evidence Rule is also made to apply to wills because the
dangers sought to be avoided by the requirement of the rule is It’s quite a harsh rule. The rule raises legitimate questions on its
present in the making of wills and is deemed to be more prevalent justness, on trying to avoid fictitious claims against the estate, it
in as much as the maker of the will, the decedent, can no longer ignores persons with legitimate claims and whose lips are sealed
object to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as his voice is when the law levels the playing fields so to speak. The law is
already silenced by death. harsh, but there are exceptions.
There’s a parallel situation between Section 9 and 23, because there Five Questions for the Dissection of Section 23
is that danger of making claims against a party who can no longer
refute it. 1) What are the types of applicable cases?
The Survivorship Disqualification Rule applies only to a civil case
or a special proceeding.
Situation covered under Section 23 • It cannot apply to criminal cases because once the accused
dies, his criminal liability is also extinguished. Nor can it
Example: apply to an administrative proceeding.
Mateo approaches Gerald to borrow P1M to be paid in two months
time. Without hesitation, Gerald gave Mateo the amount requested 2) What is the cause of action or claim in the case?
without any contract, receipt or any other written note Basically, It is a claim by the survivor against the estate of the deceased
it’s “I’m giving you my word, without any need for any evidence person or the person of unsound mind. It’s the estate that is made
whatsoever. I’ll take your word for it, and I’ll lend you the to pay.
money”). • It’s not a claim by the estate against another person. Also, if a
person is still alive or not insane, then the Rule also does not
Exactly a day before the agreed date of payment, Mateo was apply. Rather, pursue the case in an ordinary civil action.
electrocuted fell off his balcony of his condo, hit by a train and
splattered into pieces and died. Gerald approached the executor of 3) Who are the defendants in the case?
the estate of Mateo if the latter left a will or the administrator if First: It is the executor of the estate if the deceased left a will or the
Mateo did not leave a will. Rayver refuses to pay Gerald because administrator of the estate if the deceased did not leave a will.
he has no knowledge of the debt. Gerald has no choice but sue the
estate of Mateo. During trial, can Gerald testify and establish his Executor: Named in the will to administer the estate, or ensure that
claim which existed before Mateo died considering that there is no the will is probated
agreement other than the word of the creditor?
Administrator: Can exist in two ways:
NO. It is forbidden under the disqualification by reason of death i. If the will is probated, and there is no provision on who
or insanity of the adverse party. No one else knew about the is the executor. The court then appoints during the
transaction. Gerald would be rendered incompetent to testify as to probate of the will
the transaction he had with Mateo. He is incompetent because of ii. There is an executor appointment, but he does not
the possibility that his claim is fraudulent. There would be a high qualify, or dead, or refuses execution. So the court has to
risk of making a fraudulent or a fictitious claim. It is Gerald who appoint someone instead.
has the motive to lie because he is the survivor. Mateo cannot lie.
He is dead and cannot answer back. Therefore, he cannot disprove Second: In the absence of an executor or administrator, other
the claim of Gerald. representative of the deceased person who can be an heir/s or the
surviving spouse
Purpose of the Rule Third: The person of the unsound mind himself
Rhiano discusses about the principle of “ambulance chasing”, If you are a person of unsound mind, you cannot prosecute nor
where a person goes to the wake of a deceased person, and claims defend against actions. The court will appoint a guardian for you,
to the family of the latter that the deceased owes a debt to him. as provided for under Rule 92 and 93:
• Rule 92 and 93: A guardian can be appointed over
“To level the playing field between the lucky survivor and poor
incompetent persons including those who are suffering the
deceased, the rule would seal the lips of the survivor by declaring
penalty of civil interdiction, or hospitalized lepers.
him incompetent to testify on the transaction between him and the
deceased. It does not protect the survivor, even in paying the just
However, a guardian is not mentioned in the provision. Does the
and valid claim (which may be an occasional failure of justice). The
phrase “other representative of the deceased person” also apply to
rule is for the protection of the guy who died. Thus, it’s called the
a person of unsound mind? NO. Thus, the guardian cannot be
dead man’s statute” (Rhiano).
made as a defendant.
MANRESA 2018
Exceptions to the Survivorship Disqualification Rule

“Section 2, Rule 96. Guardian to pay debts of ward.— Every guardian
must pay the ward's just debts out of his personal estate and the income 1) Testimony of mere witnesses who are neither party plaintiffs,
of his real estate, if sufficient; if not, then out of his real estate upon nor their assignors, nor persons in whose behalf a case is
obtaining an order for the sale or encumbrance thereof.” prosecuted, not to a nominal party, nor to officers of
stockholders of a plaintiff corporation.
In other words, if there is a claim against the insane period, it’s the Example (Rhiano):
guardian who will pay it, so if you’re going to the insane person, The nature of the case is it is an action for sum of money against
the guardian has to be impleaded , since he will represent the the decedent’s estate. The decedent is Mr. D, the debtor. The
former in court. plaintiff is Mr. C, the creditor. C claims that D borrowed P200k
from him and that the debt has been due even before the death of
Can a creditor-plaintiff testify to establish an oral claim against the D who despite demand upon him, failed to pay. C calls his
guardian of the insane person? In other words, is Section 23 secretary to testify about the transaction that occurred in her
inapplicable in cases where the defendant is the guardian of the presence. Does the Survivorship Disqualification Rule apply to the
insane person? NO. Section 23 is still applicable. The same witness?
possibility of making spurious claims is similarly extant even if a
guardian is appointed who has the power to pay the debts of the NO. The witness is not the survivor. Thus, offering the testimony
incompetent person. The purpose of guardianship is to safeguard of the so-called “disinterest witness” is not a transgression of the
the rights and interests of the incompetent persons and the court rule since the prohibition extends only to the party who survives
should be vigilant to see that the rights of such persons are or person in whose behalf the case prosecuted.
properly protected. There’s no reason to distinguish.
Example: There is a certain surrogacy exception in the case of Hko Ah Pao v.

Mateo approaches Gerald to borrow P1Mto be paid in two months Ting, where the Supreme Court ruled that while Sembrano is not a
time. Without hesitation, Gerald gave Mateo the amount requested party, he is practically a surrogate of petitioners since he was the
without any contract, receipt or any other written note. Exactly a personal accountant of their predecessor-in-interest and the
day before the agreed date of payment, Mateo became insane, his corporate accountant of the corporation he controlled. If you were
mental condition now complementing his looks. Gerald went to a surrogate, then you stand on behalf of a disqualified party, then
the guardian of Mateo, Rayver, and tells him of the debt of Mateo. you cannot testify, which belies the example of Rhiano. Here, even
Rayver refuses to pay Gerald because he has no knowledge of the if you were the secretary, you can still be made as a witness.
debt. Gerald was forced to sue the guardian of Mateo. Mateo
cannot confirm the existence or validity of the debt because Mateo
is insane. The safer way of saying is that ordinary witnesses, who are not the
plaintiff, assignor of plaintiff, or person in whose behalf the case is
Based on this example, Section 23 is clearly applicable. Only that prosecuted may testify. The dead man’s stature does not operate to
this time, it is the guardian of the insane person who is the close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his
defendant and not the executor or administrator of the deceased knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with
person. There is no reason not to apply the survivorship the deceased person, or communication made by the deceased to
disqualification rule, when the defendant is the guardian of an the witness (Francia v. Hipolito).
insane person. For example, you sue an insane person, who does
not know he is insane until the court finds out later. The court then Let’s get back to the example: B let A borrow money from him,
suspends the proceedings, and appoint a guardian to represent with the latter later died. B then has to sue the estate, but there’s no
him. other evidence. He cannot testify in court to establish the claim
against the estate of A. However, let’s change the facts, such as in
4) Who is the plaintiff in the case? the case of Sanson v. CA.
The plaintiff is the survivor, the person who has a claim against
the estate of the deceased or of the person of unsound mind. SANSON v. CA
• The rule will not apply where the executor or administrator is FACTS:
the plaintiff. Felicito Sanson filed before the RTC a petition for the settlement of
the estate of Sy. Felicito claimed that the deceased was indebted to
5) What is prohibited under the Rule? him in the amount of P603k and to his sister Celedonia in the
The adverse testimony of the plaintiff survivor-witness or his amount of P360k.
privies which, by such testimony alone, would tend to establish a
claim against the deceased or insane person. Let us assume that this this all the facts of the case. If there is no
• The subject matter of the testimony is the matter of fact other witness to testify, can Felicito testify in court about the debt
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before of P603k? NO, because this is clearly covered by the Survivorship
such person became of unsound mind. The fact has to exist Disqualification Rule. It is a claim against the estate of a deceased
prior to the point of death or insanity. person by the survivor.
• If it is a favorable testimony or a testimony that tends to
establish an advantage or benefit or claim for the estate, then But what happens in this case was, Felicito in support of the claim
it is not prohibited. of his sister Celedonia, testified that she has a transaction with the
deceased.
MANRESA 2018
Celedonia, on the other hand, in support of her brother Felicito,

testified that she knew that the deceased had a transaction with his SUNGA-CHAN v. CHUA
sister. In other words, Celedonia is the witness for Felicito while Petitioner filed a compulsory counterclaim against respondents in
Felicito is the witness for Celedonia for a claim against the estate of their answer before the trial court, and with the filing of their
the deceased. counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case
• Comments: They indirectly did something that the law did not allow from the ambit of the rule. When it is the executor or administrator
them to do directly. Felicito cannot testify that Sy incurred a debt or representatives of the estates that sets up the counterclaim, the
from him. Celedonia cannot testify the same. So they simply plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the
exchanged, with Felicito testifying the claim of Celedonia, and vice death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as
versa. defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from
testifying as to matters of facts occurring before the death of the
The administratix objected to the testimonies upon the ground that deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the
the witnesses are disqualified under the Dead Man’s Statute. estate or representatives of the deceased.
ISSUE: Comments: Assume that you are the administrator or executor of

Is the administratix correct? the estate, and you were filed a case with no other evidence other
than the testimony of the plaintiff-survivor. Rule of thumb: Do not
RULING: NO file a counterclaim. Just object to the testimony when present. But
Testimonies are admissible. Sanson’s and Celedonia’s claims how would you know that he only has that sole evidence? Avail of
against the same estate arose from separate transactions. Sanson is the modes of discovery.
a third party with respect to Celedonia’s claim and Celedonia is a
third party with respect to Sanson’s claim. One is not thus
disqualified to testify on the other’s transaction. 3) Where the deceased contracted with the plaintiff through an
agent and said agent is alive and can testify, but the testimony of
Comments: The rule only applies to cases where the transaction is the plaintiff should be limited to acts performed by the agent
unwitnessed. If there is any other witness, including a co-plaintiff (Goni v.CA)
or co-claimant, the claim can be proved without violating Section When you make the agent testify and such testimony is limited
23. only to acts performed by the agent and not of his principal, the
Survivorship Disqualification Rule does not apply.
LICHAUCO v. ATLANTIC GULF
When the plaintiff is a corporation, the officers or stockholders
thereof are not disqualified. The rule does not apply or persons 4) Land registration cases instituted by the deceased’s
who are merely employed by such disqualified parties or assignors representative, where the oppositor is considered as defendant
of parties. or in cadastral cases where there are no oppositors
What happens if you apply for titling of a land not yet brought
2) If the person or persons mentioned under the rule file or files under the Torrens system? What will the court do if your petition
a counterclaim was sufficient in form and substance? The court will issue notice.
In other words, the estate filed a counterclaim against the survivor. Unlike in ordinary civil case, the requirement over the jurisdiction
of the defendant is not required in cases in rem or quasi in rem,
Example: because jurisdiction over the res is enough for the case to proceed.
X sues the estate of Y for the collection of a debt which was But in these cases, it cannot be said that summons will no longer
obtained prior the death of Y. The executor filed a counterclaim. be required. There is still summons, but only for purposes of due
What is the effect? X can testify against the estate of Y. if he cannot process, not for jurisdictional purposes. Also, in land registration
do so, he has nothing with which to defend against the cases, the defendant is the whole world. After the lapse of the
counterclaim. It would be unfair if he cannot testify because, if his period, the court issues an order for general default, where those
lips are sealed, there is virtually a confession of judgment already. who do not answer will be declared in default.
You need to remember that one of the privileged animals under It explains why the survivorship disqualification rule does not
procedural law is a counterclaim. It survives even if the main claim apply in land registration cases. You cannot treat the entire world
is ordered dismissed. It can be prosecuted in the same or separate as survivors.
action. If you are the survivor, you cannot testify on your own
claim against the estate. However, since the estate filed a
counterclaim against you, the survivor can now testify on the 5) When there is waiver
transaction that he had with the deceased. Being an exclusionary rule, it can be waived.
Remember that there are different kinds of counterclaims: How waiver can be made
i. Permissive: Does not relate to the subject matter of the main
claim a) By not objecting to plaintiff’s testimony on prohibited matters
ii. Compulsory: Arises only because the main claim was filed (Marella vs. Reyes; Ty vs. Ty)
o Example: Counterclaim for damages, because of the b) By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters (Tongco
filing of the groundless suit, one had to hire a vs. Vianzon)
lawyer to defend himself against such groundless c) By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters (Arroyo
suit) vs. Azur)
MANRESA 2018
d) When the plaintiff’s deposition is taken by the representative If your testimony is simply corroborative of a document, which
of the estate or when counsel for the representative cross- already proves the matter of fact that the testimony tends to prove,
examined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during the then the evidence is the document, not the testimony. The
deceased’s lifetime (Goñi vs.CA) testimony is founded on a document, making it the foundation
e) By offering evidence to rebut the prohibited testimony testimony exception. We’re not talking about testimony of the
survivor per se. He’s simply testifying on the different form of
This is the problem with lawyers. When we are given a situation evidence, which is the documentary transaction or the matter of
whether we can cross-examine or not, we choose the former, not fact occurring before the death of the deceased.
knowing that when we cross-examine or present evidence, we lose
the ability to object. Lawyers should object the moment the BORDALBA vs. CA
plaintiff-survivor offers evidence that has no basis other than what Since the claim of private respondents and the testimony of their
was prohibited under the survivorship disqualification rule. witnesses in the present case is based, inter alia, on the 1947 Deed
Assuming that the court allowed the witness to testify, you cannot of Extrajudicial Partition and other documents, and not on
cross-examine. Just reiterate the continuing objection to the dealings and communications with the deceased, the questioned
testimony as offered. A continuing objection allows you to simply testimonies were properly admitted by the trial court
state the continuing objection for the record, instead of objecting to
every objectionable question as they are asked.
SANSON vs. CA
Example: What the Dead Man’s Statute proscribes is the admission of
Adverse counsel: “When did you have the contract with the testimonial evidence upon a claim which arose before the death of
deceased?” the deceased. The incompetency is confined to the giving of
Counsel: Objection, your honor! It violates the survivorship testimony. Since the separate claims of Sanson and Celedonia are
disqualification rule. supported by checks-documentary evidence, their claims can be
Judge: Overruled. The witness may answer. prosecuted on the bases of said checks.
Adverse counsel: How much was the debt the deceased owes from
you? Comments: Why is there a check? Possibly if A borrowed money
Counsel: Objection, your honor! It violates the survivorship from B, B would direct him to issue a check with the amount
disqualification rule. including interest. If A cannot pay B, then B can encash the check,
to serve as security. It’s a prevalent practice in lending, even if you
Do not expect the judge to overrule. So just manifest the intend to make payment periodically, you are still made to issue
continuing objection insofar as these questions violate the rule. Do post-dated checks. Also, there are collaterals composed of ATMs,
not cross-examine later. Just reiterate the continuing objection. where A gives B authorization to withdraw from his ATM.
6) If the plaintiff is the executor or administrator or other 1:06:01 – 1:42:39 | Emille Dane Viola
representative of a deceased person, or the person of unsound
mind There are unscrupulous borrowers who would execute an affidavit
of loss saying that their ATM got lost, so the creditor would have
nothing to withdraw because the cards are not valid since they are
7) When there is an imputation of fraud against the deceased, the declared as lost.
plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud (Go Chi Gun
v. Co Cho) When you issue a check as a security for payment, take note that
that check can actually be considered as proof of the loan, and
therefore the survivorship qualification rule does not apply.
8) Negative testimony, that is, testimony that a fact did not occur
during the lifetime of the deceased
When the defendants, although heirs of the deceased are sued in
MENDEZONA v. VDA. DE GOITITA their personal and individual capacities
The plaintiffs-appellees did not testify to a fact which took place The plaintiffs may testify against them.
before their representative’s death, but on the contrary denied that Even if they’re heirs, considered as the representative of
it had taken place at all, i.e. they denied that a liquidation had been the deceased person, it is not the estate being sued, and
made or any money remitted on account of their shares which is not the other representatives in behalf of the estate.
the ground of their claim. The rule does not apply.
Actions against a Partnership: Survivorship disqualification
Comments: Since a negative evidence does not confirm nor deny shall not apply
the fact existed nor occurred, then it does not establish a claim
against the estate.
Ex.
Matteo, a partner in RayverMaya Partnership with
Rayver and Richard, approaches Gerald to borrow
9) Testimony on the present possession by the witness of a
written document signed by the deceased because such fact 1million to be part of his capital in the partnership to be
paid in 2 mons. Without hesitation, Gerald gives Mattero
exists even after the death of the decedent
the amount requested without any contract, receipt or
MANRESA 2018
any other written proof of the loan. Exactly before the If the testimony to be introduced relates to any fact relating to
day of the agreed payment, Matteo died. the heirship of the decedent (AmJur)
Gerald approaches Rayver and Richard to collect the
debt, they refused and claimed that they had no If for example the testimony would tend to establish that the
knowledge of the debt. Gerald then sued the partnership. claimant is a relative or an heir of the deceased person, in effect a
Gerald was to testify about his claim when Rayver and claim is established against the estate.
Richard objected claiming that the deadman’s statute
prohibits him from testifying. Applying Philippine law, if a person dies, he has heirs and then
somebody will claim to be an heir being an illegitimate child
Checklist for applicability: entitled to his legitime being a compulsory heir—does it result in
the reduction of the deceased person’s patrimony or decrease in
1. This is a collection case, making it a civil case the value of the estate? NO. It simply results to the reduction of the
2. Who is prohibited to testify? share that pertains to the other heirs, this is the reason why this is
Gerald, the survivor an exception in American Jurisprudence.
3. What is he testifying all about?
He is testifying about a claim based on a matter of fact, Technically speaking, it is not a claim against the estate, it only
which occurred prior to the death of Matteo—the debt adversely affects the claims of the existing recognized heirs.
4. Who is the plaintiff?
Gerald There is no Philippine jurisprudence that applies this principle as
5. Who is the defendant? of yet, but this is an exception in the AmJur which is perfectly
The partnership, not the estate or its representative applicable under the Philippine Law. (Accg to Sir, don’t quote him
as such, it is not covered by the survivorship on the applicability)
disqualification, even if under the facts, more or less it
makes out a possibility that the survivorship Garcia v Caparas
disqualification rule will apply. G.R. No. 180843 April 17, 2013
Options for the surviving partners when a partner dies: In their complaint, Eujenio is the tenant of the property,
1. They can continue the partnership, in which case, Article 1840 Garcia and Salamat claims that when their father Eujenio died,
applies. they entered into an agreement with their brother Pedro that they
would alternately farm the land on a per season basis. They
Article 1840. In the following cases creditors of the dissolved further claim that the landowner Makapugay knew of this
partnership are also creditors of the person or partnership agreement and that when Makapugay passed away, Pedro
continuing the business: renegade on their agreement and tilled the land all by himself,
xxx deliberately excluding his brothers and representing to Amanda,
(3) When any partner retires or dies and the business of the the heir of the landowner that he is Eujenio’s sole heir entitled to
dissolved partnership is continued as set forth in Nos. 1 and 2 of harvest and cultivate.
this article, with the consent of the retired partners or the
representative of the deceased partner, but without any As a result, Amanda was deceived in acknowledging Pedro as the
assignment of his right in partnership property; sole agricultural lessee in their 1979 leasehold contract. She then
executed an affidavit stating among others that Pedro assured her
2. They can dissolve. In case of dissolution, the individual property that he would not deprive Garcia and Salamat of their cultivatory
of the deceased partner shall be liable for all obligations of the rights.
partnership while he was a partner but subject to the prior
payment of his separate obligations. When Pedro passed away, his wife Dominga took over the land
and despite demands, continued to deprive the other brothers of
When the survivors, testimony is favorable to the deceased—as their rights as co-lessees.
when the testimony tends to establish a claim by the estate or to
negate a claim against it Garcia and Salamat then filed a complaint for nullification of the
leasehold and the restoration of their rights as agricultural lessees
against Pedro’s heirs represented by surviving spouse Dominga.
OPENING DOORS EXCEPTION
What is the matter of fact that occurred before the death of Pedro?
If the disabled party ‘opens the door’ by introducing a testimony It is the averment in Amanda’s affidavit that Pedro assured her
or a deposition concerning conversations and/or events in the that he will not deprive his brothers of their cultivator.
presence of the deceased person, because in effect, there is a
waiver of the rule (Arroyo v Azur 76 Phil 493). Who are the plaintiff survivor?
Garcia and Salamat. They are the ones who will have a claim
against the estate of Pedro, now being administered by the
surviving spouse.
What is the effect of their claim?
MANRESA 2018
That it is not anymore the estate of Pedro which has the right to objects—that’s stand altogether.
cultivate the property and to harvest the land that they are when the
tenanting. incompetency
arises.
Who are the defendant?
Pedro’s surviving spouse and lawful successor-in-interest,
Dominga. Application Only to civil cases Applies even in
and special criminal cases;
ISSUE: proceedings conceivably, it may
1. Is the deadman’s statute applicable? also apply to
2. Is the survivorship disqualification applicable? administrative or
quasi-judicial cases
Ruling: because the law
Yes. Amanda’s declaration is inadmissible for being a violation of doesn’t distinguish
the deadman’s statute because Pedro is already deceased. Dead man’s Parole Evidence
Statute
“Thus, since Pedro is deceased, and Amanda’s declaration which Both of them may entail a situation where a certain evidence
pertains to the leasehold agreement affects the 1996 "Kasunduan sa cannot be offered due to the death of a person.
Buwisan ng Lupa" which she as assignor entered into with What it prohibits It prohibits In addition to
petitioners, and which is now the subject matter of the present case testimony that possibly establishing
and claim against Pedro’s surviving spouse and lawful successor- tends to establish a a claim, it might also
in-interest Dominga, such declaration cannot be admitted and claim against the include testimony
used against the latter, who is placed in an unfair situation by estate of a that merely adds to,
reason of her being unable to contradict or disprove such deceased person or modifies
declaration as a result of her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior testamentary
death.” dispositions
Who can invoke May be invoked by May be invoked by
Sir: Anything wrong with the application by the SC in the factual milieu the defendant the parties.
of the case? To my mind, there’s nothing wrong about it except that executor or
maybe this case is an agrarian dispute which is usually litigated before administrator or In the case of a will,
administrative tribunals, not strictly bound by the technical rules of the representative it may be invoked
evidence. of the deceased by the executor or
person or the administrator, heirs,
Maybe they are using the term ‘agrarian dispute’ in the way that you person of unsound devisees, legatees,
define a civil action—one by which a party sues another for the mind. and opposing
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a parties.
wrong, thus SC may have taken the term civil action quite loosely to
apply to agrarian disputes which are administrative in nature.
Dead man’s Marital Can you invoke the Parole Evidence Rule in a case where you
Statute Disqualification already invoked the Best Evidence Rule?
Rule
Both constitutes prohibition from testifying Remember that when you talk about BER, it is a mere secondary
Applies to Unrelated People who are evidence of an original.
individuals related by marriage Under the PER, it refers to an agreement—is there a requirement
Extent of Partial Complete and to the originality of the agreement?
disqualification disqualification absolute
only; witness is disqualification It presupposes the possibility that the agreement can be in a
only prohibited secondary form for as long as the foundation is laid.
from testifying on
the matters therein
specified—those Can you invoke the Statute of Frauds and the Parole Evidence
which establish a Rule at the same time?
claim or demand
If the objection is based both on SOF and PER,
As a ground for The witness can The moment that the remember if your objection is based on the SOF, there’s a total
objection still take the spouse would
absence of a note or a memoranda;
witness stand. It is testify, you should
only when a object immediately
When you talk about the PER, you are objecting to the contents of
question is asked and the spouse
the agreement.
that violates the would not be
dead man’s statute allowed to testify
can the other party and take the witness
MANRESA 2018
So what content are you objecting to when there is no note or (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
memo in first place? 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,
Can you invoke the Parole Evidence Rule and the Survivorship stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
Disqualification Rule at the same time? YES. client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity;
Ex.
In Gerald’s will there is bequest of 200,000.00 to Matteo. (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
During the probate of the will, Matteo claimed that cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
Gerald told him while Gerald was bedridden that in the examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
event of his death, Matteo will get 2million. information which he may have acquired in attending such patient
in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
Matteo here is changing the testamentary content, can enable him to act in capacity, and which would blacken the
you object based on the PER? YES, he is modifying the reputation of the patient;
contents of a will—which is a written agreement under
the PER. (d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person
making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to
You can also object under the survivorship or any advice given by him in his professional character in the
disqualification rule, since the obligation of the estate course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister
was being changed from 200k to 2million, and the or priest belongs;
alleged declaration is a matter of fact that occurred prior
to the death of the decedent. (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
Thus, we cannot say that objections under both grounds are confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
mutually exclusive, for they can be invoked at the same time. suffer by the disclosure.
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse

party. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons in Five (5) instances where the law disqualifies certain persons
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or from testifying from certain matters
administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand 1. Marital privilege communication rule
against the estate of such deceased person or against such person 2. Attorney-client privilege communication rule
of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring 3. Physician-patient communication rule
before the death of such deceased person or before such person 4. Priest-penitent communication rule
became of unsound mind. 5. Public Officer’s privilege communication rule or the privilege of
State secrets
The provision is admittedly inelegant, confusing, and it is a
wonder of alliteration.
MARITAL PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION RULE
Sir’s suggested alteration: TAKE NOTE
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse examined without the consent of the other as to any
party. — A party to an allege transaction and his successors-in- communication received in confidence by one from the other
interest are precluded from testifying against the representative of during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other,
the other party who died or became insane if such testimony is or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
offered in a case which tends to establish a civil claim against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
estate of the deceased or insane person.
More or less, this is the phraseology of the Marital disqualification
rule, save for very specific but substantial differences.
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to REQUISITES:
matters learned in confidence in the following cases: 1. There must be a valid marriage between the parties
2. The privilege must be in coked with respect to a
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot confidential information between the spouses during
be examined without the consent of the other as to any their marriage
communication received in confidence by one from the other 3. The spouse against whom such evidence is offered has
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, not given his consent as to the giving of testimony
or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants; EXCEPTIONS:
Where the testimony is given:
1. In a civil case by one against the other; or
MANRESA 2018
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against MARITAL MARITAL

the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. DISQUALIFICATION PRIVILEGE
Bothe rules do not apply in a civil case by one
Take note that these are the same exceptions under the against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
marital disqualification rule. committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants.
PRESUMPTION:
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, any
communication given by one spouse to the other, is
presumed confidential. Both rules are inapplicable where the affected
spouses where the affected spouses consents to
There is no requirement of reservation of confidentiality. the testimony. So when there is consent, the
In other words, you don’t have to tell your spouse, “This disqualification or privilege can be waived.
is just between us”. Differences
Hypothetical problem
When it can Can only be invoked when Can be claimed
Sps Maja an Ramon were deep in conversation when be invoked one of the sps is a party to WON the spouse
Ramon confessed to Maja that he, before they got the action is party to the
married killed Maja’s ex-boyfriend, Gerald. action.
For as long as it is
Can Maja be called to testify against Ramon? privileged
communication,
Take note: uttered in
• Under the marital disqualification rule, because they are confidence the
still married, Maja cannot testify. other spouse
• The marital privilege communication rule, applies as cannot testify
well because it’s supposed to be related in confidence about it.
during the marriage.
Scope of Applies only if the Can be claimed
But the crime was committed before their marriage. Does it application marriage is existing at the even after the
matter? NO. time of the testimony is marriage has been
offered dissolved.
What matters is that the communication was made during
their marriage. That’s the timing that matters. What matters is
not WON the
Conversely, the marital disqualification rule also applies marriage is still
because they are still married. subsisting.
What if their marriage was annulled? Can Maja then testify? What matters is
that the
Effect of Annulment communication
was made during
Marital Disqualification Marital Privilege the marriage, even
Yes, the spouse can testify. No, because it applies during if the testimony is
or after the marriage. offered after the
Unless the other spouse marriage.
waives the privilege
Distinctions between MDR and MPR
MARITAL MARITAL
Application; Constitutes a total privilege It applies on
DISQUALIFICATION PRIVILEGE
Refusal against the spouse. confidential
Similarities communications
Both applies only when the sps are legally A spouse then, may refuse between the sps,
married to take the witness stand which is a
Common law relationships are therefore, not altogether. question of fact.
covered.
As such, it can
only be
determined after a
question is asked
during the
MANRESA 2018
MARITAL MARITAL 3RD PERSONS

DISQUALIFICATION PRIVILEGE
examination that GENERAL RULE:
calls for an answer
that divulges 3rd persons who without the knowledge of the spouses, overhear
confidence. the communication are not disqualified to testify.
The refusal of one Thus, Bangs can be called to testify.

spouse is not on
the taking of the EXCEPTION: Collusion
witness stand, it’s
about asking a Suppose that Maja told Bangs previously that, “My husband and I
question that will fight later, listen and if something happens you can testify
might reveal about it in court.”
confidential
information. Can that Bangs the testify? NO.
Until when Ceases upon the death of Continues even
applicable either spouse. after the Collusion or voluntary disclosure to the 3rd party, such person
termination of the becomes an agent of the spouses and cannot testify.
marriage or death
of either. Take note that in the example, while the daughter cannot be
compelled to testify, she may voluntarily testify under Sec. 25.
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be

compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants,
children or other direct descendants.
What is prohibited under Sec 25 is testimony by compulsion, it

does not forestall testimony by volition or those voluntary
testimony.
Effect Bars testimony for or Bars the DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER

against the other spouse examination of the
spouse as to those 1. Every communication between the sps is presumed to be
matters relayed in confidential.
confidence by the There’s no need to reserve or qualify that what the other
other spouse. spouse is about to say is confidential in nature.
2. Communications made in the presence of 3rd parties are not
What you can do confidential, unless the 3rd person may be considered as an agent
is to refuse once a of the sps.
question is asked For example when the husband, in a public quarrel with
that would tend to the wife, admitted the commission of a crime—can the
reveal confidential wife be compelled to testify on such admission? YES, it
information. was uttered in public and is not therefore intended to be
confidential.
3. Communication overheard by 3rd persons remain confidential
between the sps, and the 3rd person who merely overheard may be
called to testify.
4. If the 3rd person acquired knowledge of the communication by
Back to the hypothetical problem:
collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either spouses, he
thereby becomes an agent of the spouses, such that the privilege
Suppose that Ramon’s confession to Maja was overheard
may be invoked against him.
by their minor daughter and Bangs their kasambahay.
5. Communications intended for transmission by 3rd persons are
not confidential, because there is no expectation of privacy there
MINOR
being an element of publicity.
Can the daughter be called to testify?
No, because she is still a minor. Remember that when a child is a

minor, she’s considered as merely an extension of the personality
of her parents. In other words, if she overheard the confidential
information exchanged between her parents, she being a mere
extension of her parents’ personalities, she cannot testify.
MANRESA 2018
Lacurom v Jacoba They were married which means the marital disqualification rule
already applies.
The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived
by failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by But we have to consider that 2 mons after they got married, Narita
any conduct that may be construed as implied consent. told Alan in confidence—marital privilege communication rule.
That the father was a married man is an admission of a

Bar Questions under this rule commission of a crime—confession that Basilio committed
concubinage and she was a principal by indispensible
participation.
1. XYZ, an alien was criminally charged of child prostitution and
other sexual abuses. The principal witness against him was his Q1: If you were the public prosecutor, how would you defend
Filipino wife, ABC. Earlier she had complained that XYZ’s hotel against the objection?
was being used as a center for sex tourism and child trafficking.
The counsel of XYZ objected to the testimony of ABC. At the trial Answer: The rule is no longer applicable for the marriage was
of the child prostitution case, it turned out that DEF, the minor already dissolved.
daughter of ABC by her fist Filipino husband was molested by
XYZ. Thus ABC filed for legal separation against XYZ. Q2: Suppose, Narita’s testimony was offered while the decision
May the court admit the testimony an affidavits of the wife, ABC nullifying her marriage with Alan was pending appeal, would
against her husband XYZ in the criminal case involving child your answer be different?
prostitution.
Answer: The answer would not be different and objection may still
Remember that this child prostitution is not a criminal case by one be interposed. The marital disqualification rule may not be
against the other, but by the State against the husband. But here invoked in a criminal case of a crime committed against the
there is a legal separation case, therefore what this BQ begs us to descendant of the other spouse (Lisa).
do would be to think outside the box.
Q3: Suppose Narita died during the pendency of the appeal, thus
Is there then any other exception that maybe applicable? the marriage was dissolved, and soon after the legal wife of Basilio
sued for legal separation on the ground of Basilio’s sexual
Suggested answer: The court may admit the testimony and infidelity.
affidavits of the wife against the husband in a criminal case where
it involves child prostitution of the wife’s daughter. (Sir: but was Answer: What is applicable now is the marital privilege
the daughter subject of prostitution or abuse? The suggested answer is communication rule for it survives even after the marriage is
kinda weird.) dissolved. What matters is that the communication is made during
the marriage. Moreover, the testimony of Alan would be mere
Thus, the wife’s testimony is not covered under the marital hearsay.
disqualification rule. However, take note that a crime of the
husband against the daughter is a crime against the wife, so the RIANO: The testimony could not be validly objected upon by
proper answer would have been, it’s already under strained Basilio’s counsel on the basis of the marital privilege
relation. communication rule, because Basilio does not own the privilege.
The suggested answer is not entirely accurate.
He was not the one who gave the confidential communication. The
2. 1995 BQ prerogative to object is vested upon spouses themselves,
particularly the communicating spouse and not a third person.
Allan and Narita were married on 1 August 1989. After 2 months,
Narita told Allan in confidence that the 10-year-old Liza whom
she claimed to be her niece was actually her daughter by a ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE RULE
certain Basilio, a married man.
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined
In 1992, Narita obtained a judicial decree of nullity of her
as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice
marriage with Allan on
given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital
employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or
obligations.
clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
When the decree became final, Liza, assisted by Narita, filed 10
acquired in such capacity;
cases of rape against Allan purportedly committed in 1991.
During the trial, Narita was called to the witness stand to testify
as a witness against Allan who objected thereto on the ground There are 2 different privileges in this provision
of marital disqualification
1. Atty-client privilege per se;
Consider: Applicable to privileged communication made to the
attorney himself.
MANRESA 2018
2. Derivative Atty-client privileged communication

Applies to the secretary, stenographer, or clerk and other Lawyer must be consulted in his professional capacity
employees of the lawyer, including his partners and The mere fact that you are talking to somebody who is a lawyer
associates. does not necessarily mean that the privileged communication rule
will attach. He has to be consulted in his professional capacity.
Reason for the rule
When privilege will not apply
The policy underlying the privilege is that of encouraging open The privilege will not apply when the client’s purpose for seeking
and honest communication between clients and attorneys which is professional opinion is for the furtherance of crime or for the
thought to promote obedience to law and reduce the chance of purpose of committing a crime later on.
illegal behavior whether intentional or inadvertent. As such, the
privilege is considered as one of the strongest privileges available. Prior to the commission of a crime, if the client told the lawyer that
he is going to commit such crime, the lawyer can testify—the
Remember that a lawyer is not even prohibited from representing privilege cannot be used as a shield for the perpetration of a crime.
a client despite knowledge that he is guilty. No body is saying that
you should lie for your clients and make him lie before the court But if a crime has already been perpetrated, and confidence is
and tell the court his theory. But, you have to make the State already divulged by the client, then the privilege communication
discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond rule applies even on the previously divulged communications
reasonable doubt, and within those parameters, you are allowed to prior to the perpetration thereof.
employ such claims as would make it more difficult for the State to
meet the required quantum of proof. But, where the lawyer himself is a co-conspirator, the privilege
does not apply. It is settled that for the privilege to apply, it must
Besides that, you are also allowed to avail for your clients of be for a lawful purpose, or in furtherance of a lawful end. The
mitigating circumstances, exempting circumstances, and justifying existence of a unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from
circumstances. There’s really no ethical bar with respect to attaching (PP v Sandiganbayan, 1997).
knowing that your client is guilty.
Communication covers not only verbal communications.
REQUISITES:
WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE
1. There must be a communication made by the client to
the attorney or advice given by the attorney to his client;
Protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from
discovery of opposing counsel. During the discovery stage, written
2. The communication or advice must have been given in
statements made by witnesses to defendant’s attorney cannot be
confidence;
produced as it is considered as work product.
3. The communication or advice must have been given
During the interview of your client if he divulged information and
either in the course of a professional employment or with
you took notes or have it reduced into a different form, that cannot
a view of future professional employment
be inquired upon.
Atty-client contract
In the Philippines, does this doctrine apply?
The traditional view that there has to be a
perfected contract of in order for the privilege
to exist is no longer applicable. RULE 27
Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
The view now is that, mere consultations
provided that there was legal advice given or SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. - Upon
facts were given to the lawyer in confidence for motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in
the prospect or retaining his services, that which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce
would be enough for the rule to attach; and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on
behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers,
4. The clients must not have given consent to his atty’s books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things,
testimony, or the atty’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk. not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession,
Suppose that coming from a small town having very few lawyers, custody or control; or (b) order any party to permit entry upon
you want to file a case for nullification of marriage against your designated land or other property in his possession or control for
spouse and you know that your spouse will probably get the best the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
lawyers. A good thing to do would be to consult with every photographing the property or any designated relevant object or
lawyer available, so that your spouse will not be able to get that operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and
lawyer—there would already be a conflict of interest because a manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
perfected contract is not required. photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are
just.
The fact of consultation would be enough for a conflict of interest
to arise and for the privilege communication rule to attach.
MANRESA 2018
1:01:00 – 2:02:13 | Inah Del Rosario that you make while preparing for a case, while interviewing a
client.
Is it privileged – The notes an attorney made when he interviewed
his client? With that, Rule 27 Sec. 1, can you say that there is such a Suggested Answer: The refusal was proper based on the attorney-
thing as a work-product doctrine of treaties? To my mind yes. The client privilege communication. It extends also to the files of a
SC said so in the case of Fortune vs. CA, Jan 19, 1994 but in a mere lawyer.
obiter dictum.
Take note that the privilege is not confined to communications
FORTUNE VS. CA regarding actual pending cases. The communications may refer to
Jan 19, 1994 anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. The
communication may be oral or written and is deemed to extend to
A mere allegation, without proof, that the deposition is being other forms of conduct like physical demonstration as long as they
taken in bad faith is not a sufficient ground for such an order. are intended to be confidential.
Neither is an allegation that it will subject the party to a penalty or
forfeiture. The mere fact that the information sought by deposition The communication between a client and his lawyer is not deemed
has already been obtained through a bill of particulars, lacking on confidentiality solely because communication is
interrogatories, or other depositions will not suffice, although if it transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone, or other electronic
is entirely repetitious a deposition may be forbidden. The means.
allegation that the deponent knows nothing about the matters
involved does not justify prohibiting the taking of a deposition, Once again, you need to look at the circumstances behind the
nor that whatever the witness knows is protected by the "work transmission of such communication by such other means
product doctrine," nor that privileged information or trade secrets (electronic means).
will be sought in the course of the examination, nor that all the
transactions were either conducted or confirmed in writing. • By cellphone, no problem – it is covered by privilege
communication
• By group call – that is a problem. A lot of people might
To my mind, it is still subsumed under the very general attorney - be listening. That may not be covered by privileged
client privilege. So, there is no specific work product doctrine in communication anymore.
the Philippines. But if there is no specific work doctrine in the • By facsimile – you fax something to the office of the
Philippines, why in the blue hell is it asked in the 2008 Bar lawyer, no problem. All your employees will see the
Examinations? privileged communication is covered derivately.
• When the lawyer is sojourning and privileged
It you gives you an idea that in the bar anything goes. Anything communication was faxed to the hotel where the lawyer
can be asked. Like two years ago – “What is the Jason Clause?” is staying and a lot of people saw it, the other people are
Mga shock-and-awe questions, if you recall. If it wasn’t asked in not covered by such attorney-client privilege
the bar, nobody would be discussing what it is. Instead of asking communication rule.
whether it is a conflict of law situation, they use a different • By e-mail – it’s okay if it is a private email. But if it is a
acronym. Like “trace the jus sanguinis rule under the 1935, 1973 group email, there is no privilege communication
and the 1987 Constitution.” Just like when you ask about the work applicable to the other recipients.
product doctrine and yet it has never been discussed in Philippine
jurisprudence. PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR 115439
Question: A tugboat owned by Speedy Port Service, Inc. sank in
Manila Bay while helping tow another vessel. At the Maritime The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications
Board Inquiry, the 4 survivors testified. SPS engaged Atty. Eli to which was made by the client but also for information
defend it in its potential claims and to sue the company who communicated by the client to the attorney by other means.
owned the other vessel for damages to the tug. Eli obtained signed
statements from the survivors. He also interviewed other persons,
in some instance by memoranda. Take note that before the statements of the client and the advice of
the attorney be deemed as privileged, the same should have been
The heirs of the victims filed an action for damages against Speedy intended to be confidential. The matters communicated to the
Port Service. Claimant’s counsel sent interrogatories to Eli asking attorney are evidently not intended to be confidential when they
whether statements of the witnesses were obtained, if written were made to the lawyer but in the presence of third persons who
copies were to be furnished in oral the exact details were to be set neither stand in a position of confidence to the client or are the
in detail. Eli refused to comply arguing that the documents and agents of the attorney as well.
information are privileged communication. Is the contention
tenable? Explain. EAVESDROPPERS
Take note that under the Marital Privilege Communication Rule,
You can answer this question by using the very general attorney- third persons who overheard the communication can be permitted
client privilege communication, without citing what it actually to testify, provided that there is no collusion or voluntary
refers to – which is the so-called Work Product Doctrine borrowed disclosure.
from the US. It exempts from discovery work product – the notes
MANRESA 2018
What is the rule under the attorney-client privilege communication attorney on the drawing of the will, while confidential
rule? Philippine Jurisprudence is somehow silent about this. during the lifetime of the client, are not intended to
However, it is submitted that similar to American Jurisprudence, require secrecy after his death.
an eavesdropper may testify. This is subject to usual challenge
based on right to privacy. The party can object because his right to Question: X has 2 sons: Y and Z. Before he died, his constant
privacy is violated. companion was A, a young lady. X went to his lawyer and had his
will prepared covering an estate worth P12M. The lawyer was
You need to remember that the right to privacy is one that can surprised simply because X gave P8M to A and P2M each to Y and
rightfully be claimed against agents to the State – not against Z. The lawyer asked why and X told him that A was his love child
private individuals. with his one true love AAA; and Y and Z was his children with
BBB, who he suspects are not really his.
For eavesdropper per se, okay lang siguro mag testify similar to
American Jurisprudence and similar to the Marital Privileged When X died, his will was probated. Y and Z opposed the will on
Communication Rule provided that there is no collusion or the ground that they were preterited and their legitime was
voluntary disclosure. impaired. They claim that they are X’s sole heirs, thus entitled to ½
each of the whole estate. Can the lawyer be compelled to reveal
IT IS THE CLIENT WHO OWNS THE PRIVILEGE the information he received from X about A?
Remember who owns the privilege: it is the client. It is only the Answer: YES. Because there is an attack on the validity of the will
client who owns the privilege and the lawyer cannot claim the according to American Jurisprudence. The communication made
privilege for his client. to the lawyer on the drawing of the will, while confidential during
the lifetime of X is not intended to require secrecy after his death.
WHEN LAWYER CAN CIRCUMVENT THE PRIVILEGE In fact, if he reveals the information, the will becomes perfectly
valid as it has not impaired the legitime of his kids.
1. When the lawyer will be prejudiced by the application of
Take note of the case of
the privilege. He cannot be damned by it. The lawyer can
SAURA JR. VS. ATTY. AGDEPPA
circumvent the privilege if revealing information would
AC No. 4426
relieve him of accusations.
The request for the information regarding the sale of the property
Example: Because of representing his client, the lawyer
and to account for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-
was also sued. The lawyer is now the one who is being
client privilege. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court
sued because of something his client did. This happened
provides:
to me. When I was a young lawyer, a case for disbarment
"Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
was filed against me because of what my client did. This
communication. The following persons cannot testify
was about a property that is being administrated by my
as to matters learned in confidence in the following
client. The person disinherited was suspecting that I was
cases:
also getting something out of it. I had to divulge
xxx xxx xxx
information. Normally that would fall within the ambit
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
of attorney-client privilege – what the executors were
client, be examined as to any communication made
doing with the money of the estate. But because I cannot
by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in
be damned by the privilege, I had every right to divulge
the course of, or with a view to, professional
before the Committee on Bar Discipline the fact that I did
employment, nor can an attorneys secretary,
not steal money.
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning
2. When the lawyer is suing his client for recovery of fees.
any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
The lawyer therein is actually allowed to break the
in such capacity."
privilege.
The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The
3. When there is an attack on the validity of the will of the
petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the amount of the
client.
sale or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the
right to ask for such information since they own the property as
Take note that the privilege is owned by the client and
co-heirs of the late Ramon E. Saura and as co-administrators of
survives his death. No one else including the lawyer can
the property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse to divulge such
invoke it. If the client is asked on cross examination of his
information to them and hide behind the cloak of the attorney-
communications to his lawyer, and reveals the same,
client relationship.
there would be a waiver of the confidentiality of the
communication. There would be a waiver if the client
does not object on attorney’s testimony on the Does the privilege preclude inquiries into the fact that the
communication. The protection of the privilege would lawyer was consulted? Can the lawyer refuse to answer the
generally survive the death of the client. question on the ground that it is covered by attorney-client
privilege? Can the lawyer be asked if a particular person is his
But in American Jurisprudence, when there is an attack client?
of the validity of a will, communications made to the
MANRESA 2018
If the lawyer can be asked if a particular person is his client and he While the general rule is client identity is not privileged. It admits
cannot refuse to answer the question, it simply means that the of several exceptions:
identity of the client is not privileged.
1. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists
Is the identity of the client privileged? that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the
very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice
As a GENERAL RULE, an inquiry into the fact of consultation or 2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his
employment is not privileged. Even the identity of the client or the identity is privileged.
lawyer is not privileged. 3. Where the governments lawyers have no case against an
attorneys client unless, by revealing the clients name, the said
And for that, you need to read this case name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the clients
REGALA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN name is privileged. (Meaning, all we need is the name of the client. We
GR 105938, Sept 29, 1996 have practically everything else we need to build a case.)
As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be By compelling petitioners, not only to reveal the identity of their
shrouded in mystery. Under this premise, the general rule in our clients, but worse, to submit to the PCGG documents
jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may substantiating the client-lawyer relationship, as well as deeds of
not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or assignment petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering
identity of his client. their respective shareholdings, the PCGG would exact from
petitioners a link that would inevitably form the chain of
The reasons advanced for the general rule are well established. testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a crime.
1. First, the court has a right to know that the client whose
privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh Non-privileged information such as the identity of the client is
and blood. protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily
2. Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the reveal the privileged information.
attorney-client relationship has been established. The
attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a Just short demonstration of what it is: There is a person called Tito.
client. Assume that the government would already knows that Atty. JZE
3. Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject was already consulted by an unknown client because she
matter of the relationship. committed murder. They already know that there is a client
4. Finally, due process considerations require that the consulting with a lawyer – and it is for the crime of murder. The
opposing party should, as a general rule, know his only thing that the government does not know is the identity of
adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled to know the client himself. Take note that if the identity of the client can be
who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in compelled from the lawyer, it would constitute the last link for the
the dark against unknown forces. government to commence the prosecution of charges against the
client. Without such information, the government would be stuck
– cannot secure a conviction.
So, general rule for the reasons above stated, client identity is not
privileged. You cannot use attorney client privilege in order to
refuse to divulge the identity of the client. But there are exceptions. PHYSICIAN PATIENT PRIVILEGE
REGALA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged

supra communication. – The following persons cannot testify as to
matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
Facts: PCGG suspects Danding Cojuangco sought the assistance of xxx
ACCRA law firm to set up, with the use of the coconut levy funds, (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
the financial and corporate framework of UCPB, UNICOM obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
Cocolife, and other coconut levy funded corporations including patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
the acquisition of shares of San Miguel Corp. The said corporations him or any information which he may have acquired in
were subject to the investigation by the PCGG involving ill-gotten attending such patient in a professional capacity, which
wealth. ACCRA refused to provide information on fear that it may information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity,
implicate them in the very activity from which legal advice was and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
sought from them and it may breach the fiduciary relationship of
the petitioner. ACCRA contends that the PCGG has gathered
enough evidence already. All PCGG needed from ACCRA is to
know who among their clients sought help to establish UCPB,
UNICOM, Cocolife, etc. PCGG suspects that it is Danding
Cojuangco.
Issue: Is the identity of the client privileged?

Ruling:
MANRESA 2018
Person authorized to practice: • What if your doctor revealed that you have
gonorrhea? That would tend to blacken your
1. Medicine reputation.
Take note that when we talk about medicine, that is the RATIONALE FOR THE PHYSICIAN PATIENT PRIVILEGED
general term of the practice of medicine. That is practically COMMUNATION RULE
everything that doctors do.
The rationale is to encourage the patient to freely disclose all the
2. Surgery matters that may aid in the diagnosis in the treatment of a disease.
For this purpose, it is necessary to shield the patient from
Not all doctors are surgeons. embarrassing himself concerning his condition.
3. Obstetrics Accordingly, this privilege protects the interest of the patient. It is

designed to promote health, not truth. It encourages free
Not practiced by doctors only. Midwives can also practice disclosure in the sick room by preventing in disclosure in court.
that. Maybe it is a misnomer to say that it is physician-patient.
Because when you talk about a person who practices THE PRIVILEGE BELONGS TO THE PATIENT
obstetrics, he or she does not need a license.
Take note that the privilege belongs to the patient and survives
If the intention of the law was to limit it to physicians, it could even his death. Death does not permit to impair the deceased’s
have stated “physicians” or “medical doctors.” Yet it uses the name by disclosing communications made in confidentiality.
word “person.”
GONZALES VS. CA
GR 117740 (1998)
REQUISITES FOR PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RULE
Facts: Ricardo Abad died leaving a sizeable estate. His siblings,
(1) The action in which the advice or treatment given or any including Gonzales, filed a petition for settlement of the intestate
information is to be used is a civil case estate of Ricardo and alleged that they are sole heirs.
• Criminal cases are not covered
Private Respondents Cecilia and Marian Empaynado, as well as
(2) The relation of physician and patient existed between the Rosemarie Abad opposed the petition on the ground that they
person claiming the privilege or his legal representative are the illegitimate children of Ricardo Abad.
and the physician.
• Take note again that the word “relation” is The siblings presented the affidavit Dr. Pedro Arenas who
used as if to invoke the image that there is a declared that in 1935, he had examined Ricardo and found him to
perfected contract between the physician and be infected with gonorrhea and had become sterile as a
the patient. But actually again, similar to consequence thereof.
Attorney-Client Privilege Communication
Rule, even mere consultation without a Issue: Should the affidavit be excluded for violation of
perfected contract for fees would be enough to physician-patient privileged communication rule?
cause the privileged communication rule to be
applicable. Ruling: YES. It is inadmissible.
The rule on confidential communications between physician and
(3) The advice of treatment given by him or any information patient requires that:
was acquired by the physician while professionally a) the action in which the advice or treatment given or any
attending to the patient. information is to be used is a civil case
• Similar to attorney-client privilege -- has to be b) the relation of physician and patient existed between the
in his professional capacity. person claiming the privilege or his legal representative
• Mere conversations with the doctor or lawyer and the physician;
as a friend does not necessarily mean that the c) the advice or treatment given by him or any information
privileged communication rule applies. was acquired by the physician while professionally
(4) The information was necessary for the performance of attending the patient;
his professional duty and d) the information was necessary for the performance of his
(5) The disclosure of the information would tend to blacken professional duty; and
the reputation of the patient. e) the disclosure of the information would tend to blacken
• Not every information tends to blacken the the reputation of the patient.
reputation of a patient. Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit meets the first four
• Is it something that would cause you ill-repute REQUISITES. They assert, however, that the finding as to
or embarrassment if your doctor reveals that Ricardo Abads sterility does not blacken the character of the
you had appendicitis? No. deceased.Petitioners conveniently forget that Ricardo Abads
sterility arose when the latter contracted gonorrhea, a fact which
most assuredly blackens his reputation. In fact, given that society
holds virility at a premium, sterility alone, without the attendant
MANRESA 2018
embarrassment of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, advance waiver to the effect that if you commit
would be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any patient. We fraud or concealment of matters of your health, then
thus hold the affidavit inadmissible in evidence. And the same the insurance company does not have to pay. The
remains inadmissible in evidence, notwithstanding the death insurance company can now divulge information.
of Ricardo Abad. As stated by the trial court: (5) When the doctor is presented as an expert witness and only
hypothetical problems were presented.
In the case of Westover vs. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 99 N.Y. • In a case for declaration of nullity of marriage, there
59, it was pointed out that: The privilege of secrecy is not is a seeming requirement in RP vs. Molina, that
abolished or terminated because of death as stated in established there should be a testimony of a legal psychologist
precedents. It is an established rule that the purpose of the law or psychiatrist. Although in later cases, the SC said
would be thwarted and the policy intended to be promoted that there can be a declaration of nullity of marriage
thereby would be defeated, if death removed the seal of secrecy, even if there was no resort to a psychiatrist or
from the communications and disclosures which a patient should psychologist, provided that you are able to properly
make to his physician. After one has gone to his grave, the living present proof of juridical precedence, etc.
are not permitted to impair his name and disgrace his memory • That is the reason why both of the spouses would
by dragging to light communications and disclosures made have to be examined by the psychiatrist who will
under the seal of the statute. later on point out their personality disorder.
• Why is the psychiatrist allowed to testify? Because
Given the above disquisition, it is clearly apparent that of this Lim vs. CA.
petitioners have failed to establish their claim by the quantum of
evidence required by law. On the other hand, the evidence
presented by private respondents overwhelmingly prove that LIM VS. CA
they are the acknowledged natural children of Ricardo Abad. (1992)
The doctor is presented as an expert witness. Dr. Acampado was
presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by
Take note that this has something to do with treatment and the the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the
communication is shared with the doctor in the latter’s course of her examination, interview and treatment of the
professional capacity. It has to be curative or preventive treatment. petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the
hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on
If it is something that is not curative or preventive like autopsy, whatever information or findings the doctor obtained while
the privilege does not apply regardless of how embarrassing the attending to the patient. There is, as well, no showing that Dr.
results of the examination may be. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating
to the hypothetical problem were influenced by the information
Again there is no need for a contractual relationship – like one obtained from the petitioner.
initiated by the patient’s voluntary act. In fact, it might have been
the result of a quasi-contractual relationship as when the patient is Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever
seriously ill and the physician who treats him, even if he is not information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was
able to give his own consent as in the situation described in Art. acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing
2167 of the CC. Like when through an accident or some other between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial
cause a person is injured or becomes seriously ill and he is treated court cannot then be excluded. The rule on this point is
or held but he is not in a condition to enter into a contract, he shall summarized as follows: "The predominating view, with some
be liable to pay for the services of the physician or another person scant authority otherwise, is that the statutory physician-patient
treating him, unless the service has been rendered out of pure privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a
generosity. physician to give expert opinion testimony in response to a strictly
hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental
WHEN PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY: condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where
his opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated,
(1) When communication not given in confidence excluding and disregarding any personal professional knowledge
(2) When communication is irrelevant to the professional he may have concerning such patient. But in order to avoid the bar
employment of the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a
(3) When communication was made for an unlawful purpose as case, the physician must base his opinion solely upon the facts
well as it is intended for a commission or concealment of a hypothesized in the question, excluding from consideration his
crime personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician
• How do I dissolve human remains? and patient relationship. If he cannot or does not exclude from
• With more impunity when there’s more knowledge consideration his personal professional knowledge of the patient’s
on anatomy and substances that would dissolve condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert
human anatomy. opinion."
(4) Information was intended to be made public or there was a
waiver of the privilege either by the provisions of law or In a case where a psychiatrist will testify, napangutana nimo sa
contract iyaha, to arrive at the conclusion that either or both of the spouses
• Example: When you get a policy for medical or life are psychologically incapacitated, would be in case is a person is
insurance, you have to yourself checked. Usually in afflicted with histrionic personality disorder. Will that affect his
the insurance contract, you have a waiver and ability to comply with his essential marital obligations? Without
MANRESA 2018
asking the psychiatrist “Is this guy psychologically incapacitated?” professional conversation. The privilege, says Josielene, does not
You have to ask in general. Because otherwise, that will no longer cover the hospital records, but only the examination of the
be a hypothetical problem. physician at the trial.
The privilege covers expert opinion as long as he does not testify To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of
as to matters specifically ___. the hospital records—the results of tests that the physician
ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the advice or
treatment he gave him—would be to allow access to evidence
Another interesting case is that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent. Physician
CHAN VS. CHAN memorializes all these information in the patient’s records.
GR 179786 (2013) Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while
Facts: Josielene filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her dealing with the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.
marriage to Johnny. She claimed that Johnny failed to care for
and support his family. The family psychiatrist diagnosed him as The rule is not limited to the physician’s testimony but also to
mentally deficient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of notations.
prohibited drugs. During the pre-trial conference, Jocelyn
premarked the PhilHealth claim form that Johnny attached his Similar again to what we call the work product doctrine under
answer as proof that he was forcibly confined at the rehabilitation attorney-client privilege. It extends not only to testimony but also
unit of the hospital. The form carried a physician’s handwritten to written memoranda or records.
note that Johnny suffered from methamphetamine and alcohol
abuse. Take note that there is no physician-client privilege in criminal
cases.
Josielene filed with the RTC a request for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum addressed to Medical City covering
Johnny’s medical records when he was confined there. Johnny PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE
opposed the motion arguing that the medical records were
covered by physician-patient privileged communication rule. SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.
— The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:
Take note that this is a case for the declaration of the nullity of (d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. If the court making the confession, be examined as to any confession
would admit the handwritten note saying that he suffered from made to or any advice given by him in his professional
such addiction, and that can very much prove that Johnny is character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
psychologically incapacitated. which the minister or priest belongs;
Josielene claims that the hospital records subject of this case are ONLY APPLIES TO CATHOLICS
not privileged since it is the testimonial evidence of the physician This privilege only pertains to Catholicism. It is only the Catholics
that may be regarded as privileged. who have a course of discipline specifically enjoined by the
Church that is geared towards confession and forgiveness of sins.
Issue: Does the physician-patient privileged communication Because in Catholicism, we do believe that a priest is simply an
rule cover non-testimonial evidence? extension of the personality of Christ – he is a vicar of Christ.
Ruling: YES, It is covered. The physician-patient privileged Whatever we tell the priest, that will reach God.
communication rule essentially means that a physician who gets
information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
civil case be examined without the patient’s consent as to any
facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation. This rule is 0:00:00 – 0:36:00 | Inah Del Rosario
intended to encourage the patient to open up to the physician,
relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his This is also called clergy privilege or the so-called confessional
body, enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that seal.
ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a
physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and Although the religious officers here are mentioned in general –
narrate all that had transpired between him and the patient supposedly applicable to any religious denomination – no other
might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health religion (aside from Catholicism) has a course of discipline that
at great risk. enjoins confession of sins, as a means of forgiveness.
Josielene of course claims that the hospital records subject of this It appears that the priest-penitent privilege communication – with
case are not privileged since it is the "testimonial" evidence of the its wording that it has to be in the course of discipline enjoined by
physician that may be regarded as privileged. Section 24(c) of the church to which the minister or priest belongs – is one that
Rule 130 states that the physician "cannot in a civil case, without applies particularly and only to the Catholic church.
the consent of the patient, be examined" regarding their
MANRESA 2018
In a way there is a subjective element to the requisite – that of

When you make a confession to a priest in his capacity as a having public interest suffered by the disclosure.
friend, does the priest-penitent privilege communication apply?
NO. The important thing to remember here is that you have Who would determine if public interest would suffer?
to confess or consult with the priest in his professional The court will determine if there is prejudice to public
character as a minister or priest. interest. But the court would not know if the disclosure would
affect public interest prejudicially, if the court has not heard
The same thing applies in the attorney-client privilege or at least has not any idea as to what the information is. So
communication rule, the physician-patient privilege we have a chicken and egg scenario. What comes ahead—the
communication rule, that there has to be also communication chicken or the egg?
or confession or advice given in the course of his professional
engagement as such. Should the court hear the testimony to determine whether
public interest will suffer or should it assume that the public
interest will suffer by any disclosure? Again, it is a matter of
Communications made by a person (i.e. to a priest, etc.) in the evidence.
course of confession or similar course of discipline by other
religious bodies are privileged from disclosure.
BANCO FILIPINO VS. MONETARY BOARD
Take note that they must have been acting in the professional GR 70054, July 8, 1986
capacity of a spiritual advisor and with the purpose of dispensing
religious counsel, advise, and absolution. This privilege is intended not for the protection of public officers
but for the protection of the public interest where there is no
To my mind, if that is really the intention of the law to limit public interest that would be prejudiced this invoked rule will
instances where it has to be in the course of confession of sins for not be applicable. The rule that a public officer cannot be
the purpose of absolution then definitely, when you talk to examined as to communications made to him in official
somebody else other than the priest in the religious denomination confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that
where confession is not considered a course of discipline, then the public interest would suffer by the disclosure in question. The
privileged communication does not apply. government must establish that public interest would suffer by
the disclosure of the papers and documents for the privilege to be
That is my opinion. Don’t quote me in the bar exam. invoked.
Not every communication made by a minister or priest is

privileged. The communication must be made pursuant to a
confession of sins. That is precisely what Wigmore is saying. As What are the guidelines to be considered by the court to
clearly provided in the Rule the advice given as a result of the determine if there will be prejudice to public interest?
confession must be made in the minister professional character or Remember that our Rules abhor unfair surprises. The other party
in his spiritual capacity. Accordingly, where the penitent discussed who is opposed to the public officer’s privilege from attaching,
business arrangements with the priest, the privilege does not would have that right to know. To my mind, again, it is a matter of
apply. style, evidence, and argumentation in court.
Take note, however, that the public officer’s privilege is not

PRIVILEGE OF STATE SECRETS or PUBLIC OFFICERS applicable if what is asked is useful evidence to establish the
PRIVILEGE innocence of the accused. Why? Because constitutional
presumption of the right of the accused will always prevail against
SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – privilege. It lessens the risk of false testimony, is essential to the
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in proper disposition of the litigation and the benefit of the ___ by
confidence in the following cases: the correct disposition was greater than any injury which could
Xxx inure the relation by a disclosure of new information.
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of
office or afterwards, as to communications made to him Take note that the privilege is not applicable to all public officers
in official confidence, when the court finds that the in general. The privilege only applies to communications to such
public interest would suffer by the disclosure. officers who have a responsibility or duty to investigate or prevent
public wrongs and not to officials in general.
The court, and not the witness will determine the necessity of
regarding the communication as privileged.
REQUISITES:
1. The communication must have been made to a public CONCEPT OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
officer; Certain types of information like military, diplomatic and national
2. The communication was given to the public officer in security matters may be withheld from the public for obvious
official confidence; and reasons.
3. The public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication. Example: Military strategy. We know that there is this conflict
going on between the government and the leftist movement. No
MANRESA 2018
matter who is the president, they will always complain. Will it POLITICAL VOTE PRIVILEGE
benefit the public interest if there is disclosure of military
strategies? Can you be compelled to disclose your vote? NO. Why?
Remember that the Constitution itself mandates the secrecy and
Let’s go to something that might still be fresh in your memories. sanctity of the ballot.
Remember what happened in Mamasapano? There were a lot of What about the exit polls? That’s allowed. Voters are not
SAFs who died. Who was vilified? President Noynoy and Chief compelled to disclose who they vote for. But definitely, you cannot
PNP at that time who was suspended. Can they claim executive be compelled to disclose your vote.
privilege when they are being investigated for the alleged
wrongdoing? Can they take refuge under the concept of executive BANK DEPOSITS PRIVILEGE
privilege by saying that it is actually strategic in nature?
There are no cases decided by the SC that deals In a way this is privileged communication. RA 1405 provides:
specifically on how the court will determine if it is a national
security matter that can be withheld. So we are lacking in RA 1405
jurisprudence with respect to that matter. So we will just wait. AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY
INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION
Let’s to go the other privileged communcations because there are a AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR.
lot.
Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds
issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as
RULE 3 of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
Sec. 3. Privileged communication. – The confidential character of inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor,
it is in the form of an electronic document. or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court
in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the confidential character cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter
of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that of the litigation.
it is in the form of an electronic document.
For example, in the country today, we are gearing towards

paperless transactions. Orders can be made through email or chat.
Just imagine Pres. Duterte chatting with his generals on Facebook
Under Sec. 2, RA 1405, there are exceptions. But recently, the
Messenger about something that relates to strategies relating to
privileged nature of bank deposits have been diluted by RA 9372.
matters of national security. I assume that that is still considered as
privileged communication under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
RA 9372
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
NEWSMAN’S PRIVILEGE
Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published SEC. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank
news. Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The provisions of Republic
Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding, the
The problem with this privilege is there will always be justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to
irresponsible journalists. We would have really no way of handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the
knowing whether or not these people exist. existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose
that: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of
Going back to what we learned under Atty-Client Privilege, the terrorism or, conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially
identity of the client is not generally privileged. The court has the declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or
right to know that that person is indeed flesh and blood. There are group of persons; and (3) of a member of such judicially declared
exceptions to that as well. But compare that to the Newsman’s and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons,
Privilege, it’s blanket – without prejudice to his liability under the may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer
civil and criminal laws. The publisher, editor or reporter of any and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by
newspaper cannot be compelled to reveal the source of every news the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the
report or information appearing in the said publication which was examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets
related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter. and records in a bank or financial institution; and (b) gather or
cause the gathering of any relevant information about such
Just take note, that we protect newsmen. We believe that press deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a
freedom is important in our democracy. But again, that is subject bank or financial institution. The bank or financial institution
to abuse. concerned, shall not refuse to allow such examination or to
provide the desired information, when so, ordered by and served
with the written order of the Court of Appeals.
MANRESA 2018
If you are suspected of terrorism, what the law enforcement TRADE SECRETS
agencies or the Anti-Terrorism Council would do is to simply
apply before the CA for an order that would allow them to inspect AIRPHIL VS. PENNSWELL, INC.
your bank deposits. Take note that that is not too problematic. December 13, 2007
Why? Because the CA will have to be guided by reasonable
suspicion at the very least, if not probable cause to be issued such Facts: Airphil is an airline. Periodic maintenance and repairs are
order which would violate a person’s right to secrecy. required for passenger safety. Airphil bought industrial lubricants
for its planes ordered from Pennswell.
But my problem would be is RA 10168 or the Act Defining the
Crime of Financing Terrorism. Pennswell was able to persuade Airphil to buy its new product
which it purports to be better than the old one Airphil used to
RA 10168 order. Airphil bought the products.
THE TERRORISM FINANCING PREVENTION AND
SUPPRESSION ACT OF 2012 Pennswell filed a collection case against Airphil in court when the
latter refused to pay the amount due.
Section 10. Authority to Investigate Financing of Terrorism. –
The AMLC, either upon its own initiative or at the request of the Airphil contended that it was defrauded in the sale of the new
ATC, is hereby authorized to investigate: (a) any property or product misrepresented by Pennswell as belonging to a new line,
funds that are in any way related to financing of terrorism or acts but were in truth and in fact, identical with the products Airphil
of terrorism; (b) property or funds of any person or persons in previously purchased from Pennswell. It filed a motion to compel
relation to whom there is probable cause to believe that such Pennswell to give a detailed list of chemical components of the
person or persons are committing or attempting or conspiring to product.
commit, or participating in or facilitating the financing of
terrorism or acts of terrorism as defined herein. Issue: Whether or not the ingredients for a particular product can
be inquired into.
The AMLC may also enlist the assistance of any branch,
department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the Ruling: NO. The chemical composition, formulation, and
government, including government-owned and -controlled ingredients of respondents special lubricants are trade secrets
corporations in undertaking measures to counter the financing of within the contemplation of the law.
terrorism, which may include the use of its personnel, facilities
and resources. Respondent was established to engage in the business of general
manufacturing and selling of, and to deal in, distribute, sell or
For purposes of this section and notwithstanding the provisions otherwise dispose of goods, wares, merchandise, products,
of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the "Law on including but not limited to industrial chemicals, solvents,
Secrecy of Bank Deposits", as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, lubricants, acids, alkalines, salts, paints, oils, varnishes, colors,
otherwise known as the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the pigments and similar preparations, among others. It is
Philippines", as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, otherwise unmistakable to our minds that the manufacture and production
known as "The General Banking Law of 2000? and other laws, the of respondents products proceed from a formulation of a secret list
AMLC is hereby authorized to inquire into or examine deposits of ingredients. In the creation of its lubricants, respondent
and investments with any banking institution or non-bank expended efforts, skills, research, and resources. What it had
financial institution and their subsidiaries and affiliates achieved by virtue of its investments may not be wrested from
without a court order. respondent on the mere pretext that it is necessary for petitioner’s
defense against a collection for a sum of money.
Even sans a court order, they will do whatever they want. They
suspect you of financing terrorism, they can immediately go to the To compel its disclosure is to cripple respondents business, and to
bank and secretly, behind your bank, without your knowledge and place it at an undue disadvantage. If the chemical composition of
consent, look into your bank account and see that you have P4,000. respondents lubricants are opened to public scrutiny, it will stand
to lose the backbone on which its business is founded. This would
There is no minimum determination unlike in the Human Security result in nothing less than the probable demise of respondents
Act where at least the CA would be guided by this reasonable business. Respondents proprietary interest over the ingredients
suspicion or probable cause. But here, RA 10168, it is the AMLC’s which it had developed and expended money and effort on is
call. That is an intrusion into your privacy. But considering the fact incontrovertible. Our conclusion is that the detailed ingredients
that we are susceptible to acts of terrorism (bombing in Roxas) this sought to be revealed have a commercial value to respondent. Not
law is justified, problematic lang. Because what is the standard of only do we acknowledge the fact that the information grants it a
the AMLC? Mere suspicion? That can be used to look into a bank competitive advantage; we also find that there is clearly a glaring
account of somebody that is totally innocent. Subject to abuse lang intent on the part of respondent to keep the information
siya. I have no problem that it is Anti-Terrorism. But again, there confidential and not available to the prying public.
has to be safeguards.
In this case the SC upheld the privilege of the so-called Trade
Secrets.
MANRESA 2018
Coca-cola is very addicting. Can I file a case against Coca-cole on ecology in accord with the harmony of nature. Can you use the
the ground that I became addicted to it and therefore must know discovery procedure to know precisely what ingredient that is
its ingredients and composition? NO. That is a trade secret. destroying the environment? Under Rule 27, definitely not because
you cannot compel the disclosure of a privileged information. But
RULE 27, RULES OF COURT the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases is totally different.
Remember Rule 27, a mode of discovery. That cannot justify the SC has liberalized discovery all for the sake of the environment. So
production of maybe, that can already be inquired into. What it does not cover is
where the right of the respondent to due process will be violated.
Cont of Airphil vs. Pennswell There is no limitation when it comes to privileged communication.
We now take a look at Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, INFORMATION AND STATEMENTS MADE IN
which permits parties to inspect documents or things upon a CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS IS PRIVILEGED
showing of good cause before the court in which an action is
pending. Its entire provision reads: Art. 233. Privileged communication. Information and statements
made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged
SECTION 1. Motion for production or inspection order. Upon communication and shall not be used as evidence in the
motion of any party showing good cause therefore, the court in Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in
which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation
and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or proceedings conducted by them.
on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or Situation: An illegal dismissal case is filed by the employee against
tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain the employer. We all know that there’s not going to be any
evidence material to any matter involved in the action and hearing. Walay presentation of evidence because due process
which are in his possession, custody or control; or (b) order any considerations will already be satisfied before labor arbiters by the
party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in use of position papers. But they are required to appear before the
his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, labor arbiter for conciliation purposes. The labor arbiter should
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any endeavor to settle the parties or to encourage them at least to
designated relevant object or operation thereon. The order settle.
shall specify the time, place and manner of making the
inspection and taking copies and photographs, and may But what happens if during the settlement proceedings or the
prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. preliminary conference before the LA, the employer made an
admission that no notice of disciplinary action and notice of
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal proviso that the documents, papers, termination were given. Assume that the employee also admitted
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things during the preliminary conference or conciliation proceedings is
that may be produced and inspected should not be that he did commit an act which warrants dismissal. Can the LA
privileged. The documents must not be privileged against use that in his decision? He cannot. Because that is privileged
disclosure. On the ground of public policy, the rules providing communication. Whatever happens there stays there.
for production and inspection of books and papers do not
authorize the production or inspection of privileged matter; that In a case that I handled, there was a LA that used all of those
is, books and papers which, because of their confidential and information obtained from the preliminary conference in reaching
privileged character, could not be received in evidence. Such a his decision. I was constrained to file an appeal before the NLRC
condition is in addition to the requisite that the items be stating that the admissions are in the nature of a privileged
specifically described, and must constitute or contain evidence communications, thus cannot be used as evidence.
material to any matter involved in the action and which are in
the party’s possession, custody or control. Based on the facts, let’s go back to labor para holistic ang ating
approach.
Rule 27 cannot justify the production of the information as the Is the termination valid or illegal? What’s the proper term there? The
same is limited to documents or things that are not privileged in proper term according to the SC is if there is a just cause for
nature. termination, but procedural due process was not followed, the
dismissal is ineffectual, not necessary illegal. It calls for the
Take note that a mode of discovery cannot be extended to application of the ruling of the SC in the case of
privileged matters.
AGABON VS NLRC
TRADE SECRETS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, when you Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under
file a Writ of Kalikasan, there are discovery measures that are Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written
allowed – including production and inspection of documents and notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested by
things. the employee before terminating the employment: a notice
specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or
I imagine a situation that it is alleged in the application that a an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to be
certain product of a particular company is destroying the heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal
environment or affecting your right to a balanced and healthful is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the
MANRESA 2018
employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor disclosure of documents or information containing secret
and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity processes, developments, research and other information where it
of his separation. is shown that the applicant shall be materially prejudiced by an
authorized disclosure thereof.
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived:
(1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor
Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for health
reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the
dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was MEDIATION BEFORE THE MEDIATION BEFORE THE
observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause LABOR ARBITER COURTS (COURT-ANNEXED
and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or MEDIATION)
authorized cause but due process was not observed. The very same arbiter will There is a different officer from
handle the attempt authorized the Philippine Mediation Office
In the first situation, the dismissal is undoubtedly valid and the by the parties and also render a (not the judge) who will try to
employer will not suffer any liability. decision on the case. mediate between the parties to
a compromise judgment. No
In the second and third situations where the dismissals are pre-judgment.
illegal, Article 279 mandates that the employee is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges In Judicial Dispute Resolution
and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or (JDR), supposively nay lahi nga
their monetary equivalent computed from the time the judge ang muhandle sa JDR. If he
compensation was not paid up to the time of actual or she fails to settle the case then, it
reinstatement. has to be re-raffled.
In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the ARBITRATION BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the ARTBITRATION COUNCIL(CIAC). An enforcement of a lien
dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non- over a construction agreement with the government. Information
compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. is not easily given by the CIAC, and more or less to rule in favor of
the contractor.
The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The
dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the CHILD-WITNESS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE.
petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company. PRIVILEGES OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice
requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the last Section 5
known addresses would have been useless because they did not XXXXX
reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent, c. The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding
this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin concerning any information, statement, or opinion
notice requirements to the employees last known address.[21] received from the child in the course of serving as a
Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to
procedural requirements of due process. promote the best interests of the child.
0:36:00 – 1:38:22 | Jennifer Lim INFORMER’S PRIVILEGE RULE. For the protection of identity
(security reasons), an informer cannot be compelled to testify by
Q: Is the termination valid when it was made with just cause but the prosecutor, when their testimony will merely be cumulative
the procedural due process was not followed? and/or corroborative. It is the privilege of the government not to
A: The dismissal is ineffectual, not necessarily illegal. It calls for disclose the identity of persons who furnished the information
the application of Agabon vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court said that based on violations of law by officers in-charged with the
the court will not nullify the dismissal of the employee, but he enforcement of the law.
should be paid nominal damages. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173)
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT RA 9285. SEC. 13. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged
Information obtained through mediation proceedings shall be Information. – The processing of sensitive personal information
privileged and confidential. and privileged information shall be prohibited, except in the
following cases:
SEC. 23. Confidential of Arbitration Proceedings. - The (a) The data subject has given his or her consent, specific to the
arbitration proceedings, including the records, evidence and the purpose prior to the processing, or in the case of privileged
arbitral award, shall be considered confidential and shall not be information, all parties to the exchange have given their consent
published except (1) with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the prior to processing;
limited purpose of disclosing to the court of relevant documents in (b) The processing of the same is provided for by existing laws and
cases where resort to the court is allowed herein. Provided, regulations: Provided, That such regulatory enactments guarantee
however, that the court in which the action or the appeal is the protection of the sensitive personal information and the
pending may issue a protective order to prevent or prohibit privileged information: Provided, further, That the consent of the
data subjects are not required by law or regulation permitting the
MANRESA 2018
processing of the sensitive personal information or the privileged

information; WHO ARE NOT COVERED?
(c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the
data subject or another person, and the data subject is not legally 1. Relatives by affinity
or physically able to express his or her consent prior to the 2. Brothers and sisters
processing; 3. Aunts and uncles
(d) The processing is necessary to achieve the lawful and 4. Nephews and nieces (any degree)
noncommercial objectives of public organizations and their 5. Other collateral relatives
associations: Provided, That such processing is only confined and
related to the bona fide members of these organizations or their Q: Can an adopted child be compelled to testify against the
associations: Provided, further, That the sensitive personal parents and grandparents?
information are not transferred to third parties: Provided,
finally, That consent of the data subject was obtained prior to A: adoption, by fiction of law, has a relation only between the
processing; adoptive parents and the adopted child. Thus, an adopted child
(e) The processing is necessary for purposes of medical treatment, cannot testify against the parents. Likewise, the adoptive parents
is carried out by a medical practitioner or a medical treatment cannot testify against the child because the tie, by fiction of law,
institution, and an adequate level of protection of personal applies. As to grandparents, that legal fiction is no longer
information is ensured; or applicable. Dili na ka pwede musaka or munaog if grandparent.
(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is
necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of Lee vs. Court of Appeals (July 2010)
natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment,
exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to Spouses Lee Tek Sheng (Lee) and Keh Shiok Cheng (Keh) entered
government or public authority. the Philippines in the 1930s as immigrants from China. They had 11
children.
SEC. 15. Extension of Privileged Communication. – Personal
information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged In 1948, Lee brought from China a young woman named Tiu Chuan
communication over privileged information that they lawfully (Tiu), supposedly to serve as housemaid. The respondent Lee-Keh
control or process. Subject to existing laws and regulations, any children believe that Tiu left the Lee-Keh household, moved into
evidence gathered on privileged information is inadmissible. another property of Lee nearby, and had a relation with him.
cannot be disclosed
Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the Lee-Keh children learned that
FYI: Your information by the school to third persons under the Tius children with Lee (collectively, the Lees other children)
Data Privacy Act. claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh. This
prompted the Lee-Keh children to request the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) to investigate the matter.
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE
The NBI found, for example, that in the hospital records, the
SECTION 25, RULE 130. Parental and Filial Privilege. - No eldest of the Lees other children, Marcelo Lee (who was
person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other recorded as the 12th child of Lee and Keh), was born of a 17-
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. year-old mother, when Keh was already 38 years old at the
time. Another of the Lees other children, Mariano Lee, was born
of a 23-year-old mother, when Keh was then already 40 years
old, and so forth. In other words, by the hospital records of the
GR: Direct ascendants and descendants only. This talks about one
Lees other children, Kehs declared age did not coincide with
line going up and down. You are not allowed to branch out and
her actual age when she supposedly gave birth to such other
go horizontally.
children, numbering eight.
Ex: This privilege does not disqualify a person from testifying
against his parents or children or other direct descendants
On the basis of this report, the respondent Lee-Keh children
voluntarily. Compulsion cannot be done and he cannot be made
filed two separate petitions, one of them before the Regional
against the particular relatives mentioned in this Rule.
Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan Cityfor the deletion from the
certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lees
In relation to the Family Code: Art. 215. No descendant shall other children, the name Keh and replace the same with the
be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents name Tiu to indicate her true mothers name.
and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable
in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex
other. (315a) parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum to
compel Tiu, Emma Lees presumed mother, to testify in the
case. The RTC granted the motion but Tiu moved to quash the
Although the phraseology is the same, the applicability of these
subpoena, claiming that it was oppressive and violated Section
provisions would be different as well. Article 215, applies only to
25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rule on parental privilege,
a descendant on not being allowed to testify against parents and
she being Emma Lee’s stepmother.
grandparents. It does not provide for an instance prohibiting a
person from testifying against his children or grandchildren. In
Ruling: Tiu claimed before the trial court the right not to testify
Section 25, it goes both ways, pwede pasaka ug pwede panaog.
against her stepdaughter, petitioner Emma Lee, invoking
MANRESA 2018
Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence. proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
The above is an adaptation from a similar provision in Article

315 of the Civil Code that applies only in criminal cases. But 1. As to quasi offenses, reckless imprudence cases.
those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to extend
the prohibition to all kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or From 2017 TSN:
administrative, filed against parents and other direct ascendants
or descendants. Art. 365 Revised Penal Code. Imprudence and negligence. — Any
person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it
But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she, is been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty
the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege cannot of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
apply to them because the rule applies only to direct ascendants medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
and descendants, a family tie connected by a common penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto
stepmother. Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
against petitioner Emma Lee.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an
act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would
ADMISSIONS - EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION
have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
Rule 130, Section 26. Admissions of a party. — The act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only
given in evidence against him. resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be
punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said
Rule 129 on JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS. Deliberate, clear, and damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than
unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within that twenty-five pesos.
party’s knowledge. Admission in judicio- Admission during trial is
stronger than other proof. A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed
upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause
GR: We cannot contradict an admission some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light
Ex: Extra-judicial admission – one made not in court, outside of felony.
court.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound
Example: In Civil Procedure, you can amend a pleading whether discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
initiatory or responsive. In such amendment, it no longer contains
the admission made earlier. The effect under the law is that the The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. The
original pleading has been abrogated. The amended pleaded is 1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than
now on- record. The admissions made earlier will now become those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which
extra-judicial admissions. case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem
JUDICIAL ADMISSION EXTRA-JUDICIAL proper to apply.
ADMISSION 2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the
Requires no proof to be Must be properly pleaded and Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which case
admitted. proved by evidence to be the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its
admitted. medium and maximum periods.
EXAMPLE OF AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice,
Rule 130, Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results
civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer persons, time and place.
of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in
those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the
accused who made the plea or offer. The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this
article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as give.
MANRESA 2018
consideration that its admission would open the door to fraud and
Art. 2176 Civil Code. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to fabrication of testimony, it is simply an admission favorable to the
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage party making it.
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the When a party advocates his own cause, or tries to bolster his own
provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) interests by making certain admissions, it cannot be simply
believed. However, a man may be safely believed if he declares
against his own interests, but not when he declares for his own
cause or interest as well. Mas mutuo ka kung dauton sa tao
2. In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is generally iyahang kaugalingon.
treated as an implied admission of his guilt.
The concept of self-serving admission does not include a party’s
ADMISSION BY DECLARATION testimony as a witness in court. A party’s testimony in court is
Example: A was sued by B for a collection of a debt. In his answer, sworn and affords the other party the opportunity for cross-
A categorically denied having contracted any loan to B. However, examination. What is covered is when a third party witness
prior to the case being filed, A spoke to C and told him that he testifies in court about the self-serving admission made by the
borrowed money from B to buy a car. (This is a case for collection of party.
a sum of money which the person later on denies. Pero, nisulti man siya
kay C na “naa gyud koy utang para ipalit aning auto.” What C knows is In totality, if you make the self-serving admission in court and say
only what A told him.) it yourself, that is not to be considered as self-serving and
inadmissible kay there is still an opportunity for cross-
Q: Can C testify as to what A told him? examination. Pwede pa ma disprove by cross-examination. What it
applies to is a situation wherein, you make a self-serving
A: Under the law, this is hearsay which is normally inadmissible. declaration out of court and the person to whom you say that
When a person repeats what somebody else told them out of court, information will now be used as a witness.
it is not based anymore on his personal knowledge. Rather, it’s
based on what somebody else told them. Generally speaking, it
should not be admissible on the ground that it is an inadmissible REQUISITES OF A SELF-SERVING ADMISSION
hearsay. However, under Section 26, the declaration of a party as 1. The testimony is favorable to the declarant.
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Note 2. It is made extra-judicially.
that in the present case, the declaration of A to C is relevant to ⋅ Made out of court
the fact in issue which is the existence of debt. 3. It is made in anticipation of litigation.
⋅ For the lack of better term, it is seemingly a
OMISSION. Omission means failure to act or to make a planted admission.
declaration when one ought to.
Example: A has been in default of his loan obligations to B Bank.
Rule 130, Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or Sensing that B Bank is about to sue him to collect on the debt, A
declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or goes around and tells C, D, E that he had actually paid the bank.
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not The best evidence for A, if he had really paid, would be a receipt
true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given na nibayad na jud siya and testify about it in court. In this case,
in evidence against him. wala man jud siya nibayad. In effect, by telling C, D, and E that he
had already paid the loan, he can use their testimony to
Example: ikaw ang naakusahan nipatay kay Lapu-Lapu. Natural corroborate his defense of payment. He is planting evidence for his
instinct would be to deny na dili ikaw ang nipatay. If your silent defense. Under the rules, such planted evidence is not admissible,
about it, neither confirm or deny, under Section 32 your it being self-serving-admission.
admission by saying nothing might be taken against you under the
principle of admission by silence (qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is EFFECT IF THE ADMISSION WAS NOT SELF SERVING
silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent").
Example: A was sued by B for collection of a debt. In his answer, A
Q: Are all types of admissions admissible against the party
categorically denied having contracted any loan from B. However,
thereto?
prior to the filing of the case, A spoke to C, D, and E and told them
A: It depends. According to whether or not an admission is
that he actually borrowed money from B to buy a car.
favorable to the party making it, an admission can either be:
⋅ Admission per se (under Section 26) In this case, C, D, and E can all testify because the admission by A
⋅ Self-serving admission is one that is against his interests instead of being favorable to his
cause. Therefore, it is admissible.
SELF-SERVING ADMISSION.
In National Development Corporation vs. Workmen
Compensation, it is an admission made by a party out of court at
one time and which is favorable to the party making it. It is
excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence due to lack
of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party. On the
MANRESA 2018
RATIONALE OF THE INADMISSIBILITY OF A SELF- Atty JZE: Would you care to elaborate?
SERVING ADMISSION Husband: Sure! I crave for sex constantly. My wife cannot
satisfy me on this aspect. Sometimes, I call her
A man may be safely believed if he declares against his own to go home just so we can do it. If she refuses, I
interests, but not when he advocates for his interest. (Lichauco vs. can’t help but look for it from someone else or I
Atlantic Gulf and Pacific) just play with myself.
Opponent: Objection, your Honor! Self-serving!
It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence, that, Court: Atty. Espejo, Comment?
the lack of opportunity for cross examination by the adverse party. Atty JZE: Your honor, please, this is not self-serving. In
Although it appears to be self-serving, but such admissions may be fact, counsel can cross examine. Besides,
admissible if made in court and with full-opportunity to the testimony is self-serving only when it is
adverse party to cross-examine. favorable to the witness. Here, your Honor, he
is actually advocating against his own interest.
Example(actual JZE case) : Testimony is self-deprecating, your Honor.
JZE: You mentioned in your answer, that it was not the Court: Objection is overruled. It is self-deprecating.
plaintiff who planted the crops in the subject land. If it was You may continue.
not the plaintiff, who was it then?
Witness (Defendant): I was the one who planted it together Q: Was the Court correct in sustaining my objection? Was I
with my father. correct?
A: The court was correct in overruling the objection but the ground
Opponent: Objection your honor, self-serving! relied upon is not correct. Therefore, I am also wrong. The only
ground there should have been the ability to cross-examine. The
Q: Is the objection correct? fact that the testimony was self-deprecating is not a proper
A: It is actually a misconception born out of ignorance of the rules. ground. It was destructive of his personality but it was favorable
Not every testimony that is favorable to the party is considered to his cause because if it is to be believed by the court that he is
self-serving. If the rule is otherwise, all testimonies of party- indeed a sex maniac, that will prove his psychological incapacity.
litigations would be self-serving and therefore inadmissible
because it is very rare for a party to admit against his own cause. ADMISSIONS PER SE. Under Section 26, an admission is any
statement made by a party to a lawsuit, either before a court or
The SC made the same observation: during its pendency, which tends to support the position of the
other side or diminish his own position.
CLEMEÑA vs. BIEN (2006)
Example: if a husband sues his wife for divorce on the grounds of
"Self-serving evidence," perhaps owing to its descriptive adultery, and she states out of court that she has had affairs, her
formulation, is a concept much misunderstood. Not infrequently, statement is an admission. Any admission made by a party is
the term is employed as a weapon to devalue and discredit a admissible evidence in a court proceeding, even though it is
party's testimony favorable to his cause. That, it seems, is the technically considered hearsay, which is normally inadmissible.
sense in which petitioners are using it now.
To cross reference this with Miranda Rights enshrined in Article
This is a grave error. "Self-serving evidence" is not to be taken 3, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution:
literally to mean any evidence that serves its proponent's interest. “You have the right to remain in silent. Anything you say can
The term, if used with any legal sense, refers only to acts or and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the
declarations made by a party in his own interest at some place and right to have an attorney, if you cannot afford one the State
time out of court, and it does not include testimony that he gives will provide you with one.”
as a witness in court. Evidence of this sort is excluded on the same
ground as any hearsay evidence, that is, lack of opportunity for
cross-examination by the adverse party and on the consideration
that its admission would open the door to fraud and fabrication. REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN ADMISSION
In contrast, a party's testimony in court is sworn and subject to 1. It must involve matters of fact and not of law.
cross-examination by the other party, and therefore, not -‐ You cannot admit law. Why? It is subject to
susceptible to an objection on the ground that it is self-serving. mandatory judicial notice.
2. It must be categorical and definite.
3. It must be knowingly and voluntarily made.
Example(Actual JZE case) where his client filed a declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of mutual psychological -‐ Full knowledge of the effects and voluntarily made.
incapacity of both my client and his wife. During the trial, I 4. It must be adverse to the admitter’s interest.
presented my client as a witness to testify on what constitutes
about his psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential “ADVERSE TO THE ADMITTER’S INTEREST”
obligations of marriage.
Atty. JZE: What psychological disorder are you referring Flight is considered a disserving act, since it is prejudicial to the
to Mr. Witness? interest of the accused. Flight is considered as circumstantial
Husband: I am a sex maniac, Sir.
MANRESA 2018
evidence of his guilt. FATETUR FACINUS IS QUI JUDICUM pagsisisi ko sa ginawa kong iyon. x x x Parang awa mo
FUGIT. He who flees from prosecution confesses his guilt. na Ne hirap na hirap na ako at ang lahat ay buong puso
ko ng pinagsisisihan. Patawarin mo na ako anak. x x x."
However, non-flight cannot be used as evidence to prove his
innocence, because that will be considered as an act that is According to the Supreme Court, that is an implied
favorable to the interest of the accused. admission of guilt because it is considered analogous to
an attempt to compromise. The letter was taken against
EXAMPLES OF IMPLIED EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION the accused. Why would he write a letter if he is not
guilty? Kung wala kay sala, ngano ka mangayo ug
1. LACHES. The failure or neglect for an unreasonable pasaylo?
and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier.
PEOPLE vs. ESPANOL (2009)
In Civil Procedure, it is an implied admission of lack of Appellant’s act of pleading for his sister-in-law’s
merit of one’s cause of action. Because if he believes that forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an
his cause of action is true and correct, then he should not attempt to compromise, which in turn can be received as
have waited for an unreasonable and unexplained length an implied admission of guilt under Section 27, Rule 130.
of time.
2. FLIGHT AND CONCEALMENT 6. OFFER OF MARRIAGE

Flight strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the An offer of marriage during the investigation of the rape
existence of guilty conscience. It is an implied admission case is considered an implied admission of guilt. This is
of guilt. (People vs. Herrera) more applicable to those traditional times.
3. SILENCE 7. WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF

RULE 130, SECTION 32. ADMISSION BY LOWERED PENALTY
SILENCE. — An act or declaration made in the presence
and within the hearing or observation of a party who does 8. INFLUENCE
or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as An attempt to influence witnesses, whether the influence
naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and tended to bring forth false testimony, or to suppress
when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given evidence, is an implied admission of the weakness of a
in evidence against him. party’s cause.
PEOPLE vs. ESPANOL (2009) 9. SUDDEN AFFLUENCE

Another piece of evidence against appellant was his A change for the better in the financial condition of a
SILENCE when his wife’s nephew asked him why he person accused of a crime involving money, immediately
killed his wife. His silence on this accusation is deemed or shortly after the date of the crime, may be shown upon
an admission under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of the theory that sudden and unexplained possession of
Court. funds has a tendency to connect said person to the said
crime.
4. OFFER OF COMPROMISE
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received OFFER OF COMPROMISE
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (Section 27,
Rule 130) Rule 130, Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
The repeated offer of one conspirator constitutes a strong liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
indication and an implied admission of guilt of said
conspirator and the two accused and appellants in this In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
case. (US vs. Torres). negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
5. PLEA OF FORGIVENESS implied admission of guilt.
PEOPLE vs. ABADILLES (2002) A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea
A father who raped his own daughter. He sent a letter of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the
asking for his daughter’s forgiveness. accused who made the plea or offer.
A cursory reading of the relevant parts of the letter will An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other
readily show that accused-appellant was indeed seeking expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
pardon for his misdeeds. Some of the pertinent portions proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
read as follows: "I made this letter to ask your
'forgiveness.’ x x x Alam mo bang sobra-sobra na ang
MANRESA 2018
Q: Why is that in civil cases, it is not admissible in evidence or previously registered cooperatives shall be the subject of
admission of liability? compromise settlement on terms favorable to such
A: Because it is a civil case. You can be allowed to compromise. In cooperatives.
fact, it is encouraged by law. Mediators refer to it as a compromise 3. Cases between siblings (efforts to a compromise)
where nobody loses and nobody wins. Both of the parties are 4. Criminal cases which are mandatory subject of arbitration and
supposed to be given their due, to meet halfway or what is due. In mediation.(2017 TSN)
compromise, it puts an end to the case. In civil cases, the party
would rather compromise to avoid litigating.
GODOY DOCTRINE
In criminal cases except quasi-offenses, it is against the State or
People of the Philippines. A plea of guilty later withdrawn or that PEOPLE VS. GODOY (1995)
to a lesser offense is not admissible against the party who made
the plea. Meaning, he has the right to change his mind. It has long been held that in cases of public crimes, the accused is
permitted to show that the offer was not made under a
An offer to pay the medical or other expenses occasioned by an consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a
liability for the injury. Why? You are just being a Good Samaritan claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth
or based on good will. It is not necessarily an admission of guilt. an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal
The last paragraph applies to civil or criminal cases. consequences which would ordinarily ensue there from.
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON COMPROMISE 2017 tsn of Atty JZE: Remember that the Godoy Doctrine is not really a
Art. 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by direct restriction but merely a limited restriction. Why? It is because of
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to the general rule that an offer of compromise is an implied admission of
one already commenced. guilt. What Godoy is saying is if you made an offer, you are allowed to
plead that you made an offer not because you are guilty but because you
Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability want to avoid the consequences of a prolonged trial or inconvenience of
arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish imprisonment.
the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty.
There can be a compromise as to the civil liability, but it does not An offer of compromise is admissible as an implied admission of guilt.
affect or extinguish the criminal liability. Why is it that when you But you can rebut the presumption. That is what Godoy is saying. IT IS
file a criminal case before the court and it is settled, the case is ADMISSIBLE BUT REBUTTABLE.
dismissed? It’s not a matter of law, but of practice.
Example: A files a case against B. During trial, you compromise GOOD SAMARITAN RULE GOOD SAMARITAN RULE
with A. B will enter into a compromise with A. Usually the (EVIDENCE) (TORTS)
compromise there would include A not testifying against B. Can Provides that, in both civil and Where the offer to pay medical
the state proceed with no witness? Can the state proceed with the criminal cases, an offer to pay expenses occasioned by the
case against the accused, if the private complainant has already or the payment of medical, injury,it is a cause for
given up? That the reason why the case is dismissed, not on the hospital, or other expenses is mitigation of damages.
compromise per se but because of the effects of compromise. No not admissible in evidence as
more witness for the prosecution. proof of criminal or civil
liability.
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be
valid:
1. The civil status of persons
PEOPLE vs. YPARRIGUIRRE (1997)
2. The validity of a marriage or a legal separation
3. Any ground for legal separation
An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint
4. Future support
be first filed before the offer can be received as evidence against
5. The jurisdiction of courts
the offeror.
6. Future legitime
Other points to remember in Section 27 - An offer of compromise

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt except:
0:00:00 – 0:35:00 | Jennifer Lim
1. In cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence);
2. Those allowed by law to be compromised;
3. Godoy Doctrine RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE
Examples of cases allowed by law to be compromised Rule 130, Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a
1. Sec 204 NIRC of the 1997, which lays down the power of party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
the BIR Commissioner to compromise tax liability. another, except as hereinafter provided.
2. Paragraph 2 of Article 144 of the Philippine Cooperative
Code expressly provides that all unpaid assessments of
MANRESA 2018
Latin Maxim: Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet Buenaflor vs. David (November 2016)
English Translation: Things done between strangers ought
not to injure those who are not parties to them. David was employed as Service Manager by petitioner, doing
business under the trade name "Pronto! Auto Services." In such
TWO PARTS OF THE RULE capacity, he was in charge of the overall day-to-day operations of
1. Under Rule 130 Section 28, the rights of a party cannot petitioner, including the authority to sign checks, check vouchers,
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of and purchase orders.
another. This means that statements made or matters
accomplished between two parties cannot prejudice a The purchasing officer prepares the purchasing order which is
third party. then submitted to David for his review and approval. Once
2. Under Rule 130, Section 34, evidence that one did or did approved, the duplicate copy would be given to the supplier to
not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to deliver the respective goods and supplies. After delivery, the
prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar finance officer prepares for payment. Once approved, the checks
thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a are prepared by the accounting assistants then reviewed by David.
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom, or usage and the like. All checks should be issued in the name of a specific supplier and
not paid to CASH. It should be in the name of the shop and picked
The two parts are more or less the same, because in both, you up. Now, China Bank reported to the company that it cleared
cannot draw conclusions from. several checks made to several suppliers for CASH. This
prompted the company to investigate.
FIRST PART OF THE RULE
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, When it is pay to cash, anybody can have it encashed. The
or omission of another. Statements made by a person cannot accounting officer Leilanie confronted Maja upon the instruction
prejudice another party. Kung unsa may gibuhat nila, dili pwede of David that the check should be “pay to cash”. It also implicated
madamay ang ikatulo nga tao. that the purchase officer was also under David’s direct
supervision. For preparing spurious orders that were used as basis
Rationale: Bawal mandamay! A person’s submission cannot bind in issuing the checks as well as Sarah who encashed some of the
another. Otherwise, it would be unfair and unreasonable. checks. Her confession was made into writing.
SECOND PART OF THE RULE Maja actually admitted na “Oo, naa mi sindikato. Gidunggag
namo ang word na cash aron makinabang mi sa kwarta.” His
cohorts were suspended and were eventually suspended from
Section 34 refers to the propensity evidence rule. What you did
employment. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
before is not determinative that you are doing the same now.
the labor arbiter. Labor arbiter concluded that the employer failed
to prove conspiracy and Maja’s extra-judicial confession was
Example: A filed a case against B and C for ejectment. B and C
informally made and not supported by evidence. On appeal, the
are 30-year occupants of the land which was previously
CA found out that the records were insufficient in proving that the
unregistered under the Torrens System. Suddenly, in 2015, A
latter had a hand in the preparation and encashment of checks
came to the land and showed B and C his Certificate of Title and
making the dismissal without cause and illegal.
demanded that they vacate the property. In 2016, during trial, B
settled with A and executed a quitclaim stating that B has no
It ruled that Maja’s extrajudicial confession only bound her as the
right whatsoever over the land.
confessant but constitutes hearsay with respect to respondent and
the other co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule. Moreover,
Q: Can A claim that, since B and C are similarly situated with
while respondent was a signatory to the checks in question, the
similar defenses, B’s quitclaim should also apply to C?
CA noted that at the time these checks were signed, the words
A: No. The rights of C cannot be prejudiced by the act or
"OR CASH" were not yet written thereon. As such, the CA held
declaration by B.
that no substantial evidence existed to establish that respondent
had breached the trust reposed in him.
Q: Suppose B, in his quitclaim, also stated categorically that C’s
defenses are false and that B and C did not really possess the
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
land for 30 years. Can that bind C?
or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession
A: No. The rights of C cannot be prejudiced by the act or
is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against
declaration of B. However, take note of the effect that A can call B
his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against
as his witness and ask him to testify. His testimony is admissible,
them. The LA, NLRC, and CA made their findings pointing that
subject to cross examination by C.
the corporation was incorrect and declared the dismissal to be
invalid as it is based on Maja’s extra-judicial confession.
This rule talks about extra-judicial admissions- things admitted
outside of court. Even a self-serving testimony made in open court
SC said that the res inter alios acta rule does not apply to quasi-
may be admissible if there is an opportunity for cross-examination.
judicial administrative proceedings. Even if the res inter alios
The same applies to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule. Kung muingon
acta rule would be made to apply, the treatment of the extra-
ka in open court nga ani, it can be admissible as there is an
judicial confession as hearsay is bound by exception on
opportunity for cross-examination.
independently relevant statements.
MANRESA 2018
Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but Rationale: A co-partner or agent is simply an extension of the
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be personality of a partner or principal in the person of the co-owner
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. Verily, or agent, unless the person acts in his own name, the partner or
Maja’s extrajudicial confession is independently relevant to prove principal shall comply with all the obligations which the co-
the participation of respondent in the instant controversy partner or agent may have contracted within the scope of its
considering his vital role in petitioner's procurement process. The authority. For as long as the declarations made during the
fact that such statement was made by Del Rosario, who was the existence of the partnership, agency or any partnership of joint
actual author of the alterations, should have been given interest, it means that the admission is binding on the co-partner
consideration by the NLRC as it is directly, if not circumstantially, or agent.
relevant to the issue at hand.
REQUISITES:
Main point of the case: Dapat dili i-apply strictly ang res inter alios 1. There is an act or declaration of a partner or agent that is
acta rule sa administrative proceedings. prejudicial to the other co-partner or principal;
2. The act or declaration must have been made within the
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE: scope of the partner or agents authority;
VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS 3. The act or declaration must have been made during the
existence of the partnership or agency;
The rights of a party may be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or 4. The existence of the partnership or agency must be
omission of another when between the party making the shown by evidence other than such act or declaration
admission and against whom it is offered, there exists a relation of: • Refers to evidence aliunde, that has to be
1. Partnership extrinsic from the document stating that there
2. Agency exists partnership or agency or other joint
3. Joint interests interest.
4. Conspiracy or
5. Privity Example: A secured a loan from C. A claimed that he is obtaining
the loan in behalf of his partnership with B.
ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT. Q: If A defaults, can C use the declaration of A in order to hold B
liable?
Rule 130, Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The A: No. As a general rule, the rights of B cannot be prejudiced by
act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the the act or declaration of A. What would C do in order to proceed
scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership against the partner? He has to prove the REQUISITES. Part of
or agency may be given in evidence against such party after the which is proving the existing of the partnership by evidence other
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or than such act or declaration of the debtor. He must first establish
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a by testimonial or documentary evidence the existence of the
joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the partnership, independent of the act or declaration of A that he and
party. B are partners.
Example: A filed a case against B and C for ejectment. B and C EXAMPLES TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A
claim to be co-partners or co-owners and 30-year occupants of the PARTNERSHIP THROUGH EVIDENCE ALLIUNDE:
land, which was previously unregistered under the Torrens 1. Documentary evidence such as Articles of
system. They claim that they contributed money and industry in Partnership filed with the Securities and
the cultivation of the land for 30 years. Suddenly, in 2015, A came Exchange Commission (SEC)
to B and C, showed his certificate of title, and demanded them to 2. Contracts jointly entered by the parties as
immediately leave the property. partners.
3. Present the testimony of a witness other than
Here, since the property was previously unregistered, it should go the declarant which establishes the partnership
through original land registration proceedings. Now here is a may be introduced.
stranger, practically saying that he has a title to the property.
There has to be evidence to prove the act or declaration that
In 2016, during trial, B settled with A and executed a quitclaim establishes partnership or joint interest. In effect, what the law
stating that B has no right whatsoever over the land. requires is corroboration that establishes the existence of the
partnership or agency or privity by evidence aliunde/extrinsic
Q: Can A claim that B’s quitclaim be admitted against C? evidence.
A: As a rule, the act or omission of another cannot affect a person.
This time, YES. They are co-owners or partners over the land.
Villanueva vs. Balaguer (2009)
Thus, the rights of C can now be prejudiced by the act or
declaration of B. The quitclaim executed by B is admissible against
Facts: On March 31, 1992, petitioner Villanueva, then Assistant
C.
Manager for Operations of Intercontinental IBC-13 was dismissed
from employment on the ground of loss of confidence for
The guarantee of the extra-judicial admission is on the
purportedly selling forged certificates of performance, which are
admissibility, whether or not it is believable is a different story.
MANRESA 2018
official reports certifying the airing of ads for the entities that Another interesting case is Narra Nickel Mining vs Redmont
placed the ads for election candidates. Mining, April 21, 2013.
Contesting his termination, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal NARRA NICKEL MINING vs. REDMONT MINING
dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. During April 21, 2013
the pendency of the labor case, news articles about irregularities in
IBC-13 were published in several newspapers. In these news FACTS:
articles, respondent Virgilio P. Balaguer, then President of IBC-13,
was quoted to have said that he uncovered various anomalies in Narra Nickel Mining, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining filed
IBC-13 during his tenure which led to the dismissal of an Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) applications
Operations Executive for selling forged certificates of performance. before the DENR over an area in Palawan. Redmont also filed an
application for the same area and opposed the other applications
Villanueva filed before the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for on the ground that the other applicants are disqualified as they are
damages against Balaguer, which was later amended by controlled by MIBMI Resources Inc, a 100% Canadian corporation.
impleading IBC-13 as additional defendant. The DENR granted Redmont’s application and disqualified the
others.
Petitioner claimed that respondents caused the publication of the
subject news articles which defamed him by falsely and On appeal, the CA justified upholding Redmont’s contention using
maliciously referring to him as the IBC-13 Operations Executive the exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule on the ground that
who sold forged certificates of performance. corporate documents of MBMI Resources, Inc. furnished its
stockholders in their head office in Canada suggest that they are
IBC-13 also denied participation in the publications, claiming that conducting operations through local counterparts. In other words,
the press statements were done solely by Balaguer without its there is this pamphlet or literature saying the MBMI resources and
authority or sanction. IBC-13 also filed a counterclaim against we controlling the following companies and they listed the
petitioner for malicious filing and a cross-claim against Balaguer. companies all over the world, including the Philippines.
In its cross-claim against Balaguer, IBC stated that “The acts That was what the CA used in saying that the declarations of
complained of by the plaintiff were done solely by co-defendant MBMI in Canada can be used to justify the denial of the MPSAs
Balaguer. Balaguer resorted to these things in his attempt to stave being applied for by these companies here in the Philippines.
off his impending removal from IBC.”
Petitioners question the CA’s use of the exception of Res Inter
Villanueva points to this as an admission that can be taken against Alios Acta or the “admission by co-partner or agent” rule and
Balaguer inasmuch as this is an admission of IBC that its own “admission by privies” under the Rules of Court in the instant
agent, Balaguer, committed the libelous acts. case, by pointing out that statements made by MBMI should not be
admitted in this case since it is not a party to the case and that it is
Issue: Whether or not Section 29 applies as it is said to be an not even a “partner” of petitioners.
admission (because of what to IBC said binding Balaguer).
Remember that there cannot be a partnership between a natural
person and a juridical person. Technically speaking, under the
0:35:01 – 2:06:24 | Kemarie Manligoy Civil Code, a corporation cannot enter into a partnership. And so
the SC here defined a partnership, two or more persons who bind
What Villanueva is saying is that this is an exception to the Res themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a
Inter Alia Rule. Why? That in a way is an admission by an agent or common fund for the purpose of dividing the profits among
at least an admission between jointly interested persons or privies. themselves. On the other hand, joint ventures have been deemed
Diba? IBC 13 and you have this Balaguer, who is the Presidnet at to be akin to partnerships.
that time. That is an admission.
Take note that the law here is very clear, Section 29, Admission by
What Villanueva wants the Court to rule is that because of what a co-partner or agent. Is there a joint venture stated or a situation
IBC 13 said, clearly, whatever happens, Balaguer is guilty. That’s where a corporation is with another corporation? There is nothing
what Villanueva is saying. stated in Section 29.
The question now is will Section 29 apply in this case? Accordingly, culled from the incidents and records of this case, it
can be assumed that the relationships entered between and among
According to the Supreme Court, Rule 130, Section 29 does not petitioners and MBMI are no simple "joint venture agreements."
apply and therefore the general rule that rights of a party cannot As a rule, corporations are prohibited from entering into
be prejudiced by the act, declaration, omission of another is the partnerships. Consequently, corporations enter into joint venture
one that is applicable. Why? Because IBC-13 filed a cross-claim agreements with other corporations or partnerships for certain
against Balaguer which effectively created an adverse interest transactions in order to form "pseudo partnerships."
between them. From the moment there is that adverse interest, the
exception that relates to partnership, agency, joint interest have Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered into by and
already been severed. There’s already no exception. among petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent the legal
prohibition against corporations entering into partnerships, then,
the relationship created should be deemed as "partnerships," and
MANRESA 2018
the laws on partnership should be applied including Section 29 of

Rule 130. So, a joint venture by doctrine is now governed by 1. The declaration or act be made or done during the
Section 29. Although they cannot be termed partnerships strictly existence of the conspiracy;
under Section 29 but now, joint venture being a pseudo 2. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy; and
partnership is actually covered by Section 29 and therefore the 3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than
exception to the Inter Alios Acta Rule applies in this case of Narra the act or declaration
Mining.
To implicate Maja and Sarah, did the declaration here relate to the
conspiracy, the 1st requisite? Yes. Bangs admitted while she was
being interviewed in TV that her companions in the kidnap of
Ramon was Maja and Sarah.
TWO DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER: Was the declaration made during the existence of the conspiracy?
Actually, No because the declaration of Bangs was made long after
1. The fact that a counter-claim was filed against the the conspiracy was over. The object of conspiracy was already
putative co- partner or agent makes Section 29 completed. In fact, there is a case law to the effect that what
inapplicable (see VILLANUEVA vs. BALAGUER) terminates the conspiracy is the arrest of one of the co-
conspirators. So, the moment one of the co-conspirators is arrested,
2. Section 29 is applicable to joint ventures between then that’s the time the conspiracy is actually ended.
corporations, foreign and domestic. (see NARRA vs.
REDMONT, April 21, 2013) Can the prosecutors prove the conspiracy other than the
declaration of Bangs? The question is maybe but how? By means
of evidence aliunde? Why evidence Aliunde? It is because
CONSPIRACY conspiracy cannot be proved by direct evidence. Conspiracy by its
very nature is clandestine. It has to be proven by circumstantial
What is conspiracy? Is it not a crime? Can you define what a evidence in the form of testimonies. There is no documentary
conspiracy is? Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come evidence because the conspirators do not reduce their agreement
into an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and into writing. If the prosecutors can present testimonies that tend to
decides to commit it. That is Section 30. establish the existence of conspiracy by clear and convincing
evidence, the declaration may be admissible.
Rule 130, Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during Let’s use the same example but let’s make it admissible.
its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of THE RAPE OF RAMON: AN ILLUSTRATION
declaration. (admissible as evidence)
There’s that phrase again, “by evidence other than such act of Ramon was kidnapped, rendered unconscious and molested.
declaration” or Evidence Alliunde or Extrinsic Evidence. Before Ramon was abducted, Julia overheard Bangs, Maja and
Sarah planning the crime. Bangs also told her manager about their
THE RAPE OF RAMON: AN ILLUSTRATION plan to abduct Ramon because he was “so darn cute but pakipot.”
(not admissible as evidence) Bangs was arrested and she promptly implicated Maja and Sarah.
A month after Ramon was kidnapped, rendered unconscious and Is Bang’s statement to her manager admissible? Admissible.
molested, Bangs was arrested as main suspect of the crime. When
she was interviewed on TV, she admitted her participation in the To implicate Maja and Sarah, did the declaration relate to the conspiracy?
crime and implicated Maja and Sarah as her fellow culprits in Yes.
planning and executing the crime.
Was the declaration made during the existence of the conspiracy? Yes
Is her statement admissible? That out of court statement, is that because there was yet no arrest.
admissible against Maja and Sarah? We have to draw the line here.
Can the prosecutors prove the conspiracy other than the declaration of
As to Bangs herself, it’s admissible because that’s the general rule Bangs? Yes. They can present Julia who overheard them planning
under Section 26. The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to the abduction.
a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. No question
about that. By her own admission made extrajudicially is binding What are the doctrines to be remembered here?
upon her.
As to Maja and Sarah, as a general rule, No. The rights of a party 1. Incriminating declarations of a co-conspirator made in
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. the absence or without the knowledge of the others after
It’s the general rule under the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule. the conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible.
2. The arrest of the declarant results in the termination of
In order to implicate Maja and Sarah properly, we need to contend the conspiracy.
with the REQUISITES.
MANRESA 2018
3. Anything said by the declarant out-of-court after that the existence of the partnership, agency, joint-interest. Where do
would not anymore be made “during its existence.” we get that? From the case of Villanueva vs Balaguer because the
4. If the declarant takes the witness stand and repeats the Supreme Court said that the moment that one party filed a cross
extrajudicial admission about his co-conspirators in claim against another, it ended their joint-interest, their
court, the same is admissible. partnership, their agency and therefore, the statement should be
made during the existence of such partnership, agency and joint-
Why? Because it is no longer covered by the Res Inter interest, conspiracy. The moment it’s over, di na pwede.
Alios Acta Rule. It’s no longer an extrajudicial admission.
Remember, if you do it in open court, the opportunity of Under Section 31, while holding the title. That’s the common
the other party to cross-examine, the rule does not apply. thread. The statement must have been made by that person while
he was still holding the title. If he made a statement after he held
5. Where the statement of the co-conspirator is made as title, the exception does not apply.
witness in court, there is no need for the conspiracy to be
shown by independent evidence. (People vs. Serrano) What are the REQUISITES?
Another question, are extrajudicial admissions made by a 1. There must be privity between the party and the
conspirator after the conspiracy has terminated and even before declarant;
the trial admissible against the co-conspirator? 2. The declarant as predecessor-in-interest made the
declaration while holding the title to the property; and
No. It has to be made during the existence of the conspiracy. The 3. The admission relates to the property.
general rule is no but there are exceptions that you need to take
particular note of: Who are Privies?
1. presence of the conspirator who expressly or impliedly Those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same
agreed therein; (In a way, he adopted already). rights of property or subject matter such as personal
2. Where the facts in said admission are confirmed in the representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary
individual extrajudicial confessions made by the co- grantees, or judgment creditors or purchasers from them with
conspirator after their apprehension; (because in that notice to the facts. (Black Law’s Dictionary) The Supreme Court, in
situation he already waived the admission himself) certain cases, calls this as “causa habientes” or successor, assignee,
3. As a circumstance, to determine the credibility of the or heir.
witness; or
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the Privity can be by virtue of a contract, by representation or even by
co-conspirators’ participation in the offense. blood.
We are talking about confessions. Remember in Political Law and Examples:

even in Criminal Law the concept of Interlocking Confessions.
1. By contract: A lessor and his lessee, a grantor and a
INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS grantee, an assignor and an assignee
2. By representation: An executor or an administrator and
These are extrajudicial confessions identical in their material the estate of the deceased
respects. 3. By blood: An heir and his ascendant
Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion Illustration given by Riano:

and are identical with each other in their material respects and
confirmatory of the others are admissible as circumstantial X, the father of Z, while the former was alive, openly told his
evidence against co-accused implicated therein to show the acquaintances, that the land where his house stood had already
probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of been sold to Y.
the crime. (People vs. Encipido, 146 SCRA 492)
Is that an example of Section 31? The answer is NO because the
Just take note of what Interlocking Confessions are. declaration by X is not admissible against Z, the sole heir of Y,
The last exception is Admission by Privies. because the statement was made after X held title to the land.
What are the doctrines to remember here?

ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
Gevero vs. IAC
Rule 130, Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives 189 SCRA 201
title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is The rule on admission of privies does not apply when the former
evidence against the former. owner of the property made the declaration after he ceased to be
the owner of the property.
We have partnership, agency, joint-interest, conspiracy, and
privity. What’s the common thread to all these exceptions? Meaning of privity – in Alpuerto vs Pastor (GR NO. L-12794,
Remember that the statement must have been made as well during October 14, 1918)
MANRESA 2018
The said word denotes the idea of succession, not only by right of MODUS OPERANDI
heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of succession by
singular title, derived from acts inter vivos. There are exceptions however to the 2nd part of the Res Inter Alios
Acta Rule. The so-called Modus Operandi.
Let’s go to the 2nd part of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule.
Evidence to similar acts may be received to prove a specific intent,
SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE knowledge, identity,
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like. On the
Rule 130, Section 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that basis of the example I gave you, the prosecution can present the
one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible cases not as proof of guilt but as proof merely of a certain
to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at propensity, habit, or scheme on the part of the perpetrator, Matteo,
another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or of sexually molesting his house helpers. It’s not indicative of the
knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, truth. What happened in the past were not offering that in the case
and the like. right now to prove that he is guilty. All we are saying is these
cases exist because probably, it’s part of his propensity.
Let’s focus on the 1st part of the provision, “Evidence that one did or
did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he Remember that in relevance, anything that is related to the fact in
did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time”. issue, evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed except
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability
(I want you to be very very familiar with the phraseology of or improbability of the fact in issue. If there’s a logical connection
Section 34.) and not necessarily to prove the truth but because it is
circumstantially relevant, it is admissible.
Section 34 prohibits the admission of the so called propensity
evidence which is evidence that tends to show that what a person A case you need to read is Cruz vs CA, July 27, 1998.
has done at one time is probative or proof of the contention that he
has done a similar act at another time. Cruz vs CA
July 27, 1998
Example:
FACTS:
In 2010, Matteo was accused of raping his maid. The case was
settled. In 2011, a case for acts of lasciviousness was filed by In 1997, the Cruz heirs (Sunshine, Geneva and Rayver) executed a
another helper against Matteo. The case was also settled. In 2012, deed of partition of their father's estate. In the said Deed, they
Matteo was charged with raping his female cook. The case is still declared themselves to be the absolute owners over the respective
pending. In 2013, he was sued again by his labander. lands adjudicated to them individually. Subsequently, however,
the same heirs executed a MOA which stated that:
Can the prosecution present as proof his prior cases as evidence of
his guilt for the 2013 charge? Ofcourse, it’s not admissible. "Despite the execution of the Deed of Partition and the eventual disposal
or sale of their respective shares, the contracting parties herein
Why inadmissible? covenanted and agreed among themselves that they shall share alike and
receive equal shares from the proceeds of the sale of any lot or lots allotted
1. Is it relevant to the fact in issue on whether he committed to and adjudicated in their individual names by virtue of this deed of
the rape right now? partial partition."
NO. What the person did in the past, is irrelevant to the Atty. Espejo: In other words, there is already a partition of
issue of whether he did what he is charged at present. property. When you partition, you convert co-ownership which
the law abhors into something different. Now, ownership will be
2. On the issue of propriety, evidence of similar acts or individual and the ownership over the property is no longer as to
occurrences compels the defendant to make allegations spiritual shares but shares as to specific metes and bounds. That’s
that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in what happens in partition.
his defense, raises a variety of relevant issues, and
diverts the attention of the court from the issues Geneva obtained a loan which she was unable to pay. A case was
immediately before it. filed against her which she lost. Still unable to pay, a parcel of land
adjudicated to Geneva under the Deed of Partition was levied on
The fact in issue is whether you raped somebody in 2013, execution and was bought by her creditor as highest bidder.
what does it matter in 2012 that you have to prove or in
2011 or in 2010. What the defendant is forced to do is to Her co-heirs filed a case to question the execution sale on the
defend not only 2013 but also to defend his alleged acts ground that, as co-owners, they have the right to redeem the
in 2010-2012. The defendant is defending not only one property.
charge but practically everything that he did in the past.
What you did in the past does not matter in determining What’s conflicting is, here there is a Deed of Partition where they
your liability in the present. segregated the property among themselves and yet they executed
later on where they said that if the property is sold, the proceeds of
MANRESA 2018
such sale will be shared by them equally, irrespective of the fact

that there is already a Deed of Partition. 3. In actions based on Fraud and Deceit it sheds light on the
state of mind or knowledge of a person; it provides
During trial, Geneva's creditor belied this co-ownership. It alleged insight into such person's motive or intent; it uncovers a
that there is no co-ownership because there were already Deeds of scheme, design or plan; or it reveals a mistake.
Sale and Contracts of Mortgage entered into by Geneva where she
stated that she was the absolute owner of the lands given to her by We are done with the RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE.
the Deed of Partition, including the one levied upon during
execution. Geneva objected on the ground of Res Inter Alios Acta.
So previous acts; they are making use of them as evidence to prove ADMISSION BY SILENCE
whether or not there is co-ownership at present.
Rule 130, Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or
HELD: declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
The Supreme Court said, the Res inter alios acts prohibits the declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not
admission of evidence that tends to show that what a person has true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given
done at one time is probative of the contention that he has done a in evidence against him.
similar act at another time.
If something happens in front of you or somebody says something
The rule, however, is not without exception. While inadmissible in that you should refute, if you don’t refute and remained silent, you
general, collateral facts may be received as evidence under agree with that statement. That’s admission by silence. He who is
exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational similarity or silent is deemed to consent.
resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered
and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. Remember the REQUISITES:
So, there’s this rational similarity or resemblance, pattern of 1. The party must have heard or observed the act or
behavior. Evidence of similar acts may frequently become declaration of the other person.
relevant, especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it 2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it.
sheds light on the state of mind and knowledge of the person . It 3. He must have understood the statement.
provides insight into such person’s motive or intent. It uncovers a 1. He must have an interest to object, such that he would
scheme, design or plan or it reveals a mistake. naturally have done so, if the statement was not true;
4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
In this case, petitioners Cruz argue that transactions relating to the 5. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his
other parcels of land they entered into, are inadmissible as silence is material to the issue.
evidence to show that the parcels in issue are not co-owned.
Just take note of what these requisites are. You can find them in the case
The Supreme Court here said that evidence of such transactions of People vs Aransa, July 29, 1978.
falls under the exception to the rule on res inter alios acta. They are
admissible because they are relevant to the issue and corroborative Take note however that the rule on admission by silence does not
of evidence already received. apply when:
According to the Supreme Court, why are the transactions 1. a person is under an official investigation. A person
previously made by Geneva relevant? under custodial investigation for an omission of an
offense has a right to remain silent and be informed of
The nature of ownership of said property should be the same as that right.
that of the lots in question since they are all subject to the MOA. If
the parcels of land were held and disposed by petitioners in fee 2. The silence of an accused under custody or his failure to
simple, in the concept of owners, then the lots in question should deny statements by another implicating him in a crime
similarly be treated as absolutely owned in fee simple by Geneva's cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his
creditor. participation in the commission of the crime.
3. Where no good reason exists for the party to comment

How do we summarize the exceptions? on the act or declaration, as when the act or declaration
was not specifically directed to the party who remained
1. Evidence of similar acts may be received to prove a silent, the rule does not apply.
specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like. 4. the party had no opportunity to comment on the act or
declaration (as when he heard it but he has no
2. When there is a Rational Similarity or resemblance opportunity to comment or he was not able to comment
between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and because he was not yet aware)
the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be
proved (that’s Cruz vs CA), the second part of the Res
Inter Alios Acta rule does not apply.
MANRESA 2018
5. Where the act or declaration was made in the course of According to the SC, his silence on this and other related
an official investigation or when his silence is upon the suggestions can be taken as adoptive admissions by him. An
advice of counsel, the rule does not apply. adoptive admission is a party's reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as
When something happens that is naturally one that invokes an an admission of something stated or implied by the other person.
instinctual response and the person remains quiet, that is what
admission by silence is all about. This is what I mentioned earlier that the SC had to go beyond
Philippine Law in order to have basis for a ruling that’s going to be
the basis itself for the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration
because Estrada here is trying to go back as the Philippine
President despite the fact that Arroyo was already sworn in and
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission the government was already going back to normal.
It states that a party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily What was the main evidence for the State here? The Angara Diary.
adopt or ratify another's statement. Where it appears that a party
clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements 1. It’s not even the Angara diary itself. It was a newspaper
of another, evidence of those statements is admissible against him. accounts of the Angara diary making it a violation of the
Best Evidence Rule. The Supreme Court knowing that it’s
Example: really a violation of the Best Evidence Rule, the SC had to
go outside Philippine Law jurisprudence and said that if
Somebody says that A is fat and after, another person says “he is the opponent does not prima facie dispute it, then it’s
ugly too”. In effect, he adopts what he says. admissible despite not being original and that’s from
American jurisprudence.
It is a party's reaction to a statement or action by another person
when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission 2. If it’s a mere newspaper account of Angara’s diary which
of something stated or implied by the other person and the effect by itself is also a mere recollection of events, what is it?
there would be the 3rd person’s statements become the admission It’s hearsay. In fact it is triple hearsay. (From Estrada to
of the party embracing or espousing it. That becomes his Angara to the publisher) The newspaper here was used as
admission. evidence. The SC had no choice but to accept it.
Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corp. 3. There’s Adoptive Admission. They cannot apply Section
Aug. 8, 2006 32 not strictly. Estrada said “I will not leave the country”.
If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the SC cannot just
Adoptive admission may occur when a party: ask Arroyo to step down. SC here in a way became
political which otherwise would lead to absurd results.
1. expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made
by another
2. hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it; CONFESSION
3. utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of
another; Rule 130, Section 33.Confession. — The declaration of an accused
4. replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
by another but ignores further points which he or she necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against
has heard the other make or him.
5. reads and signs a written statement made by another.
CONFESSION is a categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by
an accused of the offense charged or of any offense necessarily
The next case is Estrada vs Desierto which is one of the most included therein, without any exculpatory statement or
important case which legitimized or at the very least set basis for explanation. Meaning, it is unqualified, unequivocal
the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration. acknowledgement of guilt. It has to be categorical because if there
is a qualification, there is a condition to the admission of guilt,
Estrada vs. Desierto then that’s no longer a confession.
2001
So even if you admit to the offense but you alleged a justification,
During EDSA II, according to the Angara diary, the Armed Forces it’s merely an admission.
withdrew its support as President or Commander in Chief. Thus,
Angara had to allegedly ask Senate President Pimentel to advice Take note that there are two (2) kinds of Confession:
Estrada to consider the option of a dignified exit or resignation.
Estrada did not say anything. He did not object to the suggested 1. Judicial confession which is made by the accused before
option and simply he would never leave the country. He did not a court whether done orally or in writing and in the
refute but only said he will not leave the country. course of legal proceedings therein and, by itself, can
sustain conviction.
Ruling:
MANRESA 2018
So he made a confession and then it’s before the court 5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence
even if the prosecution does not present any other to show the probability of participation by the co-
evidence, that would be enough to sustain a conviction. conspirator;
An exception to that would be the case of Fule vs CA, the 6. When the confessant testified for his co-defendant; and
Fule Doctrine 7. Where the co-conspirator's extrajudicial confession is
corroborated by other evidence of record.
The Fule Doctrine
How do we distinguish admission on one hand and confession on
If the confession is reduced into writing or was obtained the other.
during the Pre-Trial of a criminal case reduced into
writing in the form of a Pre-trial agreement but if that Admission Confession
Pre-Trial agreement is not signed by the accusedor
Statement of fact which
counsel, the confession will not be admissible in evidence Declaration
does not involve an
and therefore it does not bind the accused. Definition acknowledging one’s guilt
acknowledgement of guilt
of the offense charged
or liability
2. Extrajudicial confession which is made in any other place
or occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless Must be express; It cannot
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Form Express/Implied simply be implied from
the conduct of a party
What are the requisites for a Confession to be Admissible as Party or 3rd person;
As to who Must come from the
Evidence? anybody can make a
makes it accused himself
confession
1. It must involve an express and categorical applies only in Criminal
Type of Any case whether civil,
acknowledgement of guilt; case; there’s no such thing
case criminal or administrative
2. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal as confession in civil cases
offense. It must be a crime you are admitting to.
3. It must have been given voluntarily; Bar Question 2014
4. It must have been intelligently made, the accused
realizing the importance or legal significance of his act; Rene, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities
5. There must have been no violation of the accused’s rights with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over media,
under Section 12 of Article of the 1987 Constitution Rene opted to release his statement to the press which goes:
(Miranda rights)
"I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my
Take note, there is no evidence of a higher quality than a guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I
confession. It reminds me of the case of People vs Larapie where performed acts that may take one's life away, I hope and pray that justice
the Supreme Court said that object evidence or real evidence are will be served the right way. God bless us all”
evidence of highest order. Now, the SC again is saying that
confession is evidence only of higher quality. It represents the Love, Rene
outward manifestation of a man. Unless, therefore, a confession is
nullified by evidence of duress, the same is admissible as an
evidence of guilt of a high quality. Verily, confession made during Is that a confession or an uncategorical statement of guilt?
trial is stronger than all guilt.
No. He made a qualification. “Although I admit that I performed
May the extra-judicial confession of an accused be admitted in acts that may take one's life away, I hope and pray that justice will
evidence against his co-accused? be served the right way”. He’s not making an express admission of
guilt. What else? Is he confessing to facts that constitute to an
The general rule is no. An extra-judicial confession is not offense. No. “acts that may take one's life away” which can be
admissible against the confessor’s co-accused. Said confession is interpreted in another way and not necessarily the offense. There
hearsay evidence and violative of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule. is a qualification which makes it a non-confession. He did not
make an express confession of guilt and the most it can be treated
Take note that we discussed the exceptions but there are additional as is an admission.
exceptions:
Take note of the rule as to Extrajudicial Confessions.
1. In case of implied acquiescence of the co-accused to the
extrajudicial confession;
2. In case of interlocking confessions; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the
confessant after being apprised of such confession;
Rule 133, Section 3. – An extrajudicial confession made by an
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
was confessed by one of the accused and said confession
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
is used only as corroborating evidence
What is the meaning of corpus delicti?
MANRESA 2018
Corpus delicti means the body of the crime. It means the actual
commission of the crime charged (People vs. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1), or Rule 130, Section 35. Unaccepted offer. — An offer in writing to
the specific fact of loss or injury (People vs. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381). pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument
or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
What are examples of Corpora Delicti? Corpora meaning the equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money,
plural of corpus. instrument, or property.
1. In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of

death which may be proved even circumstantially. SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
(People vs. Garcia)
0:07:01 – 1:41:31 | Lara Delos Santos
Meaning, it’s not the literal body because he can even
make a prosecution for murder even if the body was Rule 130 Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
never found. The fact of death is enough. knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
2. In robbery or theft, fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75 Phil. which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
668). provided in these rules. (30a)
3. In arson, the fact of burning. (People v. Marquez, 77 Phil.
83) What is the Cebuano term for this? Chismis. It is information
passed on by word of mouth from one person to another (to the
In Rule 133, Section 3 in effect, it requires that for a conviction to witness) rather than evidence experienced first hand by the
be made based on an extra-judicial confession, there must be witness.
evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the law absolutely requires more
than one type of evidence to convict – extrajudicial confession and The requirement of course is that it has to be derived from his own
corpus delicti. There is required corroboration. In a way, the law perception, or personal knowledge of matters which he personally
requires numerical evidence. The evidence should be more than experienced. What we see, touch, hear, smell and taste, these are
one. the senses that is the source of our perception. Whatever we
perceive, we have personal knowledge of.
What are other instances where the law absolutely mandates the
presentation of more than one type or piece of evidence in order to
prove a matter of fact? What are the instances for that matter UNCHUAN vs. LOZADA (April 16, 2009)
where it is not required such that only one type of evidence is
required? Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or
in part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other
1. Conviction for rape can be made even from the sole than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced.
testimony of the victim which we learned during the
DNA evidence discussion. So a witness would testify in court, he would say something that
was merely related to him and when that happens. Is he testifying
2. Conviction for murder can be made even from just the based on his personal knowledge? No. Why? Because whether or
testimony of one eyewitness for as long as the eyewitness not what he is saying is true would depend on information that
is credible. exists outside the courtroom from a source that is not inside the
courtroom.
In the above instances, plurality of evidence is not required.
When is plurality of evidence required? There are many instances Characteristics of Hearsay Evidence
but for purposes of discussion –
1. It is an out-of-court declaration repeated by a witness who
1. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires himself did not make the declaration.
that there be more than one circumstance (Rule 133, 2. It is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Section 4). 3. As a general rule, it is inadmissible.
2. Two-witness rule in treason. In the crime of treason On out-of-court declaration

under Art. 114 of the Revised Penal Code, no person If you heard it from a different court in a different case, that would
shall be convicted unless on the testimony of two still be considered an out-of-court declaration. So, the venue
witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession would not matter. It is when and where you made it. Did you
of the accused in open court. make your testimony in court based on personal knowledge? If
not, then it is hearsay.
3. A person executing the notarial will should sign on every
page and must be witnessed by at least three (3) persons On offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
who should also sign the will (Art. 805, Civil Code of the This is a very important characteristic that you need to remember.
Philippines). So, when you present the will for probate If your statement is simply to prove that it was said but you are
later on, how many witnesses should be presented at the not offering it as the truth of the statement, then it is not
bare minimum? three (3). considered hearsay.
MANRESA 2018
Parol Evidence Rule, if you faile to object ir you cross examine on

Concepts of Hearsay Evidence (according to Dean Riano) prohibited matters, again, that is waived.
1. Second hand information - Information not derived from the The difference is, admissibility in the Hearsay Evidence is not the
personal knowledge of the witness. same as evidentiary weight or probative value. For example a
2. Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge photocopy of a document may be admitted by the court and later
but the adverse party is not given opportunity to cross-examine. on believed by the court precisely because there was failure to
object to the presentation of such secondary evidence. But, what is
For example, the witness testifies in court on matters that is the effect of that failure?
personally known to him. After direct examination, the court says
that the defendant now has the opportunity to cross-examine on PHILIPPINE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION vs.
the next scheduled hearing. So the cross examination was FIREMATIC PHILIPPINES, INC. (2007)
postponed through no fault of the proponent or the person
bringing in the witness to testify in court. The lack of objection may make an incompetent evidence
admissible, but admissibility of evidence should not be equated
On the next scheduled hearing, the witness did not appear and with weight of evidence. Indeed, hearsay evidence whether
could no longer be located. What’s the remedy here? It is to strike objected to or not has no probative value.
off the testimony from the records because there was no cross-
examintation. Hearsay Evidence May Be Oral, Written, or Non-verbal Conduct
The rule excluding hearsay is not limited to oral statements. It also
applies equally well to written evidence (such as affidavits, letters,
REQUISITES sworn statements) as well as to non-verbal conduct (such as
gestures and actions).
1. It must be an assertive statement - You are actually offering it to
prove the truth. It is made by an out of court declarant and is made Affidavits
to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. The constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on
2. As a general rule, it is must made by an out-of-court declarant affidavits. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied
3. It is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the credibility
of any person, who, by affidavit or deposition, would impute the
*** It brings us to the question, “Why does it need to be excluded?” commission of an offense to him. It would be to disregard one of
Because if we put it legally, for all we know, it’s just chismis and it the most valuable guarantees of a person accused if solely on the
cannot be confirmed. It is inherently unreliable. affidavits presented, his guilt could be predicated.
Rationale of Inadmissibility Remember, If you are going to submit an affidavit (not a judicial
affidavit), just the ordinary affidavit, like an affidavit of loss, it’s
1. Absence of cross-examination not actually your language that is used but the notary public’s
The absence of cross examination. Remember that under the law language that is employed or that or the lawyer who prepared the
on procedure, cross examination serves a very important function. affidavit. It’s not the language of the affiant himself. That is the
It tests the credibility of the witness whether he is telling the truth weakness of an affidavit.
or not. While you can examine the witness, you cannot cross-
examine the source of his information. Suppose, an affidavit ex pate made, outside of court is presented in
court as evidence. Take note, it is notarized, making it a public
2. Absence of demeanor evidence document. Will it testify on its own? No.
What was uttered to him by somebody else, that somebody else
cannot be observed by the court. The court cannot determine the So an affidavit where the affiant does not take the witness stand to
credibility of an out-of-court declarant by judging his demeanor. repeat the contents of his affidavit, in the manner prescribed by
law, that is considered as hearsay evidence.
3. Absence of oath or affirmation
It’s the oath or affirmation that would lead a person to be honest.
That is the juridical sanction here. If you do not stay true, you can UNCHUAN vs. LOZADA
be subjected to perjury. But when it is a statement coming from an
out-of-court declarant, you can say anything you want. You cannot It is a hornbook doctrine that an affidavit is merely hearsay
be subjected to perjury. evidence where its maker did not take the witness stand. Verily,
the sworn statement of Anita was of this kind because she did
not appear in court to affirm her averments therein.
As a Rule of Exclusion
The hearsay character of object evidence may be waived by failure

to object.
Newspapers
Like in the Best Evidence Rule, you fail to object in the presentation It is Double Deck Hearsay. It is hearsay within hearsay. It is when
of secondary proof, it’s waived. a witness testifies as to an assertion by an out-of-court declarant
MANRESA 2018
which in turn is merely second-hand information. Double deck earth is flat and it’s true? Am I allowed to say that in court? No.
hearsay is actually mere third-hand information. Because it is second hand information. It’s hearsay.
Take note however, that in jurisprudence, newspapers are But what do I have personal knowledge of? That you told me that
considered as self-authenticated. We have three doctrines with the earth is flat. So am I allowed therefore to testify in court and
regard to hearsay: say that “according to my friend the earth is flat”? I am not offering it
as proof that the earth is flat but that somebody told me that the
1. Double Deck Hearsay earth is flat. You’re simply telling the court that yes he said it but
2. Self- authenticating I’m not saying that it’s true.
(according to American jurisprudence)
3. All copies of newspapers are considered originals ESPINELI vs. PEOPLE (2014)
Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is

BAR QUESTION 2003 relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As
Homer Honesto Henson was charged with robbery. On the a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not
strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court, Homer Honesto secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a
Henson was arrested by the police operatives. They seized from fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
his person a handgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm such a fact. This is known as the doctrine of independently
was also filed against him. In a press conference called by the relevant statements.
police, Homer Honesto Henson admitted that he had robbed the
victim of jewelry valued at P 500, 000. The robbery and illegal This is an exception to the hearsay rule. It is a non-codal exception
possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The prosecution but it is an exception.
presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report to the
reporter who was present during the press conference stating that Where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant,
Homer Honesto Henson admitted the robbery. It likewise the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial, it is exempted from the
presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office Hearsay Rule.
attesting that the accused had no license to carry any firearm. The
certifying officer, however, was not presented as a witness. Both
pieces of evidence were objected to by the defense.
Tenor
Question: Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence
against Homer Honesto Henson? The testimony of a witness is made to prove the mere fact that
something said to him by someone and not the truth of what was
Suggested Answer: Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in said.
evidence against Henson. Regardless of the truth or the falsity of a
statement, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may
be shown where the fact that it has been made is relevant. Why is an INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENT
Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but admissible despite being hearsay?
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact; in issue, or 1. Because it is RELEVANT.
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. 2. They are relevant because the statement itself is:
(Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Chatto, 1992) a. Either the very fact in issue; or
b. Circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS Example for “the very fact in issue”:
(IRS)
Consider an action for oral defamation where the following
While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by exchange took place between the prosecutor and his witness:
another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of
the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, IT IS Prosecutor: What did you hear the accused say?
NOT HEARSAY if the purpose of placing the statement on the Defense: Objection, Your Honor. Question calls for hearsay
record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the testimony!
tenor of such statement, was made. Court: Not so fast! Witness may answer.
Witness: The accused said while pointing to the victim: “You
Atty JZE: Anybody, tell me any information. Assume for example are a thief. You stole my money! You are a liar!”
you told me that the earth is flat. You told me that. What do I have
personal knowledge of? I had no personal knowledge that the (Is it true that he is a thief? Does it matter if it’s true r not? In an
earth is flat. It was your information. But I do have personal action for oral defamation, isn’t it that it is enough that an
knowledge that YOU TOLD ME THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT. imputation was made and somebody heard about it. It is the very
fact in issue.)
So what am I allowed to testify in court about? Can I tell and
testify to the court that based on my friend, made out of court, the
MANRESA 2018
Example for “circumstantial evidence of the fact in issue”: (6) Cross-examination could not
7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant
Let us assume we have a special proceeding in court. Let us say it child is remote; and
is the probate of a testator’s will. Some heirs who felt aggrieved by (8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are
the dispositions in the will have raised the issue of the testator’s such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant
sanity. The will was purportedly executed on January 3 of the child misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
previous year. A witness for the oppositor is on the stand to testify
on the testator’s alleged incapacity. c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable
under the following situations:
Q: How long have you known the testator?
A: For 20 years by the time he died, Sir. (1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of
Q: How did you come to know him? memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe
A: I was her nurse for 20 years, Sir. psychological injury; or
Q: On January 3, 2004, what did you hear the testator say? (2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his
Objection, Your Honor! (Opposing counsel objects) Court: statement has been unable to procure his attendance by
Not so fast, witness may answer! process or other reasonable means.
A: In the morning of January 3, he said, “I am DARNA!”
d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay
(Is it true that he is Darna? No.. But if he beilieves that he is Darna testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by
then it proves that he is not of sound mind. The statement of the other admissible evidence.
testator is not the very fact in issue but it is circumstantially
relevant to the fact in issue, which is that the testator was of What is the situation here? It is an out of court declaration in all
unsound mind at the time the will was made. Technically probability, the child victim of the accused may not be available to
speaking, this is hearsay. You are testifying to a second hand testify. She cannot come to court. Probably in rape-slay cases. But
information.) you need to remember that sexual abuse specially in this situation
is repeated. So it’s quite possible that the kids played and they
OTHER NON-CODAL EXCEPTIONS talked about what happened. So you bring a child to testify about
what the other child who is unavailable has told him. That would
1. Rule on Examination of Witness normally be hearsay but under section 28, provided you follow the
2. Admission of a Party guidelines.
3. Relaxation of the Hearsay Exclusion
4. Present Sense Impression 2. Admission of a party:
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
1. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness: against him.
Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. – There are two types of admission:
A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act Admissions per se (Section 26)
of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, Self –serving admissions
may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal
proceeding subject to the following rules: What happens in Section 26 is that a party in a case stated
something that is adverse to his claim or defense. It is something
a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its that prejudices him and he would not admit that in court.
proponent shall make known to the adverse party the
intention to offer such statement and its particulars to Who will testify about it?
provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is Somebody else who heard that party say something. That would
available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse be hearsay but because it is adverse to the interest of the admitter,
party, require the child to be present at the presentation then it is admissible--
of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the
adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of UNCHUAN vs. LOZADA
such circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
Section 26 of Rule 130 provides that "the act, declaration or
b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
statement, the court shall consider the time, content and against him. It has long been settled that these admissions are
circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia admissible even if they are hearsay.
of reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie; 3. Relaxation of the Hearsay Exclusion in Writ of Amparo
(2) The general character of the declarant child; Cases
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement; RAZON, JR. vs. TAGITIS (2009)
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces
between the declarant child and witness; of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any
MANRESA 2018
evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be CODAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. 1. Dying declaration
2. Declaration against interest.
In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of 3. Act or declaration about pedigree
reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand 4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. 5. Common reputation
Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this 6. Part of res gestae
basic minimum test. 7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
Razon vs. Tagitis is a case of enforced disappearance. Mrs. Tagitis 9. Commercial lists and the like
was told by a certain Col. Kasim that her husband was in custody 10. Learned treatises
of the police and was being interrogated. This statement was the 11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
basis of filing of the writ of amparo.
When the wife testifies in court, her testimony of what was told by Rule 130, Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a
Col. Kasim is hearsay. In fact, the information coming from Col. dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending
Kasim was also related to him by somebody else. It is double deck death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
hearsay already. subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
But SC said in this case, there is no need to be strict. Somehow
without saying, SC took judicial notice of the fact that in cases of Other Names:
forced disappearances, guarded against writ of amparo, the usual 1. Ante Mortem Statement
pieces of evidence is hearsay. 2. Statements in Articulo Mortis
PEOPLE vs. TOLEDO (1928)

4. Present Sense Impression
A dying declaration is admitted of necessity in order, as the
LOZANO vs. PEOPLE (2010) Supreme Court of Mississippi states, "to reach those man slayers
who perpetrate their crimes when there are no other
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made eyewitnesses."
while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or
immediately thereafter, is not barred by the rule against hearsay. For example, in an action film, there’s a person who was shot.
The rationale for the “present sense impression” exception is that: Fernando goes to the victim and asks him “who shot you?” The
victim answers “Pacquito”.Then the victim expires. Who else
1. There is no substantial danger that defects in the declarant’s would know who killed the victim were it not for the final
memory will affect the value of the statement; declaration uttered? That is why we call it statement uttered in
2. The declarant would not have had much time to fabricate before articulo mortis or post mortem statement.
making the statement; and
3. In many cases, the person to whom the statement was Remember that it should not be a statement about anything; like
addressed would have been in a position to check its accuracy; somebody is about to die and he tells you “the earth is flat”. It is
hence, the declarant could speak with care. not a dying declaration because it does not concern the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.
Atty Espejo asks the class: Is it cold?
Class: Yes
The Fugitive
Assuming you’re not lying, someone heard you saying “It’s cold!”,
can that person testify in court and offer as truth of the assertion One popular example of a dying declaration was in the movie
that it was cold at that time? That is present sense impression. This “The Fugitive”. Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford), a successful
is when you speak according to your present sense, how you feel vascular surgeon in Chicago, came home one night to find his
at the very moment. This is your immediate spontaneous reaction wife Helen fatally wounded by a man with a prosthetic arm, and
to particular event that is making it truthful. though he attempted to subdue the killer, the man escaped.
If somebody hears you uttering your impression at a particular Before the wife died while she was being attacked, she managed
even that is going on, that is an exception to the hearsay rule. You to contact 911. While on the line, she saw her husband (Ford)
don’t have to testify, but the person who heard you could testify. arriving home and all she could say was “Richard. Richard.”
Then, she died.
It is related to “Part of Res Gestae” or startling occurence. You
react to a startling occurrence. The lack of evidence of a break-in, fingerprints being found on
the gun and the bullets, and Helen’s misunderstood 911 call led
the Chicago Police Department to charge Kimble with murder,
and he is sentenced to death by lethal injection.
MANRESA 2018
party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood

Reasons for Admissibility is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a
PEOPLE vs. BAUTISTA situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to
G.R. No. 111149 September 5, 1997 that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.
There are two (2) obvious reasons for the admissibility of a dying Why did I repeat this? Because that is how you should answer
declaration: your exams. Tha language of the SC when dealing with dying
declarations are always the same. Borrow the language of the SC.
(a) NECESSITY and (b) TRUSTWORTHINESS.
Necessity, because the declarants death renders impossible his Requisites of a Dying Declaration (Bar 1998)
taking the witness stand.
PEOPLE vs. PALANAS, four conditions must concur:
And trustworthiness, since the declaration is made in extremity,
when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this 1. The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and circumstances of the declarant’s death;
the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak 2. That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is
the truth. A situation so solemn and awful is considered by the conscious of his impending death;
law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by 3. The declarant was competent as a witness (if he survived); and
an oath administered in court. 4. The declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide,
Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
What the SC presupposes is this, when you are at a point of death,
will your last words on earth be a lie? Or will you be honest
because you are scared that you are about to meet your creator? It Requisite #1: Declaration concerns the cause and surrounding
creates an obligation equal to that as imposed by an oath. You are circumstances of the declarant’s death
presumed not to perjure yourself.
Like who shot him, how he was attacked, how it happened,
anything that has to do with death.
Trustworthiness
Example: X, the husband, was shot while Y, the wife, was stabbed.
MARTURILLAS vs. PEOPLE At the emergency room of the hospital, X said that it was Z who
G.R. No. 163217April 18, 2006 stabbed his wife. Then, he died.
FACTS: Lito Santos was eating supper in their kitchen when he Q: Can that be considered a dying declaration?
heard a gunshot. From a distance of about ten (10) meters, he also A: NO! X is not making a dying declaration of his OWN death. He
noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun. was making a dying declaration of his wife’s death. Therefore, it
Moments later, he saw his neighbor Artemio (the victim) cannot be considered a dying declaration. But we will learn later
clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction of on that it can be considered as part of the res gestae.
his (Lito’s) kitchen. Artemio shouted to him, ‘Tabangiko Pre,
gipusil ko ni kapitan.’ (Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.) More often than not, the requisite relates to the inquiry of who
killed the declarant but it does not preclude information as to the
Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of Artemio, coming motive and other conditions that attended the killing of the
from her house towards the direction where Artemio was declarant. This also means that a dying declaration may be used
sprawled on the ground. Ernita was hysterical, jumping and not only against the Accused but also in his favour.
shouting, ‘Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana!’
BAR QUESTION (2017)
HELD: Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim
on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest,
credence and respect. Persons aware of an impending death have Venancio told the attending physician, In a very feeble voice, that
been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him. Venancio
extremely scrupulous in their accusations. The dying declaration added that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man
is given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of one’s whose cadaver was lying on the bed beside him.
impending death will make a careless and false accusation.
In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio
and Vicente, are all the statements of Venancio admissible as
PEOPLE vs. PALANAS dying declarations? Explain your answer. (5%)
June 17, 2015
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, not all the statements of Venancio
This declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and are admissible as dying declarations.
is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his
impending death would make a careless and false accusation. Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is
Verily, because the declaration was made in extremity, when the admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule provided that such
MANRESA 2018
declaration relates to the cause of the declarant’s death.

Gerald was shot but he can still walk and talk. He went home to
Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who shot him is his house, cleaned up his own wounds and went out to go to the
admissible as a dying declaration. The same related to hospital. Along the way, he rode a taxi. The driver was a
Venancio’s own demise. It may be inferred that Venancio had childhood friend, Matteo who asked him what happened to him.
consciousness of his impending death since he suffered gunshot He answered that Luis shot him but that he was okay. It was only
wounds to his chest which would necessarily be mortal wounds. a flesh wound.
However, Venancio’s statement that it was Arnulfo who At the hospital, Gerald died after a couple of hours. There was a
shot Vicente is not admissible as a dying declaration since it did rabid acceleration of death despite the fact that he did not know na
not relate to the cause of the declarant’s death but to the death of mamatay na siya. It is possible because of adrenalin.
another person.
Q: Is the statement of Gerald to Matteo a dying declaration?
Talking about earlier, it can be used against the accused but also in A: NO, because he made the statement without having thought
his favour as well—making it both inculpatory and exculpatory. that he is already dying. He made the statement thinking that it
An example there is a case handled by John Adams (2nd president was a flesh wound and the he would survive it. In order to be
of the US): admissible, the declarant must have thought that he was about to
die because it is the fact that the declaration is “made in extremity,
The Boston Massacre when the party is at the point of death and every hope of this
world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the
In 1770, a street confrontation, known as the Boston Massacre, mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the
resulted in British soldiers killing five civilians. The accused truth” that makes the declaration trustworthy.
soldiers were arrested on criminal charges. One of the victims,
Patrick Carr, told his doctor before he died that the soldiers had MARTURILLAS vs. PEOPLE
been provoked.
Consciousness of an impending death need to be explicitly stated
The doctor’s testimony helped John Adams to secure acquittals but may be established by circumstantial evidence. The law does
for some of the accused and reduced charges for the rest. It may not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the
thus be used as proof of a justifying circumstance or as proof that inevitability of death. The perception may be established from
another person committed the killing other than the accused. surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant’s
injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was
Another example: a consciousness of impending death.
A is accused of killing X. X prior to his death made a dying
declaration saying that it was actually Y who killed him or shot Even if the declarant did not make an explicit statement of that
him. So the accused will now be exonerated on the basis of the realization, the degree and seriousness of the words and the fact
dying declaration implicating somebody else of the crime. that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as
sufficient evidence that the declaration was made by the victim
Requisite #2: When the declaration was made, the declarant is with full consciousness of being in a dying condition.
conscious of his impending death
What factors should be considered in determining whether the Doctrines to Rememeber

declarant is conscious of his impending death? #1 The victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery.
1. Utterances; It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to
2. Actual character and seriousness of his wounds; and the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made, the
3. By the declarant’s conduct and the circumstances at the time he declarant would not expect to survive the injury from which he
made the declaration, whether he expected to survive his injury. actually died.
On No. 2: Actual character and seriousness of the wounds: The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death
supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
PEOPLE vs. VILLARIEZ victim's consciousness of his impending death.
G.R. No. 211160 September 2, 2015
FACTS: At the brink of death and with a voice she could hardly #2 Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did not die
hear, her father uttered the name “Toti.” immediately after his declaration.
The fact that the declarant died 4 hours after his statement does
HELD: This is a DYING DECLARATION. Although he made no not diminish the probative value of the dying declaration since it is
express statement showing that he was conscious of his not indispensable that the declarant expires immediately
impending death, it was clear however, considering the fatal thereafter.
quality of his injury and that he was barely heard by Ana when he
uttered accused-appellant's name, that his death was imminent.
#3 It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid
What about conduct and the circumstances at the time the succession of death, in point of fact, that renders the dying
declaration was made? declaration admissible.
MANRESA 2018
was shot in front. At all events, even if the victim’s dying

#4 It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from the declaration were admissible in evidence, it must identify the
stabbing incident. assailant with certainty; otherwise it loses its significance.
PEOPLE vs. RARUGAL alias “AMAY BISAYA” What happened here was that he was shot at the back. So logically,
G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013 he could not have seen who shot him. Allegedly, he told the
witness that it was X who shot him.
FACTS: On the night of October 19, 1998, at around 9:45 p.m.,
while victim ArnelFlorendo (Florendo) was cycling along The SC said that maybe he could not have seen who was his
Sampaguita St., Brgy. Capari, Novaliches, Quezon City, Rarugal, assailant based on the forensic report that the entry wound was at
with the use of a long double-bladed weapon, stabbed Florendo; the back of the head.
thus, forcibly depriving him of his bicycle. Immediately
thereafter, appellant hurriedly fled the scene. Compare with:
PEOPLE vs. VILLARIEZ
This incident was witnessed by Roberto Sit-Jar, who positively
identified appellant in court. Florendo arrived home bleeding. The victim made a dying declaration about the person who shot
He was quickly attended to by his siblings, including his brother him. The accused was convicted based on this and the SC
Renato. affirmed and appreciated the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. It found that the victim was shot at the back.
When Renato recounted the events of that night to the court, he
testified that Florendo told him and his other relatives that it was
Rarugal who had stabbed him. They then took Florendo to Requisite #4: Offered in a Criminal Case for Homicide, Murder, or
Tordesillas Hospital but had to transfer him to Quezon City Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
General Hospital, due to the unavailability of blood. It was there
that Florendo diedon October 26, 1998. This was not usually the traditional requisite stated by the
Supreme Court because the codal provision tells you that “in any
NOTE: 1. The victim was still alive after the stabbing incident. He case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. The codal
had time to reach his house and confide in his brother, witness provision is not specific in saying that it should be offered in a
Renato, that it was appellant who had stabbed him. criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the
2. The victim also did not die immediately. declarant is the victim. So as worded, it is not as specific compared
3. He was stabbed on Oct. 19 and died on Oct. 26 to the case of Palanas where the SC specified that it had to be
Homicide, Murder, or Parricide.
ISSUE: Is it a dying declaration?
A possible case that would fall under “in any case” as with civil
HELD: It is of no moment that the victim died seven days from cases is Art.2176 on quasi-delict. Similar to Art. 365. Reckless
the stabbing incident and after receiving adequate care and Imprudence resulting to Homicide. When a car accidentally
treatment, because the apparent proximate cause of his death, the crashed to a pedestrian who eventually died, a dying declaration
punctures in his lungs, was a consequence of Rarugal’s stabbing of the victim could not be used. The death here is not the subject of
him in the chest. inquiry in a quasi-delict case. The fact in issue in a quasi-delict case
is the fault or negligence.
The SC took notice of the fact that there was medical intervention
but at the time the utterances were made, he was conscious of an Name any other civil case wherein the subject of inquiry is death.
impending death. So it seems there is none. No other civil case, no other case would
actually deal with the declarant’s death as the subject of inquiry.
Requisite #3: The declarant was competent as a witness

The Declarant Must Have Not Survived
This means that, had the declarant survived, he would have not
have been disqualified or otherwise prohibited to testify. Thus, the He should have really died. The requirement of the Rules is that
utterance of the deceased must have been one borne of personal the statement is offered in a case where the declarant’s death is the
knowledge. subject of inquiry. This means actual death and does not apply to
cases of mere unavailability such as when the patient is in a
GERALDO vs. PEOPLE comatose condition or merely “brain” dead. There is no dying
G.R. No. 173608 November 20, 2008 declaration in cases of homicide or murder in their attempted or
frustrated stage.
COMPETENCE OF A WITNESS MEANS HE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE ASSAILANT. Let’s say for example, someone was shot before he lost
consciousness, he said it was X who shot me. He never died. He
It has not been established, however, that the victim would have was just in comatose.
been competent to testify had he survived the attack.
Can the witness testify as to what the declarant has told him that it
There is no showing that he had the opportunity to see his was X who shot him? Not under dying declaration but under
assailant. Among other things, there is no indication whether he Section 42. It can be considered as part of the res gestae.
MANRESA 2018
First Question: When asked why they were running, the accused did not answer
Does the requirement of death include presumptive death? prompting the policemen to chase them.
What law defines death? Only the Organ Donation Act, right? Can
you prosecute for murder despite that the body of the victim has The policemen, however, were unsuccessful in catching them
never been found? and when it became evident that they could no longer find them,
they continued patrolling the area. There they saw Januario lying
Yes. According to the case of --- on the street in front of Dom’s studio. As he was severely injured,
PEOPLE vs. ROLUNA the policemen immediately boarded Januario to the patrol
G.R. No. 101797 March 24, 1994 vehicle and brought him to the Zigzag Hospital. While inside the
vehicle, SPO3 Mendoza asked Januario who hurt him. He
In the early case of People v. Sasota, the Court affirmed the answered that it was "Jay-R and his uncle" who stabbed him. The
conviction of the accused for murder although the body of the uncle turned out to be the appellant herein, while Jay-R is his co-
victim was not found or recovered. In said case, we ruled that in accused who remains at-large.
case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to recover the
body of the victim or show where it can be found. It is enough At the Zigzag Hospital, Januario was attended to by Dr. Rasa
that the death and the criminal agency causing death is proven. who found him in critical condition. Three fatal wounds caused
by a bladed weapon were found in Januario’s body which
The Court recognized that there are cases where the death and eventually caused his death. Maria Castillo, for her part, testified
intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be on how she learned of what happened to her husband, the victim
presumed or established by circumstantial evidence. herein, the amount allegedly stolen from her husband, as well as
on the expenses and loss incurred by reason of Januario’s death.
Second Question: She, further, quantified the sorrow and anxiety the family
Can there be a situation where a dying declaration can be made in suffered by reason of such death.
circumstances where there is presumptive death?
There is a dying declaration but the body was never found later As to the identity of the perpetrators, the court considered the
on? victim’s response to SPO3 Mendoza’s question as to who
committed the crime against him as part of the res gestae, which
Yes. In the following story: is an exception to the hearsay rule.As to appellant’s defense of
Mokong, Gerald and Tamulmol crash-landed in a deserted alibi, the court gave more weight to the prosecution’s rebuttal
island. Before they were actually rescued, Mokong saw Gerald evidence that indeed the former was an actual resident of
clutching his stomach and saw that he appeared to be stabbed Mabini, Batangas.
several times. He then asked Gerald what happened and Gerald
said that Tamulmol stabbed him repeatedly with a jungle knife. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Contrary,
As he was saying this, a boat appeared at the horizon. Hoping for however, to the RTC’s conclusion, the appellate court considered
rescue, Gerald swam towards the direction of the boat. A few Januario’s statement to SPO3 Mendoza, that the accused were the
moments later, Gerald disappeared at the deeper part of the sea ones who stabbed him and took his wallet, not only as part of res
and was never found again. After 4 years, Tamulmol was gestae but also as a dying declaration.
prosecuted for murder.
ISSUE: WON there is a Dying Declaration
Q: Can the statement made by Gerald to Mokong prior to his
disappearance be considered Gerald’s dying declaration? HELD: Not all the requisites of a dying declaration are present.
A: Yes. To my mind, it has satisfied all of the four requisites. From the records, no questions relative to the second requisite
(see Palanas case for the requisites) was propounded to Januario. It does not appear that the
declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death
What is the effect is the victim survives? when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a
His dying declaration can be considered as part of res gestae and dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and
his declaration can no longer be considered as a dying imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief
declaration. in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in
point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The test
PEOPLE vs. SONNY GATARIN is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and
G.R. No. 198022 April 7, 2014 looked on death as certainly impending. Thus, the utterances
made by Januario could not be considered as a dying declaration.
FACTS: On the 3rd day of November 2004, at 8:00 o’clock in the
evening, Umali was riding a bicycle on his way home when he However, even if Januario’s utterances could not be appreciated
saw Januario being mauled by two persons opposite Dom’s as a dying declaration, his statements may still be appreciated as
Studio in Poblacion Mabini, Batangas. Upon seeing the incident, part of the res gestae. Res gestae refers to the circumstances,
he stayed in front of the church until such time that the accused facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
ran away and were chased by policemen who alighted from the illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
police patrol vehicle. On the same night, SPO3 Mendoza and PO1 contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of
Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel were on board their patrol vehicle deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence
performing their routine patrol duty when they met two men, as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
later identified as the accused, who were running at a fast speed. declaration, or exclamation, is so interwoven or connected with
MANRESA 2018
the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded PEOPLE vs. DE JOYA
as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly G.R. No. 75028 November 8, 1991
negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
It has been held that a dying declaration to be admissible must be
What do we get from this? All declarations must be testified about. complete in itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that the
You cannot just ask the court to presume that the elements of a declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of
dying declaration can be found. You have to have testimony that the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given
relate to the elements of a dying declaration. fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as
conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.
But even if the declaration cannot be admitted as a dying
declaration, it can still be admitted as part of res gestae. Take note that what the law merely assures is the admissibility,
there is no assurance that the dying declaration is automatically
Forms of Dying Declaration believed. If it is controverted by other evidence, the dying
Take note that a Dying Declaration may be oral or written. declaration shall be set aside.
For example, before he died, he signed or marked a statement that

accuses a particular person as the assailant. Criticism of the Rule
PEOPLE vs. COMILING “Physical or mental weakness consequent upon the approach of
G.R. No. 140405 March 4, 2004 death, a desire of self-vindication, or a disposition to impute the
responsibility for a wrong to another, as well as the fact that the
The dying declaration was made with the police investigators declarations are made in the absence of the accused, and often in
writing down the statement and thumbmarked later by the response to leading questions and direct suggestions, and with no
deceased when he was still alive. opportunity for cross-examination: all these considerations
It may be in the form of an affidavit for as long as the requisites are conspire to render such declarations a dangerous kind of
present. evidence.” Orenstein, Aviva (2010). “Her Last Words: Dying
Declarations and Modern Confrontation Jurisprudenct”.
On the other hand, People vs. Padrones was different. University of Illinois Law Review
PEOPLE vs. PADRONES Deathbed Confession vs Dying Declaration

G.R. No. 85823 September 13, 1990
Example 1: Luis, at his death bed, confessed to Rayver that he is
The victim's alleged ante-mortem statement is not in fact, an the father of Jessy’s child. He died 2 seconds later. During the
ante-mortem statement. It was executed on August 13, 1986, settlement of his estate, Jessy appeared in court to assert the rights
when the deceased died on August 21, 1986. of her child with Luis and wanted to present Rayver to testify as to
Luis’ admission of paternity.
It bears to stress that a mere cursory examination of the three
signatures appearing on the three-page statement, in bold and Can the legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of
clear strokes with two of them occupying four inches of the page, Rayver’s testimony?
and in grand flourishes, pronounced and considered by the trial
judge as a dying declaration, precludes any indication that the A: Yes. The ground for objection is that the testimony is hearsay.
signer thereof was under an impending death. Further, if the
deceased were truly on the point of death, he could not have had The question is should the court over rule? Is there an exception?
the strength to affix three signatures as above described.
Example 2: Luis, at his death bed, confessed to Jessy’s daughter,
In this case, the statement was actually a three-page statement. The Lucy that he is her father and wanted to give her P 3 Million so
SC also said that the declarant signed it in bold strokes which that she can finish law school and take the bar. He died 2 seconds
would belie the seriousness of his wounds. Therefore, it could not later. During the settlement of his estate, Lucy appeared in court
have been made under the consciousness of an impending death. and wanted to testify as to Luis’ admission of paternity and the
It is inadmissible as a dying declaration. gift of P 3 Million.
Non Verbal Acts as Dying Declaration Can the legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of
Lucy’s testimony?
Can non-verbal acts be used as Dying Declaration?
A: Yes. The grounds for objection are:
Example: While Gerald was lying in a pool of his own blood and
1. The testimony is hearsay
dying, he pointed with a very angry face at one of the bystanders,
2. Deadman’s Statute:
Matteo.
A: Not a dying declaration. It violates the DOCTRINE OF Section 23.Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
COMPLETENESS. A dying declaration is complete when it is a full adverse party. — Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or persons
expression of all that the declarant wanted to say with regard to in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
the circumstances of his death. (People vs. Comiling 2004) administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
MANRESA 2018
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 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
became of unsound mind.
Note: There is already a claim on the deceased’s estate. Hence, Rule 130, Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The
deadman statute applies. But will the court over rule or sustain it’s declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
decision. against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
Example 3: Luis, at his death bed, confessed to his daughter, Lucy, declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his position
that he killed Matteo, not Gerald who currently stands trial for would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be
Matteo’s murder. Luis died 2 seconds later. During the trial of true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
Matteo he wanted to present Lucy to testify as to the deathbed successors in interest and against third persons.
confession of Luis.
This is a declaration against interest but in a way it is related to
Can the prosecution object? section 26—the concept of an admission which to be admissible
must be adverse to the interest of the admitter.
A: Yes. The ground for the objection is that testimony is hearsay.
So what’s the difference between the 2?
But would the court now overrule on sustaining the conviction?
That a hearsay evidence would now be used to acquit an accused? If you talk about Section 26, an admission per se adverse to the
admitter, take note that there is no requirement that the declarant
Is there a specific rule in Philippine law about deathbed be deceased or unable to testify. It’s just that you cannot make the
confessions? None. admitter testify that in court.
In England, in R. vs. Gray (1841) Ir. Circ. Rep. 76, a death bed But in a delaration against interest, the declarant or the admitter is
confession by a third person that he, not the accused, had already dead or unable to testify.
committed the murder charged was held admissible.
REQUISITES
In the US, however, under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules, a
deathbed confession can be admissible in court under the right FUENTES, JR. vs. CA (1996)
circumstances. If someone confesses knowledge of a crime and
then dies or his condition worsens, the law does not consider the The admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded on
statement to be hearsay and can be used in criminal trial. necessity and trustworthiness.
James Brewer Case There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a
declaration against interest:
James Brewer was suffering from stroke and thought he was going (a) the declarant must not be available to testify;
to die when he decided to come clean about his life. In 1977, James (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
Brewer, in his jealous rage, killed his neighbour, skipped bail, and declarant; and
then ran away with his wife and they took on new identities as the (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to
Andersons. They were model citizen and even lead a Bible study falsify existed.
group. He confessed this in 2009 to the police on his deathbed.
Example:
Subsequently, he recovered. When he was already fit to stand
trial, he was prosecuted. He was later found guilty of murder and Twerky Juggs was charged with crime of kidnapping of Rrramon,
was sentenced to the death penalty. her husband. One of the testimonies presented by the prosecution
was that of Maja who testified that Rrramon confided to her that
Now let’s go back to the case earlier. he and Adella were having an affair. Undoubtedly, Rrramon’s
Example 2: Luis, at his death bed, confessed to Jessy’s daughter, infidelity was ample reason for Twerky Juggs to contemplate
Lucy that he is her father and wanted to give her P 3 Million so revenge. Consequently, the trial court convicted Twerky Juggs
that she can finish law school and take the bar. He died 2 seconds based on the testimonies of the witnesses.
later. During the settlement of his estate, Lucy appeared in court
and wanted to testify as to Luis’ admission of paternity and the Q: Was the testimony of Maja admissible as evidence?
gift of P 3 Million.
A: Yes. Rrramon’s revelation to Maja regarding his illicit
So now, should the court overrule or sustain the objection? relationship with Adella is admissible in evidence pursuant to
Section 38, Rule 130. Declaration against interest includes all kinds
Overrule. There is a rule however that can be used to justify of interest, that is, pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal.
departing from the hearsay rule and that is Section 38. It may not Rrramon, having been missing since his abduction, cannot be
be considered a dying declaration where we’re talking about the called upon to testify. His confession to Maja, definitely a
cause or surrounding circumstance of one’s death, but it can be declaration against his own interest, since his affair with Adella
considered another exception to the hearsay rule and that is… was a crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will
MANRESA 2018
be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment. (People vs. relationship which is established not only by blood but also
Bernal, G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997) “in-laws”;
3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor and

Distinguishing Admission against Interest from Declaration the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or
against Interest declaration—there has to be evidence aliunde or
corroborative evidence and an act or declaration was made
LAZARO, ET.AL. vs. MODESTA AGUSTIN (2010) ante litem motam or prior to the controversy.
(Definitive case as to Section 38)
What we’re talking about here is genealogy—a line of descent
Admissions against interest Declarationsagainst interest which can be traced continuously to an ancestor, or lineage.
are those made by a party to a are those made by a person
litigation or by one in privity who is neither a party nor in In the olden times, people actually keep track of family lineage and
with or identified in legal privity with a party to the write them down in family heirlooms, however nowadays, what
interest with such party, and suit, are secondary evidence we know from our lineage comes specifically from mere oral
are admissible whether or not and constitute an exception to traditions. We have no personal knowledge of who our relatives
the declarant is available as a the hearsay rule. are except those who we know.
witness.
They are admissible only An example of a practice before in order to trace down lineage is
when the declarant is the Book of Generation of Jesus Christ.
unavailable as a witness.
With respect to birth, we do not really have personal knowledge of
our birthday because we do not have the ability to perceive at that
time. The only reason that we know our birthday is because it was
said to us by our parents—making it hearsay.
Hypothetical Situation: In re: Hearsay in general and declaration

or admissions against interest.
Luis, at his death bed, confessed to Rayver that he is the father of
OCTOBER 3, 2018
Jessy’s child. He died 2 seconds later. During the settlement of his
0:00:00 – 0:43:00 | Emille Dane Viola
estate, Jessy appeared in court to assert the rights of her child with
Luis and wanted to present Rayver to testify as to Luis’ admission
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or of paternity.
declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to
the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, Can the legitimate children of Luis object to the admissibility of
may be received in evidence where it occurred before the Rayver’s testimony?
controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word Ground for objection:
"pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, The testimony is hearsay.
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of Should the court sustain the objection?
family history intimately connected with pedigree. YES. The court should sustain the objection if Jessy cannot present
evidence other than the act or declaration of Luis that he is the
“shown by evidence other than such act or declaration”—we father of the child—this is the meaning of the requisite that the
notice this when we were talking about the exceptions to the Res relationship has to be proven by evidence aliunde or something
Inter Alios Acta Rule: other than the act or declaration.
In the mean time, there is already testimony talking about the
Rule 130, Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — conspiracy is apparent act or declaration of a person already deceased, and yet
shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. there’s still no evidence other than the act or declaration.
What should Jessy’s counsel do?

Pedigree Have the testimony of Rayver regarding Luis’ statement
Relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates conditionally admitted.
and the places where these facts occurred and the names of the
relatives. It also embraces facts of family history intimately Conditional admissibility
connected with pedigree.
Evidence is admissible only in dependence upon other facts; it
REQUISITES: is received upon the express assurance of counsel that
objection is manifested, that other facts will be duly presented
1. The actor or the declarant is dead—thus unable to testify; at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed.
2. the act or declaration is made by a person related to the Suppose the court conditionally admits the testimony but Jessy is
subject by birth or marriage, which gives way to a unable to present corroborative evidence or evidence aliunde—
MANRESA 2018
meaning the act or declaration supposedly uttered by a person evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a
already deceased making it uncorroborated. private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned.
Remedy of the opponent The note cannot also be accorded the same weight as the notarial
Move to strike the testimony on the ground that the condition for agreement to support the child referred to in Herrera. For it is not
admitting the hearsay evidence was not fulfilled. even notarized. And Herrera instructs that the notarial agreement
must be accompanied by the putative fathers admission of filiation
NEPOMUCENO v LOPEZ to be an acceptable evidence of filiation. Here, however, not only
has petitioner not admitted filiation through contemporaneous
Born on June 8, 1999, Arhbencel claimed to have been begotten out actions. He has consistently denied it.
of an extramarital affair of petitioner with Araceli; that petitioner
refused to affix his signature on her Certificate of Birth; and that,
by a handwritten note dated August 7, 1999, petitioner Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. —
nevertheless obligated himself to give her financial support in the The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
amount of P1,500 on the 15th and 30th days of each month controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
beginning August 15, 1999. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
Issue: Was the pedigree of Arhbencel sufficiently established based Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engravings
on the handwritten note? on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence
of pedigree.
Ruling: In Pe Lim v. CA, the issue of paternity still has to be
resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. A lot of the things we know of our family, we have no personally
Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by knowledge of. Only that, tradition—the reputation existing in the
a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement family is that, you are related by blood.
before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be
effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father Under Sec 40, if a member of a family testifies as to the
himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. relationship with a certain person—that is admissible, but not
A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is necessarily believable.
admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable
evidence. REQUISITES:
Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and 1. There’s a controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member
pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various of the family;
occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved 2. The reputation and tradition of the pedigree of the person
filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent concerned existed previous to the controversy—meaning they
to a father's operation, or a marriage contract where the putative knew that they are relatives even before;
father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing
alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are 3. The witness who testifies as to the reputation or tradition
sufficient to establish filiation. regarding the pedigree of the person concerned must be a member
of the family of the said person either by consanguinity or by
Sir: What we have in this case is a handwritten note. Isn’t it not already a affinity.
good evidence of paternity or claiming paternity over a particular child?
Because otherwise, why would you give money?
TWO PARTS TO THE RULE
In the present case, Arhbencel relies, in the main, on the 1. Testimonial evidence as to pedigree—testimony of
handwritten note executed by petitioner which reads: the family member testifying in court as to the
relationship; and
2. Documentary or Object evidence of pedigree—
Manila, Aug. 7, 1999 entries in family bible or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits, and the like.
I, Ben-Hur C. Nepomuceno, hereby undertake to give and provide
financial support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen and thirtieth Testimonial Evidence
day of each month for a total of P3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15,
1999, to Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother
In child sexual abuse cases
Araceli Lopez without the necessity of demand, subject to adjustment
later depending on the needs of the child and my income.
PEOPLE v SARIGEO
This does not establish filiation. The abovequoted note does not Feb 24, 2016
contain any statement whatsoever about Arhbencels filiation to
petitioner. It is, therefore, not within the ambit of Article 172(2) vis- In People v. Prunaa,38 the Court laid down the following controlling
-vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or
as a qualifying circumstance:
MANRESA 2018
In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the

foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in Family Charts – like the Black family tree in Harry Potter, or the
appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a Padilla family tree.
qualifying circumstance.
Engravings in rings – assume in the future that is becomes an
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an issue when the marriage was celebrated and there’s no other
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such evidence to such effect and we only see in the possession of the
party. member of the family is the wedding ring with the names of the
spouses and the date of the wedding.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic
documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records which Family portraits – any family portrait.
show the date of birth of the victim, would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown Can the ff private documents be considered under Object
to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the evidence for pedigree?
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is 1. Letters of introduction to possible relatives;
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the 2. Recommendation letter for employment from a putative
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to relative;
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient 3. Photograph taken at a party;
under the following circumstances: 4. Letter of introduction from former Vice President Lopez who is
a relative of a putative father?
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is
sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; In the case of:
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is JISON v CA

sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; Feb 24, 1998
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is The scope of the enumeration contained in the second portion of
sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to
objects which are commonly known as family possessions, or
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, those articles which represent, in effect, a familys joint statement
or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been
victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided described as objects openly exhibited and well known to the
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. (We have family, or those which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded
no personal knowledge of our birth) as giving a family tradition.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of Other examples of these objects which are regarded as reflective of
the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the a familys reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.
him.39
Thus, the best evidence to prove the age of a person is the original The private documents listed above do not constitute a family’s
birth certificate or certified true copy thereof, and in their absence, joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. The
similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal private documents as they are do not constitute "family
certificates and school records. If the original or certified true possessions" as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis
copy of the birth certificate is not available, credible testimonies of Rule 130, Section 40.
of the victim's mother or a member of the family may be
sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both the Tombstone – when you have to establish that a certain relative
birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies already died but you do not have any death certificate, provided
of the victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, that the date of death is stated therein.
the testimony of the victim may be admitted in evidence provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. Ribbons in the coffin stating the names of the relatives left
behind by the deceased (Filipino practice)—will this qualify as
Object evidence of Pedigree object evidence of pedigree?
Family bibles – not every bible belonging to a family even if Is this a joint statement of a family’s belief as to the pedigree of a
handed down from generation to generation can be considered as the dead person, and in effect manifesting their belief that they are
proof of pedigree under Sec 40. all related to one another by blood or marriage?
It will only be admissible if it is really a bible that has spaces or YES, it can be considered as a joint family statement. BUT, is it of a
notations reserved for the recording of important family permanent character similar to tombstones, monuments or coffin
events—meaning it is really the habit of the family. plates?
MANRESA 2018
received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and

NO, therefore this cannot be considered as object or documentary the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence
evidence of pedigree. other than such act or declaration. The word `pedigree includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
Important! when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
Sec 39 Sec 40 connected with pedigree.
Act or declaration or pedigree Family reputation or tradition
For the above rule to apply, it would be necessary that (a) the
regarding pedigree
declarant is already dead or unable to testify, (b) the pedigree of a
The witness need not be a The witness is a member of the person must be at issue, (c) the declarant must be a relative of the
member of the family. family. person whose pedigree is in question, (d) declaration must be
The relation of the declarant to The witness is the one to whom made before the controversy has occurred, and (e) the relationship
the persons subject of inquiry the fact relates; it is not between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in
must be established by necessary for him to establish question must be shown by evidence other than such act or
independent evidence or by independent evidence his declaration.
corroborative evidence or relationship to the family
evidence aliunde- other than the Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley
act or declaration Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted as Exhibit 20
The testimony is about what The testimony is about the before the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan
the declarant (who is dead or family reputation or tradition F. Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e,
unable to testify) has said covering matters of pedigree. living together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including
concerning the pedigree of the respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one family -
family.
"I, Ruby Kelley Mangahas, of legal age and sound mind, presently
residing in Stockton, California, U.S.A., after being sworn in
Family reputation v Common reputation accordance with law do hereby declare that:
Remember that it is the common reputation of the family and not 1. I am the sister of the late Bessie Kelley Poe.
the common reputation in the community that is an element of
evidence that is going to establish pedigree. 2. Bessie Kelley Poe was the wife of Fernando Poe, Sr.
Matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family and 3. Fernando and Bessie Poe had a son by the name of Ronald Allan
not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except if the Poe, more popularly known in the Philippines as `Fernando Poe,
pedigree in question is of marriage, which can be proved by Jr., or `FPJ.
common reputation.
4. Ronald Allan Poe `FPJ was born on August 20, 1939 at St. Luke's
Ex. When a man and a woman holds themselves as husband Hospital, Magdalena Street, Manila.
and wife (attending weddings and other functions together)
and they do not say anything about their relationship, the xxxxxxxxx
community will automatically assume that they are married.
7. Fernando Poe Sr., and my sister Bessie, met and became
TECSON v COMELEC engaged while they were students at the University of the
March 3, 2004 Philippines in 1936. I was also introduced to Fernando Poe, Sr., by
my sister that same year.
What proof of pedigree allowed FPJ to run for Presidency despite
questions regarding his citizenship. 8. Fernando Poe, Sr., and my sister Bessie had their first child in
1938.
The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his
citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and 9. Fernando Poe, Sr., my sister Bessie and their first three children,
not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. Elizabeth, Ronald, Allan and Fernando II, and myself lived
The Civil Code or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation or together with our mother at our family's house on Dakota St. (now
paternity, although good law, do not have preclusive effects on Jorge Bocobo St.), Malate until the liberation of Manila in 1945,
matters alien to personal and family relations. The ordinary rules except for some months between 1943-1944.
on evidence could well and should govern. For instance, the
matter about pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being 10. Fernando Poe, Sr., and my sister, Bessie, were blessed with four
applicable by the Civil Code or Family Code provisions. (4) more children after Ronald Allan Poe.
Section 39, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court provides - xxxxxxxxx
Act or Declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a 18. I am executing this Declaration to attest to the fact that my
person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of nephew, Ronald Allan Poe is a natural born Filipino, and that he is
another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be the legitimate child of Fernando Poe, Sr.
MANRESA 2018
b. The common reputation must have been

Done in City of Stockton, California, U.S.A., this 12th day of ancient, i.e. 30 years old;
January 2004. c. The reputation must have been one formed
among a class of persons who were in a
Ruby Kelley Mangahas position to have some sources of information
and to contribute intelligently to the formation
Declarant of the opinion; and
d. The common reputation must have existed
previous to the controversy.
TISON v CA
GR 121027
RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY
§ Necessity: Inherent difficulty in obtaining evidence that can
Case in point for R130 Sec 39 & 40
be taken from common reputation, because we do not know
what or who originated such common reputation.
The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks
§ Trustworthy: Such information could have been originally
recovery against a relative common to both claimant and
true or false, but since it had been existing for the longest
declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarants
time, then it presupposes that it is true.
estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common relative
may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some
independent proof of this fact. Trinidad v. CA
As an exception, the requirement that there be other proof than the Attendance in wedding and baptisms where a man and a woman
declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply purport themselves to be husband and wife is evidence of
where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and common reputation regarding marriage.
not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
property of some other member of the family. MONUMENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES
Example: A tree in Calamba where people usually refer it as “the
tree where Rizal used to play”.
0:43:01 – 1:27:36 | Benrich Tan
Section 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
Section 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may
previous to the controversy, respecting facts of public or general
be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage or
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation.
RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY
DEFINITION
§ Necessity: It is necessary because of the unavailability of the
It is the definite opinion of the community in which the fact to be
declarant; there is otherwise no way to know the existence
proved is known or exists. It means the general or substantially
and condition of the declarant
undivided reputation, as distinguished from a partial or qualified
§ Trustworthy: There is trustworthiness because this exception
one, although it need not be unanimous.
presupposes a declaration made out of instinct and
spontaneity and the lack of opportunity to contrive or concoct
As a general rule, the reputation of a person should be that
a story.
existing in the place of his residence; it may also be that existing in
the place where he is best known.
FIRST PART OF RES GESTAE: Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
EXAMPLES
or subsequent thereto, with respect to the circumstances thereof
• Sandawa Road is known by everyone, but there actually isn’t
officially called Sandawa Road. It’s actually Guillermo Torres Requisites
Street. However, it’s known as Sandawa due to common a) The principal fact, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
reputation in the community. b) The statements were made before the declarant had time to
• Uyanguren Street, but in actuality, it’s officially called Ramon contrive or devise (you made the utterance without having
Magsaysay Avenue. opportunity to think what you’re going to say) ; and
• A Cebu street with a common reputation as “Tamiya”, c) The statements concern the occurrence in question and its
although it’s not really called that, and it was only called that immediately attending circumstances.
due to the “Tamiya Store” that resided on that particular
street Example: You saw someone getting shot. That’s a startling
occurrence. So whatever you say in reaction to that must be true,
REQUISITES because you are simply describing what the occurrence is all about
a. The facts must be of public or general interest (spontaneous reaction).
and more than 30 years old;
• The time requirement presupposes that one does not There is no standard form of human behavioral response to a
know what the original source of information is shocking incident, a startling occurrence or a frightful experience.
MANRESA 2018
The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are SECOND PART OF RES GESTAE: Statements accompanying an
unpredictable, such that people react differently to similar equivocal act material to the issue and giving it a legal
situations: some may shout; some may faint; some may be shocked significance.
into insensibility; and others may even welcome the intrusion.
The statements that accompanied the equivocal act (which is
Manulat v. People unclear and susceptible of several interpretations) would give
Two tests in applying the res gestae rule: meaning to it.
a. The act, declaration or exclamation is so
intimately interwoven or connected with the Example: A gives B money without any explanation. This could be
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to open to several interpretations (ex. bribery, payment for services
be regarded as a part of the transaction itself (it rendered)
is but a natural succeeding declaration from the • However, if A gave B the money and said “pay me back
startling occurrence, part of the transaction. It tomorrow”, it’s clear it was a loan. Thus, the statement
cannot be considered as isolated from it); and accompanying the equivocal act, if heard by somebody else,
§ The explanation has to be relevant to the act or that would now be substitute for personal knowledge. So that
declaration, not something alien to it (example: person who hears it, and subsequently testifies about it in
Someone got shot. You said “Ay, butiki!”. That’s so court, then that is admissible. It is not the tenor (what was
unrelated. That can’t be part of the res gestae) said) that is admissible, but it’s the truth that A gave B money
b. The said evidence clearly negatives any because of the loan.
premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony. (element of spontaneity). Example #2: A witness testifies in favor of the plaintiff in a
collection case, where the defendant denies having borrowed 10T.
There is no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may be The debt is not evidenced by a promissory note, because the
determined although a number of factors have been considered, plaintiff alleges that the defendant already borrowed from him
including, but not always confined to: several times In the past and always paid. The witness then
a) The time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or testifies that a year ago, he saw the plaintiff give the money to the
transaction and the making of the statement defendant, and said “Here’s the money you’re borrowing from
b) The place where the statement is made; me”. Thus, the equivocal act of giving the money was given
c) The condition of the declarant when the utterance is given (if significance by the statement of the plaintiff.
the declarant is drunk and could not appreciate the startling
nature of the occurrence, then his res gestae statement may Requisites
not be that reliable); a. The fact or occurrence characterized must be
d) The presence or absence of intervening events between the equivocal (subject of several interpretations);
occurrence and the statement relative thereto; b. The verbal act must characterize or explain the
e) The nature and the circumstances of the statement itself. equivocal act;
Dying Declaration v. Res Gestae c. The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue;
and
Dying Declaration Res Gestae d. The verbal acts must be contemporaneous with
A sense of impending death It is the event itself which the equivocal act (or at the same time).
takes the place of an oath and speaks
the law regards the declarant as Excited Utterance (1st part) v. Verbal acts (2nd part)
testifying.
Can be made by the victim only May be made by the victim or Excited Utterance Verbal Acts
the killer after or during the Principal fact is a startling
killing or by a 3rd person occurrence Principal fact is an equivocal act
Confined to matters occurring May precede, or accompany or Statement may precede, Statement must accompany
after the homicidal act follow the principal fact accompany or succeed the the equivocal act.
Justified by trustworthiness, Justification is the spontaneity startling occurrence
being given by the person who of the statement (which makes • Thus, anywhere near the
was aware of his impending it trustworthy) startling occurrence. It need
death not be accomplished at the
Declarant must die Declarant need not die. time that you’re observing
• A statement that does not it.
comply with dying Statement need not necessarily Statement must explain the
declaration may be explain principal fact
accepted as part of res the principal fact
gestae, under the concept
of multiple admissibility CASES
Golden Iloilo v. Pre-Stress
MANRESA 2018
• Doctrine: Can there be res gestae in a case for replevin? him that they could not recognize the attackers since they were all
• Facts: The principal fact here was that inventory was taken masked. This, it is argued, could be evidence that could be given
from a bodega to be taken away. The security personnel part of the res gestae.
merely scribbled down on whatever paper on what was being • Comments: The public reacted to the startling occurrence and
taken. This was an ex parte act which nobody witnessed, so said in unison that they did not see the attackers. The affected
no one can say it was accurate. Later, such paper became fraternity argued that they did indeed see the attacker’s faces
evidence as part of an replevin case, because those were the with positive identification. The point of this is that if the res
items to be recovered via replevin. The objection was that it gestae was admitted and believed by the court, it may cast
was hearsay, because it could not be verified if that was reasonable doubt on the positive identification of the
indeed what was taken. attackers.
• Held: Part of res gestae (2nd part). The principal fact was the
taking of the items. The verbal act to give it legal significance ISSUE: Which will prevail, Res gestae or Positive identification?
was what was written. Not only does it qualifies as the 2nd Positive identification
part, but it also qualifies as the 1st part, because you don’t see
people suddenly and abruptly getting inventory everyday Why is this important? If the res gestae statements of the
under those circumstances bystanders were to be admitted and believed, it may cast
reasonable doubt on the supposed positive identification of the
People v. Sace accused by the victims.
• Doctrine: The res gestae statement may come from the HELD: There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
accused himself. peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
• After killing someone, the accused said “Oh my God, why did occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders
I do that?!” That’s an admission that he killed the victim. were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in
fact, admissible as evidence in res gestae.
Marturillas v. People
In PEOPLE vs. ALBARIDO, however, this Court has stated that
• The shooting itself is a startling occurrence. Moreover, seeing “in accord to ordinary human experience: “x x x persons who
the husband in a dying position is a startling occurrence, so witness an event perceive the same form their respective points of
everything that the wife said while attending to her husband reference. Therefore, almost always, they have different accounts
is part of the res gestae. So whatever the neighbors heard of how it happened. Certainly, we cannot expect the testimony of
what the wife said (“why did the captain kill my husband?”), witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all aspects because different
then that’s part of the res gestae. persons have different impressions and recollection of the same
incident x x x.”
People v. Feliciano
The statement made by the bystanders, although admissible, have
Doctrine: Positive identification prevails over res gestae. little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the
events transpiring at different vantage points and at different
People v. Feliciano points in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the
FACTS: time of the attack, testified that the attackers had their masks on at
On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, first, but later on, some remained masked and some were
seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity [a law fraternity] unmasked.
were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main
Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the
were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning
lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required to end at close range, the former becomes merely corroborative of
hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his the fact that an attack occurred. Their account of the incident,
injuries. therefore, must be given considerably less weight than that of the
victims.
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho
Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina shouted, and he saw People v. Pascual
about ten (10) men charging toward them. The men were armed
with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their heads were covered The statements of accused-appellant’s wife, Divina, immediately
with either handkerchiefs or shirts. Within a few seconds, five (5) after the fateful incident all the more convince the Court as to the
of the men started attacking him, hitting him with their lead pipes. accused-appellant’s guilt. Part of the res gestae and admissible in
During the attack, he recognized one of the attackers as Robert evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule were Divina’s
Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell off. Other members of utterances to Gorospe after seeing the dead and raped body of the
Sigma Rho were able to identify some of the attackers, members of victim, i.e.. “May nangyari sa itaas at galing doon si Boyet,” and
the Scintilla Juris fraternity, allegedly because some of the her subsequent narration of seeing the accused-appellant going
attackers either took their masks or some of them did not wear out of the victim’s room and running away therefrom.
masks at all.
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when OCTOBER 4, 2018
he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told 0:00:01 – 0:34:00 | Kemarie Manligoy
MANRESA 2018
ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS If you want to prove any entry in the Baptismal Certificate, you
don’t need to bring in the officiating priest.
Rule 130, Section 43. Entries in the course of business. – Entries
made at, or near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a Q: Is there an instance where business entries may be admitted in
person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to evidence even where the declarant is alive?
know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional The situation that is envisioned by this question is, there’s this
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or entrant who made that business entry/record and yet the entry
regular course of business or duty. itself is admitted into evidence despite the fact that they are not
bringing in the available entrant.
…if it is unrebutted, it will be treated as prima facie evidence.
Meaning, if you won’t rebut, you do not present countervailing A: The entries will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay
evidence, then, the regularity of these transactions will be rule, but they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a
admitted by the Court. If it’s not refuted, it’s already enough to memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the
prove a particular point. transactions reflected therein.
What you need to remember relating to these Business Records You’ll understand more of this when we go to Rule 132, when we
exception would be the following REQUISITES: distinguish between past recollection recorded and present
memory revived.
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable
to testify; What is simply says is pwede gud pagmag testify ka in court na
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the magdala ka ug note or memoranda. It’s usually in the form of
transactions to which they refer; paper but that paper itself will not be offered into evidence. It’s
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in simply a guide to testimony because we have to admit, our
the entries; memories do fail.
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in
the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
moral or religious; and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course Rule 130, Section 44. Entries in official records. – Entries in
of business or duty. (Regalado, Vol. II, pp. 791-792, 2008 official records made in the performance of his duty by a public
ed.) officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
duty especially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
The question here would be why do we consider business records facts therein stated.
as an exception to the Hearsay Rule? Meaning, whoever the
entrant was need not testify in court. It is enough that the entry It has a similar treatment to Section 43 and that these entries, in the
was made and somebody else testifies about it without bringing in absence of any countervailing proof, in the absence of refutation
the person who specifically made the entry a long time ago. For are sufficient to establish a fact. What fact? Whatever is stated in
simple reason again of necessity and trustworthiness. the entry that we’re talking about, whether in the official record or
in business transaction in a going concern.
Necessity because the entrant is already dead or unable to testify.
Secondly, it’s trustworthy because it is made in the ordinary or Take note that in Section 44, it is not necessarily confined to entries
regular course of business. Therefore, the law can see no reason for made by a public officer, per se. It’s not only him who is allowed
such an entry to deviate from the norm. If it’s normal in that to make an entry. It also opens the door for entries made by a
business or a going-concern, then there’s no reason for us to doubt person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law;
its veracity. That’s the reason why we have this Business Record meaning, you are commanded by law to do something.
exception.
Can you give me an example of a private person making a public
Take note of the 4th requisite,” The entries were made in his entry or an entry in a public record because you are commanded
professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, by law to do it?
contractual, moral or religious”, which brings me to this example:
TAX. Taxation scheme in the Philippines is by voluntary return.
REPUBLIC VS. MANGOTARA There’s a lot of tax evaders precisely because it’s on a voluntary
July 7, 2010 basis. You disclose the information under oath. As to whether that
information is correct is always subject to question.
The admissibility of baptismal certificates absent the testimony of
the officiating priest or the official recorder, was settled, thus – xxx Let’s go to the REQUISITES under Section 44.
the entries made in the Registry Book may be considered as entries
made in the course of the business under Section 43 of Rule 130, 1. Entries were made by a public officer in the performance
which is an exception to the hearsay rule. The baptisms of his duties or by a person in the performance of a duty
administered by the church are one of its transactions in the especially enjoined by law;
exercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the book of the 2. Entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by
church during the course of its business. him or such facts were acquired by him from reports
MANRESA 2018
made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same; admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts it states. However,
and during trial, it was admitted that neither the witness nor the
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in person who supposedly reported the events gave the testimony in
the official records. support of the report.
What are the examples of these? The question simply is, is the exception to the hearsay rule
fulfilled?
1. For public officers or public records, you have in the case
of PEOPLE VS. MAYINGQUE – anatomical sketches, The SC said that the following REQUISITES must be present:
medico legal Reports.
1. that the entry was made by a public officer or by another
The situation usually is a dead body comes and then subjected to person specially enjoined by law to do so;
forensic examination by the Medico Legal Officer, who is a public
officer. In the public service, there’s a possibility that the Medico 2. that it was made by the public officer in the performance
Legal Officer is reassigned and replaced by somebody else. of his duties, or by such other person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
The possibility is there is this Medico Legal Report that would be
used in a prosecution for murder but the Medico Legal Officer 3. that the public officer or other person had sufficient
who prepared the report is no longer available. So, somebody else knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
will take his place to testify; somebody who did not prepare the been acquired by him personally or through official
Medico Legal Report in the first place because he just substituted. information
So now, he comes to court bringing with him the Medico Legal
report and testifies about it. You cannot object on it because it is Does the police officer to whom you narrated the facts have
covered by the exception. He has no personal knowledge but he personal knowledge?
can testify thereof.
No. That’s the key to understanding the case is that here the
2. PEOPLE VS. PRESAS (G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011) – petitioner failed to prove the 3rd requisite. As pointed out while the
Report of an official forensic chemist regarding a traffic accident investigation report was exhibited as evidence, the
recovered prohibited drug investigating officer who prepared the same was not presented in
court to testify that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts stated
The forensic chemist would testify in court. It’s quite possible that and that he acquired them personally or through official
the forensic chemist who performed the chemical analysis of the information. Neither was there any explanation as to why such
prohibited drug is not the one who will be testifying thereto. officer was not presented. We cannot simply assume in the
absence of proof that the account of the incident stated in the
3. PEOPLE VS. SAN GABRIEL (G.R. No. 107735, February report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating
1, 1996) – Advance Information Sheet, Police Blotter and officer who prepared the report.
Other Police Reports
What does a Police Blotter prove? Does it prove the commission of You have to have at least have personal knowledge if you are not
an offense? No. What is proves is that something allegedly a crime, the one who prepared the report. You have to follow the three
has been reported to the police. It doesn’t prove the veracity of the REQUISITES as provided in the case of DST Movers.
allegations of the reporter. Why? Because it is ex parte.
COMMERCIAL LIST AND THE LIKE
What are we talking about here? Police blotter proves that a
commission of a crime was reported but it’s quite possible that the Rule 130, Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. – Evidence of
person who entered the facts into the police blotter will not be the statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an
one who will testify. It’s allowed by law because it is an exception occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other
to the hearsay rule. It is possible that the officer during that day published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth
was different and at the time a testimony is required, it’s already a of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for
different officer. There was a re-assignment. use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein.
That’s the reason why we admit these documents as an exception
to the hearsay rule precisely because of the exigencies of public The use of commercial lists is not prevalent in the Philippines.
service. Take note of this case which is fairly new, DST Movers
Corporation vs. People's General Insurance Corporation, January REQUISITES:
13, 2016.
1. It is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged
DST Movers Corporation vs. People's General Insurance in an occupation;
Corporation
January 13, 2016 There is a requirement of specifity here. It has to be a particular
occupation and not in general.
The MTC, RTC, and the CA upheld the Police Report as an
exception to the Hearsay Rule. They maintained that it is
MANRESA 2018
2. Such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical engaged in that occupation? SC said no because it is an isolated
or other published compilation; transaction, isolated incident that led to price quotation. It cannot
3. Said compilation is published for the use of persons be considered a commercial list.
engaged in that occupation, and
4. It is generally used and relied upon by persons in the MERALCO VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR
same occupation. G.R. No. 127598, February 22, 2000
Example: This excludes mere newspaper accounts.
Trading of NBA cards Newspaper accounts of what? Cost of living allowance, COLA, in
different regions. That cannot be considered a commercial list. For
When you trade, you buy cards and then you trade it with fellow that matter, if you really consider it, example, statement of
collectors and when you trade it has to be of proportionate value. minimum wage and cost of living allowances all over the country
A $5 card should be traded for more or less a $5 card. But how across different regions, that cannot be considered a commercial
would you know the value of these cards? list.
We have this magazine called ______________. It’s a magazine Why? It is something to be taken cognizance by the court without
which lists all the cards and then their street value. That’s a proof. That’s subject to mandatory judicial notice, if you really
commercial list. look at it. That’s an official act of the executive department.
Why is it an exception to the hearsay rule? Let’s say in a According to Francisco, these are his examples of a commercial list
hypothetical case for theft, let’s say, of a very valuable sports car, (Francisco, p. 339, 1992 ed.):
how would we know how much to charge? How much is its
value? You can you use that magazine and point out how much 1. Trade journals and reporting current prices and other
the value is. market data;
2. Mortality tables compiled for life insurance;
Why is it an exception? Again, necessity and trustworthiness. 3. Abstracts of title compiled by reputable title examining
institutions or individuals; or
Why necessity? 4. Business directories, animal pedigree registers, and the
like.
Who made those values? Were they arbitrarily made or was it a
product of long years of trading experience to determine its value? Business directories are a compilation used by people in a
So, who started it? Who began trading it at that value? We don’t particular occupation.
know because we are talking about transaction after transaction
after transaction, finally arriving at a particular value. That’s so LEARNED TREATISES
difficult to find out. That’s the reason why there’s necessity.
Rule 130, Section 46. Learned treatises – A published treatise,
Why trustworthy? periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art
is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
Trustworthiness because practically everybody in that occupation therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the
relied on that magazine to determine whether the cards being subject testified, that the writer of the statement in the treatise,
traded were valid. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert in the subject.
To my mind, that’s a perfect example of a commercial list. In
jurisprudence at least, how did the SC look at trading list or To my mind, you have to exclude law there.
commercial list?
When are learned treatises admissible? There are two instances:
PNOC SHIPPING VS. CA
(G.R.No.107518, October 8, 1998) 1. When the court can take judicial notice of them; or
2. When an expert witness testifies that the author of such
What happened was there was a collision of maritime vessels. One is recognized as expert in that profession. (Sec. 46)
of them was at fault. There has to be necessary repairs to be made
over that maritime vessel. Examples would be:
The owner of the maritime vessel sent a request for quotations. 1. Historical works;
During trial, all he presented was price quotations without 2. Scientific treatises; or
presenting the people who prepared these price quotations and 3. Law (Francisco, pp. 340-341, 1992 ed.)
according to them that’s not hearsay. They are covered by the
exception on the ground that they are commercial lists. What is an example of a medical treatise? Grey’s Anatomy. It’s not
just a name of the show. It’s a book that is used by medical
According to the SC, NO, they are not a commercial list. Going professionals. Everybody in the medical field would know what
over the REQUISITES, are the price quotations relied by people this Grey’s Anatomy book is all about. Meaning it’s a treatise, and
MANRESA 2018
they say that Grey is an expert on that subject. That’s the reason from their opinions, inferences, impressions and conclusions drawn
why it’s considered as a learned treatise. from such facts, which are incompetent and inadmissible.
TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER PROCEEDING
0:34:01 – 1:08:00 | Angel Deiparine Bawal ang OPINION. Your opinion does not matter.
October 4, 2018 00:34:00-01:08:00
Exceptions:
Rule 130, Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former 1. Opinion of Expert Witness (Sec. 49)
proceeding. – The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or 2. Opinion of an Ordinary Witness as to:
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
a. The opinion is about the identity of a person about
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may
whom he has adequate knowledge;
be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the
b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
opportunity to cross-examine him.
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
Requisites sufficiently acquainted; and
1. Witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is dead or d. The witness’ impressions on the emotion, behavior,
unable to testify; condition or appearance of a person (Sec. 50)
2. The testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
Let’s go first to Section 49, EXPERT OPINION
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same
parties or those representing the same interests;
Rule 130, Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a
3. Former case involved the same subject as that in the present witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
case, although on different causes of action; or training which he shown to possess, may be received in
4. Issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same evidence.
issue involved in the present case; and
5. Adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the We are talking here about EXPERT WITNESSES as opposed to an
witness in the former case ORDINARY WITNESS.
What are the grounds, aside from death, which makes a witness EXPERT WITNESS ORDINARY WITNESS
unable to testify in a subsequent case? A witness who states something A witness who testifies on facts
1. Insanity or mental incapacity or the former witness’ loss of based from special knowledge, based on his personal
memory through old age or disease; training, skill or experience, knowledge
2. Physical disability by reason of sickness or advanced age; which he is shown to possess.
3. The fact that the witness has been kept away by contrivance
of the opposite party; or Who is an expert witness?
4. The fact that after diligent search the former witness cannot PEOPLE VS. ABRIOL (2001)
be found. (Francisco, p. 342, 1992 ed.)
An expert witness is “one who belongs to the profession or calling
to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses
special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an
OPINION RULE opinion.”
What is an OPINION?
It’s an inference or a conclusion based or drawn from the Cases where expert witness is required:
facts established. a. Psychological Incapacity when you talk about the guidelines
When the witness states an opinion, he does not testify based set in Molina case.
on personal knowledge but he testifies based on his belief. b. Medical malpractice cases would require expert witnesses;
Instead of saying what he heard, saw, smell, tasted or expert testimony from a qualified medical practitioner.
touched, he is testifying as to what he thinks about a
particular matter. Q: Is there a definite degree/standard of determining the degree of
skill/knowledge that the witness must possess in order to testify as an
Rule 130, Section 48. GENERAL RULE.- The opinion of a witness is expert?
not admissible, EXCEPT as provided in the following sections. A: There is none. It’s sufficient that the following factors are present:
1. Training and education;
BERNARDINO VS. PEOPLE (2006) 2. Particularity, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case;
and
Witnesses can testify only to those facts which they know of their 3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon which his
personal knowledge, that is, which is derived from their own opinion is based.
perception. They are not generally allowed to testify on their
opinion or conclusion but must state facts within their knowledge Q: How is expertise acquired?
as it is the province of the court to make deductions from pertinent
facts placed in evidence and to decide matters directly in issue. DILAG CO. V. MERCED (1949)
Their testimony must be confined to statements of concrete facts
within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection – that is, There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or
facts perceived by the use of their own senses – as distinguished experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and training
MANRESA 2018
are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise
expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that unreasonable.
acquired by study.
TABAO VS. PEOPLE (2011)
So, expertise can be gained, not only by formal studies, but by doing,
with reputation, for a long period of time. The use of the word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an
Example: expert witness is permissible and not mandatory on the part of the
• Carpenter/ Panday (JZE talks about ‘maestro panday’ they courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that the courts
hired which learned the trade from parents, grandfather. He are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of
is considered an expert despite the fact he did not learn the an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to
craft in school.) sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court
in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to
adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
Q: What is expert evidence? attendant facts and the applicable law.
A: It is the testimony of a person (expert witness) possessing
knowledge not usually acquired by other persons in a particular Q: Are there instances under the law where expert evidence is actually
subject matter. mandated? YES. For Example:
• Medical Malpractice cases
Q: When is expert evidence admissible? • DNA Evidence
A: It is admissible when: • Section 46 on learned treatises
1. The matter to be established requires expertise; and • Article 36 cases, Republic vs. Molina
2. The witness has been qualified as an expert.
However, there are cases which also tell you na dili na siya mandatory:
BIER VS. BIER (2008)
Q: What is the test in determining whether there is need to resort to
expert evidence? The personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically
A: The test is whether the opinion called for will aid the court in incapacitated by a psychiatrist or psychologist is no longer
resolving an issue. A perfect example would be medical malpractice mandatory for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under
cases. Article 36 of the Family Code but the totality of evidence must still
prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the
Qualifying a Witness alleged psychological incapacity.
So, it’s not mandatory. Molina is just a guideline.
An expert witness is always offered as such. If your opponent admits
that he is an expert, he can immediately proceed with his testimony. CASUMPANG VS. CORTEJO (2015)
That is, if the other party stipulates that he is really an expert. But if the Expert testimony is essential to establish not only the professional
opponent does not admit that your witness is an expert, you have to go standards observed in the medical community, but also that the
through the process of QUALIFYING A WITNESS. physician’s conduct in the treatment of care falls below such
“Qualifying a witness” means the act of proving that the witness is an standard.
expert. This is done by making him testify, through preliminary
questions, as to his training, education and experience. JZE: I want you to read this case on your own, DE LA LLANA VS.
Take note that an expert witness may base his opinion either on the BIONG. It’s a nice case for Torts and Damages, but for Evidence, what
first-hand knowledge of the facts or on the basis of hypothetical you need to remember here is that the victim is a doctor. But he was
questions where the facts are presented to him and on the assumption offered as an ORDINARY witness, and not as an EXPERT WITNESS.
that they are true, formulates his opinion on the hypothesis. Expert witnesses must be offered as such.
Procedure 2017 TSN:

1. Introduce and qualify the witness, if his qualifications are DE LA LLANA VS. BIONG (2013)
not otherwise stipulated upon by the opponent;
2. Present his factual testimony, if he has knowledge of the On March 30, 2000, at around 11:00 p.m., Juan dela Llana was
facts; driving a 1997 Toyota Corolla car along North Avenue, Quezon
3. Begin the hypothetical question by asking him to assume City. His sister, Dra. Dela Llana, was seated at the front passenger
certain facts as true; seat while a certain Calimlim at the backseat.
4. Conclude the question, by first asking the expert if he has an
opinion on a certain point assuming that these facts are true Juan stopped the car across the Veterans Memorial Hospital when
the signal light turned red. A few seconds after the car halted, a
and secondly, asking him, after he has answered
dump truck containing gravel and sand suddenly rammed the car’s
affirmatively, to give his opinion on the point.
rear end, violently pushing the car forward. Due to the impact, the
5. After he has stated his opinion, ask him to give his reasons
car’s rear end collapsed and its rear windshield was shattered.
or the basis for his opinion. Glass splinters flew, puncturing Dra. delaLlana. Apart from these
minor wounds, Dra. delaLlana did not appear to have suffered
Nature of Expert Opinions
from any other visible physical injuries. The truck driver revealed
that his employer was Rebecca Biong.
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they
must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony, but are A month and a half after the accident, Dra. delaLlana began to feel
generally regarded as purely advisory; the courts may place whatever moderate pain on the left side of her neck and shoulder. Her health
weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it, if they find deteriorated to the extent that she could no longer move her left
arm. She consulted with Dr. Rosalinda Milla to examine her
MANRESA 2018
condition. Dr. Milla told her that she suffered from a whiplash expert.” Mao nang Gibson’s Law in the United
injury, an injury caused by the compression of the nerve running to States.
her left arm and hand.
• TOLENTINO VS. LATAGAN (G.R. NO. 179874, June 22,
She sued the defendants for damages for her whiplash injury. 2015) – Is it required for a handwriting expert to examine the
During trial, as a medical doctor, Dra. delaLlana herself testified original documents allegedly forged? And as a corollary
about her alleged whiplash injury. issue, would a showing of possible bias on the part of the
expert adversely affect the proponent?
Evidence of delaLlana
The pictures of her damaged car
To show that the collision was strong and it can be reasonably • PUNZALAN VS. COMELEC (G.R. NO. 126669, Apr. 27,
inferred from these pictures that the massive impact resulted in her 1998) – Are handwriting experts required in examining or
whiplash injury. comparing handwriting in a ballot?
The medical certificate dated November 20, 2000

Dr. Milla categorically stated in the medical certificate that Dra. 1:08:01 – 1:30:44 | Anton Maligad
delaLlana suffered from whiplash injury.
Rule 130; Section 50. Opinion of Ordinary Witness—The
Her testimony that collisions can cause whiplash injury. Credible opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be
because she was a surgeon. received in evidence regarding:
Ruling: a. The identity of a person about whom he has adequate

The pictures of her damaged car knowledge;
According to the SC, it only proves impact. It cannot be used to
infer whiplash injury. b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
and
The medical certificate dated November 20, 2000 HEARSAY. The
doctor who issued it did not testify.
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
Her testimony that collision can cause whiplash injury. sufficiently acquainted.
EXCLUDED FOR BEING A MERE OPINION.
The witness may also testify on his impression of the emotion,
As to the Medical Certificate – The medical certificate has no behavior, condition or appearance of a person
probative value for being hearsay. It is a basic rule that evidence,
whether oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not EXAMPLES FOR EACH OPINION:
based on the personal knowledge of the witness but on the
knowledge of another person who is not on the witness stand. IDENTITY: A person’s voice. You talk to somebody on the phone
and you would know immediately whom that is. It is because you
As to her testimony – Dra. delaLlana, as the plaintiff in this quasi- have known each other for a long time. So, even if you haven’t
delict case, was the lone physician-witness during trial. seen that person, but you will know the identity of the person right
Significantly, she merely testified as an ordinary witness before the away—because you are so familiar of his/her voice.
trial court. Dra. delaLlana essentially claimed in her testimony that
Joel’s reckless driving caused her whiplash injury. Despite the fact
That is why you have personal knowledge, even if you haven’t
that Dra. delaLlana is a physician and even assuming that she is an
expert in neurology, we cannot give weight to her opinion that
seen the face of that person, but you have heard his/her voice. You
Joel’s reckless driving cause her whiplash injury without violating are allowed to state your opinion on who that is.
the rules on evidence.
Note: Atty. JZE did not relate to a case, but according to the 2017
In the present case, Dra. delaLlana’s medical opinion cannot be TSN, the case cited is People vs Prieto.
given probative value for the reason that she was not presented as
an expert witness. As an ordinary witness, she was not competent This Court has ruled that identification by the sound of the voice
to testify on the nature, and the cause and effects of whiplash of a person is a sufficient and acceptable means of identification
injury. Furthermore, we emphasize that Dra. delaLlana, during where it is established that the witness and the accused had known
trial, nonetheless did not provide a medical explanation on the each other personally and closely for a number of years.
nature as well as the cause and effects of whiplash injury in her
testimony. HANDWRITING: [Mariano vs. Roxas] That the receipts are not
genuine was confirmed by Lorna Caraga. She testified that she was
JZE: Read these other cases; it’s for you to find out. L
familiar with the signature of complainant who was her officemate
• PAJE VS. CASIÑO (G.R. NO. 207257, Feb. 3, 2015) – Expert
for a period of 5 years in the RTC of Caloocan city. In many
opinion in environmental cases.
occasions, complainant signed documents in her presence. So, she
can state her opinion regarding that handwriting.
• SAN DIEGO VS. PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 176114, Apr. 8, 2015) –
Dueling expert witnesses in criminal cases involving Her opinion as to complainant’s genuine signature is admissible in
mishandling or theft of money. evidence pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130.
o There’s this “Gibson’s Law,” which states that “for
every expert there is an equal and opposite
MANRESA 2018
MENTAL SANITY: You saw a person who is acting amok/acting person

crazy in the middle of the street. So your impression would be that
person might be crazy. The testimony of the police officer is admissible. Even if it is
technically speaking of an opinion, the testimony will still be
But, how sure are you that person is crazy? admitted. It is because a witness may testify on his impressions on
the Emotion, Behavior, Condition or Appearance of a Person.
You are not a medical professional or an expert in mental disease
that you can immediately claim that person is crazy.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
You cannot say with medical certainty that person is crazy/insane.
But because he is acting that way, then he must be with all Rule 130; Section 51 Character evidence not generally
probability be insane. This is based on the emotion, condition, and admissible, exceptions:
appearance of a person.
a. Criminal Cases
Another Illustration: Have you met a person who smells like 1. The accused may prove his good moral
“chico”, who looks flushed, slurring speech, and is having character, which is pertinent to the moral trait
difficulty walking? involved in the offense charged.
What is your conclusion? He must be drunk! 2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad character, which is pertinent to,
But, to a scientific certainty can you say that person is drunk? the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
You can’t! Are you a breathalyzer? You cannot say that he is drunk 3. The good or bad moral character of the
for certain. So, whenever you say that person must be drunk—you offended party may be proved if it tends to
are not actually stating a fact. You are only stating your impression establish in any reasonable degree the
as to his behavior, condition, or appearance. probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
That testimony regarding your impression is actually admissible.
b. Civil Cases
BAR QUESTION: Emotion, Condition, and Appearance of a Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
Person admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved
in the case.
Facts:
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, then tied her to a chair c. In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14—Evidence
and robbed her of certain pieces of jewelry and money. of a Good character of a Witness
Dencio then brought Candid, Marcela’s maid, to a bedroom where

he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida cry, pleading “Huwag!
Maawa ka sa akin!” Rule 132, Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness—
Eviden
After raping Candida, Dencio left the house with the loot. Candida ce of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
then untied Marcela and rushed to the police station about a character has been impeached.
kilometer away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that
Dencio had barged in to the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a Evidence of the good moral character of a person is legally
chair, and robbed her of her jewelry and money. irrelevant in a case. It is not admissible.
Candida related to the police officer that Dencio had raped her. We can also relate this to the Res alios inter acta Rule—wherein
The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the evidence that you did something one time, is not indicative that he
verge of collapse. did the certain similar thing at this particular time.
Dencio was charged with Robbery with Rape. During the trial Rationale: The rationale of why character evidence is not allowed,
Candida could no longer be found. because it irrelevant in determining a controversy. Besides, it is
purely circumstantial. It does not directly prove the fact in issue.
Issue: If the police officer were to testify that he noticed that
Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such From 2017 TSN:
testimony be considered as an opinion and therefore be held an PEOPLE vs. LEE (2002)
inadmissible? The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as
legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence
Held: relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the
case were allowed to be influence by evidence of the character or
Hysterical—behavior of a person reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects
On a verge of collapse—condition of a person/ appearance of a of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits
MANRESA 2018
of the case. After all, the business of the court to try the case, and In a prosecution for murder, where the accused pleads the
not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. justifying circumstance of self-defense, he may present evidence of
the bad character of the victim.
Good Character of the Accused: To prove that the victim was a violent person, thereby proving
Take note that, when the accused present proof of his good moral circumstantially that there is unlawful aggression done by the
character it strengthens the presumption of innocence—which is victim.
enshrined in the Constitution.
In a prosecution for Rape:
This proceeds from the theory that a person of good character or
reputation is not likely to commit the act charged against him. Where the defense of the accused is consent from the victim, then
he may present evidence of the bad character of the victim.
Thus, a person accused of a crime involving dishonesty may
present evidence tending to prove that he is honest. In decided cases:
What about the Prosecution? The court held that the Character evidence of the victim in
Homicide cases is admissible in two situations:
Can the Prosecution present proof that a particular accused has a.) Evidence of the deceased’s aggression;
bad character and therefore he committed the crime? NO b.) Evidence of the state of mind of the accused.
GR: Gerald was accused of stealing from a person. The The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the
Prosecution cannot present witnesses that will show that Gerald deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the
has the propensity to steal. case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or
the accused was the aggressor.
XPN: However, if Gerald presented a character evidence tending
to show that he is honest. Then, the prosecution now may present But, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in
evidence the evidence of bad character—but only in rebuttal. cases of murder committed in treachery and premeditation. By the
manner of making the attack, the character is no longer relevant.
What the accused has done is opening the doors. Therefore, the
Prosecution can rebut his evidence through the presentation of From 2017 TSN:
evidence of bad character.
People vs. Sazon (1990)
Take Note: That for both (1) and (2) the character evidence must
be relevant and germane to kind of act charged. The bad moral character of the offended party may be proved in
evidence to establish in any reasonable degree the probability of
Charge of Rape—character of chastity the offense charged, i.e., the quarrelsome nature of the victim may
Charge of Assault—character of non-violence tend to establish that he started the unlawful aggression.
Charge of Embezzlement—character for honesty and integrity
Nonetheless, such evidence seeking to establish as it does only a
As for the Offended Party: The character evidence, whether good probability, cannot prevail over facts sufficiently proven by the
or bad of the offended party, may be proved if it tends in any prosecution during the trial bellying such aggression.
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged.
From 2017 TSN:
In Criminal Law:
Elements of self-defense: People vs. Adonis (1995)
a.) Unlawful aggression;
b.) Lack of specific provocation from a person defending Even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the
himself; deceased was of a quarrelsome disposition, such evidence would
c.) Reasonable necessity of the means used only have established a probability that he had indeed started an
unlawful assault on Eleuterio. This probability cannot overcome
Now remember, lack of sufficient provocation from the person the positive statement of the prosecution witnesses during trial
defending himself and unlawful aggression—these are the matters that the accused-appellant had assaulted without any provocation.
that would in effect be character traits.
Rape and Similar Offenses:
So, when you defend yourself against an attacker, you are saying
that he is your aggressor. GR: The offended party’s character, regarding her chastity, is
admissible on whether to show that she consented to the man’s
So, can you therefore, present proof regarding the victim’s act.
tendency of being a troublemaker?
XPN: (When the women’s character as to chastity is NOT
admissible)
MANRESA 2018
a.) When the woman’s consent is immaterial—such as in

cases of statutory rape;
b.) In the crimes of qualified seduction or consented

abduction where the offended party may be a virgin
which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation or a virtuous woman of good reputation
c.) Sexual Shield Rule [Section 30 Rule on Examination of Child

Witnesses] —you cannot present evidence tending to
show that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior and evidence presented to prove the sexual
predisposition of the victim. But evidences of specific
instances of sexual behavior can be admitted if only to
show that somebody else other than the accused was the
source of the semen, injury, or other physical evidence.
d.) Adult Rape Victims [Rape Shield under Sec 6. RA 8505]—

The evidence of the complainant’s past conduct or
reputation or opinion thereof shall not be admitted,
unless and only to the extent that the court finds that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
In Civil cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved
in the case.
Example:
• Declaration of Nullity of Marriage due to Psychological
Incapacity—in effect what you are trying to tell the court
that your spouse is psychologically incapacitated.
• Custody Cases—between husband and wife and on who

will be entitled to the custody of the child.
***End of 2ND EXAM***

Evidence 2ND Exam 2018 TSN - Final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence 2ND Exam 2018 TSN - Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE 2 ND EXAM TSN

(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one

Issue: whether the triplicate copy containing the notation:

Sir’s story: he used to work at a credit cooperative. Part of his job

Which again talks about carbon sheets.

2. The entries must be made at or near the time of the

It’s often misunderstood. It’s a source of misconception and given

Bar Question 2017

We jump a little bit to Rule 132 relating to presentation of

Spouses Tapayan vs Martinez Destruction is the obliteration of a document such as by tearing,

Unavailability may either be physical or legal impossibility.

a) a SUMMARY containing, among others, a chronological People v. Abella

That is not applicable in section 8.

Lets go back to 1st year a little bit shall we.

Ex. So, arguably if e-wills would be allowed, there has to be a lot of

In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the Example

HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM BY DEAN INIGO

Situation: A sells to B his land for P1million. They sign a deed of

Nakabutang sa contract- receipt of which is hereby

Factual situation: This case happened a long time ago in 1949.

So pwede, gi allow sila.

• In MCIAA, the contract neither contained nor prohibited

to the conclusion proposed by the party presenting it. Meaning, it another.

The answer is NO. It is not covered by the Statute of Frauds

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE It applies to any type of

When do you make an offer with respect to the testimony of a

New Civil Code. Article 1403 Rules of Court. Rule 130,

Take note that competent evidence means evidence that is not

QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS People vs. Sota

Take note of the 4 requirements. It is deemed integrated in these Oath or Affirmation

Corollary to this capacity to perceive is the requirement that the

1. Capacity of Observation perjury or false testimony.

Even a mental retardate is not, per se, disqualified from being a

Insofar as children are concerned, only those whose mental

respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts

xxx (8) may interview witnesses; and

Section 5 (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged Sec. 9. Interpreter for child.—

One of the spouses must be a party to the action as a plaintiff,

Illustration: In this case, the incompetency was waived by the appellant’s

• You get an interested witness, in the form of a spouse.

Maximo filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from testifying

Exceptions to the Survivorship Disqualification Rule

Example: There is a certain surrogacy exception in the case of Hko Ah Pao v.

Celedonia, on the other hand, in support of her brother Felicito,

ISSUE: Comments: Assume that you are the administrator or executor of

What is the effect of their claim?

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse

2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against MARITAL MARITAL

Distinctions between MDR and MPR

MARITAL MARITAL 3RD PERSONS

The refusal of one Thus, Bangs can be called to testify.

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be

What is prohibited under Sec 25 is testimony by compulsion, it

Effect Bars testimony for or Bars the DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER

No, because she is still a minor. Remember that when a child is a

That the father was a married man is an admission of a

2. Derivative Atty-client privileged communication

REGALA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged

Issue: Is the identity of the client privileged?

3. Obstetrics Accordingly, this privilege protects the interest of the patient. It is

In a way there is a subjective element to the requisite – that of

End of 2ND EXAM