MSnewrules Evidenceppt

2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)
BY:
HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice, Court of Appeals
Remedial Law Examiner, 2019 Bar Examination
Remedial Law Department and Civil Law Department,
Philippine Judicial Academy
ASSISTED BY: ATTY. CANDICE BACABAC
Overview of Amendments
• Acknowledged technological advances,

and incorporated developments in law,
jurisprudence and international
conventions.
• New/Deleted/Renumbered provisions
• Amendments for gender inclusivity
RULE 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence
Old Provision Revised Provision

Evidence is admissible when it is Evidence is admissible when relevant
relevant to the issue and is not excluded to the issue and not excluded by the
by law or these rules. (3a) Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a)
• Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has 'rational probative

value' to the issue in controversy.
Logic and human experience teach us that OCULAR INSPECTION (NOT the
Certificate of Registration, development permit, license to sell, building permit, and
Condominium Certificate of Title) is the best evidence to prove the existence or
non-existence of condominium units. (OCA v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-07-
2076, October 18, 2010)
• Competent Evidence
Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by the Constitution,

the law or the rules.
Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. Testimony of
one of the parties to the marriage, or one of the witnesses to the marriage, or the
solemnizing officer, are admissible to prove the fact of marriage. xxx the best
documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract itself. (Uy v.
Spouses Lacsamana, G. R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015)
Relevant + Competent = Admissible
Admissibility of Evidence is NOT Weight of

Evidence (RULE 133)
“The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while
the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade.” (Mancol, Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 204289, November 22, 2017, citing Dela Liana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356,
December 4, 2013)
"Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to
be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the
admitted evidence proves an issue." (Id., citing Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v.
Dumapis, et al., G.R. No. 163210, August 13, 2008)
"Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of
evidence.” (Id., citing De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011)
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
Section 1. Judicial notice, when
mandatory
A court shall take judicial notice, A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of without the introduction of evidence, of
the existence and territorial extent of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality, government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and the law of nations, the admiralty and
maritime courts of the world and their maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history seals, the political constitution and history
of the Philippines, the official acts of the of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws departments of the National Government
of nature, the measure of time, and the of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
geographical divisions. (1a) measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)
The phrase “national government of the Philippines” clarifies that the official acts
referred to in the provision are those of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the national government of the Philippines.
(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)
Section 1. Judicial notice, when
mandatory
A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in
the same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the
same case, of the authenticity of its own records of another
case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in
the same court, and of public records on file in the same
court. Since a copy of the tax declaration, which is a public
record, was attached to the complaint, the same document is
already considered as on file with the court, thus, the court can
now take judicial notice of such. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v.
Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966, March 2, 2016)
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing
mandatory
During the trial, the court, on its own During the pre-trial and the trial, the
initiative, or on request of a party, may court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall
announce its intention to take judicial hear the parties on the propriety of taking
notice of any matter and allow the parties judicial notice of any matter.
to be heard thereon.
Before judgment or on appeal, the
After the trial, and before judgment or court, motu proprio or upon motion, may
on appeal, the proper court, on its own take judicial notice of any matter and
initiative or on request of a party, may shall hear the parties thereon if such
take judicial notice of any matter and matter is decisive of a material issue in
allow the parties to be heard thereon if the case. (3a)
such matter is decisive of a material
issue in the case. (n)
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing
mandatory
The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the subject
property, which is the very issue in the present case. The parties should thus have
been given the opportunity to present evidence on the nature of the property before
the lower court took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a portion of the
subject landholdings. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms, Inc., G.R.
No. 166259, November 12, 2012)
• Inclusion of the word “pre-trial” – The court may properly indicate to the parties its
intention, or the parties may request the court, to take judicial notice of a particular
matter during pre-trial.
• Use of the word “motion” – The word “motion” is more apt or accurate than
“request.”
• Use of the phrase “on the propriety of taking” – The phrase was added to provide
clarification on the purpose of the hearing, i.e., whether the matter involved is a
proper subject of a discretionary judicial notice.
Section 4. Judicial admissions
An admission, verbal or written, made An admission, oral or written, made by
by a party in the course of the a party in the course of the proceedings
proceedings in the same case does not in the same casem does not require
require proof. proof.
The admission may be contradicted The admission may be contradicted
only by showing that it was made through only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such palpable mistake or that the imputed
admission was made. (2a) admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)
• Use of the word “oral” – The term “verbal,” as used in the old provision, refers to
the use of words, which can either be oral or written. Thus, the word “oral” is the
more apt term to be used together with the word “written.”
• Use of the phrase “the imputed…was not, in fact, made” – From the Sub-
Committee’s version “that the imputed admission was not made or intended,” the
Rules Committee opted to be more objective, noting that “intended” is a condition
of the mind.
Section 4. Judicial admissions
“A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings,
(b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. It is
well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by
the admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who
makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made
thru palpable mistake, as in this case, no amount of
rationalization can offset it. Also, in Republic of the Philippines
v. De Guzman, citing Alfelor v. Halasan, this Court held that ‘a
party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact
as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of
evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes
an admitted fact from the field of controversy.’” (Tan v. People,
G.R. No. 218902, October 17, 2016)
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence.
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When as object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.(1)
Physical evidence ranks higher in hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.

When physical evidence runs counter to witness' testimony, the primacy of
the physical evidence must be upheld. In criminal cases xxx in which the
accused stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, the Court has [to] rely
principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. (PO1 Ocampo v.
People, G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015)
A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or

of being under the age of consent to intercourse), is admissible as object
evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court. (People v.
Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 2003)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence
Documents as evidence consist of Documents as evidence consist of
writing or any material containing letters, writings, recordings, photographs or any
words, numbers, figures, symbols or material containing letters, words,
other modes of written expression offered sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
as proof of their contents. (n) their equivalent, or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their
contents. Photographs include still
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos. (n)
• Expanded definition of documentary evidence
• Taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and Rule 1001 of the
Uniform Rules of Evidence (URE)
• The purpose of expanding the definition is to embrace in the broadest
possible terms every memorial that preserves written and spoken language,
including recorded sounds
• The inclusion of “photographs include still pictures, stored images, x-ray films,
videotapes, and motion pictures” should be construed as merely exemplary,
and NOT exclusive (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2
[1995])
• Photographs as documentary evidence
• In Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 November 1995; College

Assurance Plan v. Belfrant Development, G.R. No. 155604, 22 November
2007; People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 May 2008, the Supreme Court
allowed the use of photographs as documentary evidence because they are

relevant to the issue and are verified. The verification need not be made by the
photographer himself; it can be made by any other competent witness who can
testify as to its exactness and accuracy.
• Use of the word “videos” instead of “videotapes” – “Videos” is the more modern
term
• Use of the word “drawings” – In Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd. (808 F.2d 1316 [9th Cir.
1987]), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “drawings” were
“writings” within the meaning of the best evidence rule, specifically, Rule 1001,
FRE.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
Old Title Revised Title
Best Evidence Rule Original Document Rule
The “Best Evidence Rule” (BER) is a misnomer because it misleadingly suggests

that the doctrine applies to all types of evidence. BER only applies to documents or
writings. As such, there is no requirement that parties introduce the best available
evidence bearing on other matters that they seek to prove in court.
The doctrine simply requires that the original be produced when the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document and excludes secondary evidence except
where the original is shown to be unavailable or secondary evidence is otherwise
allowed by the rule or statute.
The “Original Document Rule” is thus the more accurate or apt label for the
doctrine.
1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
Best Evidence Rule
•With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the
content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to
whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. (Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673,
January 11, 2016; Scunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23,
2014)
•The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents
of a writing are brought before the court xxx. The rule further acts as an insurance
against fraud. Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds
it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally
arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its production
would expose and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading inferences
resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a
larger set of writings. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604,
September 2, 2013)
Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions
When the subject of inquiry is the When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence contents of a document, writing,
shall be admissible other than the original recording, photograph or other record, no
document itself, except in the following evidence is admissible other than the
cases: original document itself, except in the
following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in (a) When the original is lost or destroyed,
court, without bad faith on the part of or cannot be produced in court,
the offeror; without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(a) When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against (a) When the original is in the custody or
whom the evidence is offered, and the under the control of the party against
latter fails to produce it after whom the evidence is offered, and the
reasonable notice; latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by judicial
processes or procedure;
(c) When the original consists of (c) When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in (d) When the original is a public record in
the custody of a public officer or is the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. (2a) recorded in a public office.
(e) When the original is not closely-

related to a controlling issue. (3a)
• The additional exception “or the original cannot be obtained by judicial
process or procedure” -
• In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil.

1002, unreported), the Supreme Court ruled that when the original is outside
the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary
evidence is admissible. See also Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China
v. Tuliarmo, 51 O.G.5211.
• The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-related to a

controlling issue” -
• Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment is

intended to prevent an overly rigid or technical application of the original
document rule. It allows for trial efficiency where the original is so tangential
that its production would add little or nothing to the reliability of the fact-finding
process. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995])
Section 4. Original of document
(a) The original of the document is one (a) An “original” of a document is the
the contents of which are the subject document itself or any counterpart
of inquiry. intended to have the same effect by a
(b) When a document is in two or more person executing or issuing it. An
copies executed at our about the “original” of a photograph includes the
same time, with identical contents, all negative or any print therefrom. If data
such copies are equally regarded as is stored in a computer or similar
originals. device, any printout or other output
(c) When an entry is repeated in the readable by sight or other means,
regular course of business, one being shown to reflect the data accurately is
copied from another at or near the an “original.”
time of the transaction, all the entries (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart
are likewise equally regarded as produced by the same impression as
originals. (3a) the original, or from the same matrix,
or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by…
…mechanical or electronic re-recording,
or by chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same

extent as an original unless (1) a genuine
question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it
is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the origial. (4a)
• The amendment in Section 4 (a) does not modify the meaning of the existing rule
that “[t]he original of a document is one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry.”
• Even as amended, the term “original” does not necessarily mean the first writing,
recording or photograph that was made, but rather refers to the writing, recording,
or photograph that is in issue in the litigation.
• The inclusion of any output from a computer adopts Section 1, Rule 4 of the
Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE)
• The definition of “duplicate” follows Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE, which was
adopted from the FRE.
• The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate best evidence objections to
copies made in clearly reliable ways, except where the objecting party can
offer a good reason to support the production of the original as indicated by
the new Section 4 (c).
• The new Section 4 (c) is based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE.
Kinds of Original Documents:
a)Documents where its contents are the subject of inquiry – still

retained
When what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of a

deed of sale and there is no real issue as to its contents, the best evidence
rule is inapplicable. (Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879,
April 23, 2014)
b)Duplicate original – still retained
When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing
paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, xxx, produces
a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced
by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or exposed impression,
all sheets are regarded as duplicate originals. (Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. v.
Traveler Kids, Inc., G.R. No. 200065, Sept. 14, 2014)
c) Entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all entries are regarded as
originals – still retained (under the new Section 7)
A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of goods or services to the
buyer, while a VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or
services received from the seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should not be
confused and made to refer to one and the same thing. (Northern Mindanao
Power Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 185115, February 18, 2015)
Section 5. When original of document is
unavailable
When the original document has been When the original document has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, the offeror, upon proof of its in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of execution or existence and the cause of
its unavailability without bad faith on his its unavailability without bad faith on his
part, may prove its contents by a copy, or or her part, may prove its contents by a
by a recital of its contents in some copy, or by a recital of its contents in
authentic document, or by the testimony some authentic document, or by the
of witnesses in the order stated. (4a) testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. (5a)
The offeror must prove:
a) existence or due execution of the original;

b) loss/destruction of original or reason for non-production;
c) absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror;
Order of proof is: existence, execution, loss, and contents. (MCMP Construction
Corp. v. Monark Equipment Corp., G.R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014)
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 6. When original document is in
adverse party’s custody or control
If the document is in the custody or If the document is in the custody or
under the control of the adverse party, he under the control of the adverse party, he
must have reasonable notice to produce or she must have reasonable notice to
it. If after such notice and after produce it. If after such notice and after
satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails satisfactory proof of its existence, he or
to produce the document, secondary she fails to produce the document,
evidence may be presented as in the secondary evidence may be presented
case of its loss (5a) as in the case of its loss (5a)
The offeror must prove:

a) the original exists;
b) document is under the custody or control of adverse party
c) adverse party given reasonable notice to produce original
d) adverse party failed to produce original despite notice. (EDSA Shangri-la
Hotel and Resort v. BF Corp., G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008)
Section 7. Summaries
New Provision
When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts
are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the
fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of
such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the

adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be
produced in court. (n)
• This new provision is substantially taken from Rule 1006 of the FRE, although the
requirement that the records must be voluminous under Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules on n Evidence was retained.
• As early as 1977, the Supreme Court, in Compaña Maritima v. Allied Free

Workers’ Union, 167 Phil. 381, already held that the originals must be made
available to the adverse party.
RENUMBERED PROVISIONS
SECTION 7. Evidence admissible Now Section 8.
when original document is a public
record. – When the original of a
document is in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof. (2a)
SECTION 8. Party who calls for Now Section 9.
document not bound to offer it. – A
party who calls for the production of a
document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 10. Evidence of written agreements
Old Provision: Section 9 Revised Provision: Section 10
When the terms of an agreement have When the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and there can be, as between the parties
and their successors in interest, no and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement. contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence However, a party may present evidence
to modify, explain or add to the terms of to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue the written agreement if he or she puts in
in his pleading: issue in a verified pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or

imperfection in the written agreement; imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to (b) The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto; the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; (c) The validity of the written agreement;
or or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed (d) The existence of other terms agreed
to by the parties or their successors in to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written interest after the execution of the written
agreement. agreement.
The term “agreement” includes wills. The term “agreement” includes wills.
(9a) (9a)
Parol Evidence:
Oral testimony, of person who has an interest in the outcome

of the case, in lieu of documentary evidence may be admitted as
evidence, provided:
a) the existence of any of the following has been put in issue in a
party's pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party:
1. intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the agreement;
2. failure of agreement to express true intent of the parties;
3. validity of agreement;
4. existence of other terms agreed to after execution of the
agreement.
b) it serves as the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting

party. (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015)
Parol Evidence:
•The issue of admitting parol evidence is a matter that is proper to the trial,
not the appellate, stage of a case. (Sps. Abella v. Sps. Abella, G.R. No.
195166, July 8, 2015)
•This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in deferring to the contracting

parties’ articulated intent. In choosing to reduce their agreement into writing,
they are deemed to have done so meticulously and carefully, employing
specific — frequently, even technical — language as are appropriate to their
context. From an evidentiary standpoint, this is also because "oral testimony
. . . coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case,
depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or
documentary evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike
a written contract which speaks of a uniform language.” (Spouses Paras v.
Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April
8, 2015)
4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
SECTION 10. Interpretation of a writing Now Section 11.
according to its legal meaning. – The
language of a writing is to be interpreted
according to the legal meaning it bears in
the place of its execution, unless the
parties intended otherwise. (8)
SECTION 11. Instrument construed so Now Section 12.
as to give effect to all provisions. – In
the construction of an instrument, where
there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if
possible, to be adopted as will give effect
to all. (9)
SECTION 12. Interpretation according Now Section 13.
to intention; general and particular
provisions. – In the construction of an
instrument, the intention of the parties is
to be pursued; and when a particular
provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former. So a particular
intent will control a general one that is
inconsistent with it. (10)
SECTION 13. Interpretation according SECTION 14. Interpretation according
to circumstances. – For the proper to circumstances. – For the proper
construction of an instrument, the construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be placed shown, so that the judge may be placed
in the position of those whose language in the position of those whose language
he is to interpret. (11) he or she is to interpret. (13a)
SECTION 14. Peculiar specification of Now Section 15.
terms. – The terms of a writing are
presumed to have been used in their
primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they
have a local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification, and were so used
and understood in the particular instance,
in which case the agreement must be
construed accordingly. (12)
SECTION 15. Written words control Now Section 16.
printed. – When an instrument consists
partly of written words and partly of a
printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the
latter. (13)
SECTION 16. Experts and interpreters Now Section 17.
to be used in explaining certain
writings. – When the characters in which
an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the
characters the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to
declare the characters or the meaning of
the language. (14)
SECTION 17. Of two constructions, SECTION 18. Of two constructions,
which preferred. – When the terms of an which preferred. – When the terms of an
agreement have been intended in a agreement have been intended in a
different sense by the different parties to different sense by the different parties to
it, that sense is to prevail against either it, that sense is to prevail against either
party in which he supposed the other party in which he or she supposed the
understood it, and when different other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which equally proper, that is to be taken which
is the most favorable to the party in is the most favorable to the party in
whose favor the provision was made. whose favor the provision was made.
(15) (17)
SECTION 18. Construction in favor of Now Section 19.
natural right. – When an instrument is
equally susceptible of two interpretations,
one in favor of natural rght and the other
against it, the former is to be adopted.
(16)
SECTION 19. Interpretation according Now Section 20.
to usage. – An instrument may be
construed according to usage, in order to
determine its true character.
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
RENUMBERED PROVISION
SECTION 20. Witnesses; their Now Section 21.
qualifications. – All persons who can
perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in

the outcome of the case, or conviction of
a crime, unless otherwise provided by
law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. (18a)
DELETED PROVISION
SECTION 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. –
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a)Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is
such that they are incapable or intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b)Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving
the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)
Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility if the testimony is

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

SECTION 36. Testimony generally SECTION 22. Testimony confined to
confined to personal knowledge; personal knowledge. – A witness can
hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she
testify only to those facts which he knows knows of his or her peresonal knowledge;
of his personal knowledge; that is, which that is, which are derived from his or her
are derived from his own perception, own perception. (36a)
except as otherwise provided in these
rules. (30a)
LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
OLD CONCEPT OF HEARSAY
- testimony that is not based on one’s personal knowledge, nor derived
from one’s own perception
NEW CONCEPT AS LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE

- a witness can testify only as to facts of his or her personal knowledge
or derived from his or her own perception
INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

- statement relating what another individual told the declarant
- admissible proof based on firsthand knowledge of what the other
individual told the declarant: not hearsay
- Inadmissible as proof of the truth of the statement of the other
individual to the declarant
LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part
on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by
whom it is sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness
regarding a statement made by another person given for the purpose of
establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the
record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such
statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when
what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay
rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact,
evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is
known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements. (Espineli v.
People, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014, citing Republic v. Heirs of Felipe
Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030, December 3, 2002)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of
marriage
During their marriage, neither the During their marriage, the husband or
husband nor the wife may testify for or the wife, cannot testify for or against the
against the other without the consent of other without the consent of the affected
the affected spouse, except in a civil case spouse, except in a civil case by one
by one against the other, or in a criminal against the other, or in a criminal case for
case for a crime committed by one a crime committed by one against the
against the other or the latter’s direct other or the latter’s direct descendants or
descendants or ascendants. (20a) ascendants. (22a)
marriage
• The reasons given for the rule are:
a) There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
b) If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of
perjury;
c) The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of private life,
even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and
d) Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one
spouse through the hostile testimony of the other. (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R.
No. 143439, October 14, 2005)
• Thus, where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no
more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed,
the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity
of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that
identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences
of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. There is
therefore no reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule. (Id.)
privileged communications
The following persons cannot testify The following persons cannot testify
as to matters learned in confidence in the as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases: following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or (a) The husband or the wife, during or
after their marriage, cannot be examined after their marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage one from the other during the marriage
except in a civil case by one against the except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct descendants or latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants; ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the (b) An attorney or person reasonably
consent of his client, be examined as to believed by the client to be licensed to
any communication made by the client to engage in the practice of law cannot,
him, or his advice given thereon in the without the consent of the client, be
course of, or with a view to, professional examined as to any communication made
employment, nor can an attorney’s by the client to him or her, or his or her
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be advice given thereon in the course of, or
examined, without the consent of the with a view to, professional employment,
client and his employer, concerning any nor can an attorney’s secretary,
fact the knowledge of which has been stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
acquired in such capacity; assisting the attorney be examined,
without the consent of the client and his
or her employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity, except in the following
cases:
Attorney – Client Privilege (NOTE: As amended, the rule now admits of exceptions.
See succeeding slides)
•A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the

author has acted in bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made by
parties or their counsel in pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial and
administrative proceedings, as well as answers given by the witness in reply to
questions propounded to them in the course of said proceedings, provided that said
allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive
to the questions propounded to said witnesses. xxx The absolute privilege remains
regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if the same are
relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry.
(Belen v. People, G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017)
•While Philippine law is silent on the question of whether the doctrine of absolutely
privileged communication extends to statements in preliminary investigations or
other proceedings preparatory to trial. (Id., citing Borg v. Boas, 231 F 2d 788
(1956)
(c) A person authorized to practice i. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If
medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in the services or advice of the
a civil case, without the consent of the lawyer were sought or obtained
patient, be examined as to any advice or to enable or aid anyone to
treatment given by him or any information commit or plan to commit what
which he may have acquired in attending the client knew or reasonably
such patient in a professional capacity, should have known to be a crime
which information was necessary to or fraud;
enable him to act in that capacity, and
which would blacken he reputation of the
patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given
by him in his professional character…
i. Crime or fraud (“future crime-fraud exception”)
The rationale for this exception is that clients are not entitled to use lawyers to
help them in pursuing unlawful or fraudulent objectives. If the privilege were to
cloak such activity, the result would be loss of public confidence and corruption of
the profession. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.22 [1995])
The policy of the privilege is that of promoting the administration of justice and it
would be a perversion of the privilege to extend it to the client who seeks advice
to aid him in carrying out an illegal fraudulent scheme. This would be tantamount
to participating in a conspiracy. (McCormick on Evidence, 3rd ed., p. 229 [1984])
(c) A person authorized to practice
ii.Claimants through the same
medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in
deceased client. As to a
a civil case, without the consent of the
communication relevant to an issue
patient, be examined as to any advice or
between parties who claim through
treatment given by him or any information
the same deceased client,
which he may have acquired in attending
regardless of whether the claims are
such patient in a professional capacity,
by testate or intestate or by inter
which information was necessary to
vivos transaction;
enable him to act in that capacity, and
which would blacken he reputation of the
patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any
by him in his professional character…
ii. Claimants through a deceased client
While the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client, there is no
privilege in a will contest or other case between parties who both claim through
that very client. This is because his communications may be essential to an
accurate resolution of competing claims of succession, and the testator would
presumably favor disclosure in order to dispose of his estate accordingly.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.24 [1995])
…in the course of discipline enjoined by iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or
the church to which the minister or priest client. As to a communication
belongs; relevant to an issue of breach of
duty by the lawyer to his or her
(e) A public officer cannot be examined client, or by the client to his or
during his term of office or afterwards, as her lawyer;
to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the
disclosure. (21a)
iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client (“self-defense exception”)
If the lawyer and client become involved in a dispute between themselves

concerning the services provided by the lawyer, the privilege does not apply to
their dispute. Thus, where a client alleges a breach of duty on the part of the
lawyer, i.e. professional malpractice, incompetence, or ethical violations – or
where the lawyer sues a client for his fee, either the lawyer or the client may
testify as to communications between them.
In theory, the client has impliedly “waived” the privilege by making allegations of
breach of duty against lawyer. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section
5.23 [1995])
iv. Document attested by the lawyer.

As to a communication relevant to
an issue concerning an attested
document to which the lawyer is
an attesting witness; or
iv. Lawyer as attesting witness
The privilege does not apply to “a communication relevant to an issue concerning

an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness.” This should
not really be an exception because the privilege never arises, as a lawyer who
acts as an attesting witness is not providing professional legal services. When an
attorney serves as an attesting witness, he is not acting as a lawyer and the
client’s obvious intent is to have him available to testify to the matter attested.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.25 [1995]; Lempert, R. &
Saltzburg, S., A Modern Approach to Evidence, 3rd ed., pp. 269-370 [1982])
v. Joint clients. As to a
communication relevant to a
matter of common interest
between two or more clients if
the communication was made by
any of them to a lawyer retained
or consulted in common, when
offered in an action between any
of the clients, unless they have
expressly agreed otherwise.
v. Joint clients
The rationale for the exception is that joint clients do not intend their
communication to be confidential from each other, and typically their
communications are made in each other’s presence. xxx Agreeing to joint
representation means that each joint client accepts the risk that another joint
client may later use what he or she has said to the lawyer. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick,
Modern Evidence, Section 5.14 [1995])
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or
person reasonably believed by the
patient to be authorized to practice
medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a
civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any
confidential communication made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the
patient’s physical, mental or emotional
condition, including alcohol or drug
addiction, between the patient and his or
her physician or psychotherapist. This
privilege also applies to persons,
including members of the patient’s family,
who have participated in the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient under the
direction of the physician or
psychotherapist.
A “psychotherapist” is:
a) A person licensed to practice

medicine engaged in the
diagnosis or treatment of a
mental or emotional condition, or
a) A person licensed as a
psychologist by the government
while similarly engaged.
Psychotherapist – Patient Privilege
The rationale to include this privilege is that the psychotherapist has a special
need to maintain confidentiality. His or her capacity to help his or her patients is
completely dependent upon their willingness and ability to talk freely. Confidentiality
is a condition sine qua non for a successful psychiatric treatment. (Lempert, R. &
Saltzburg, S., A Modern Approach to Evidence, 2nd ed., pp. 712-713 [1982], citing
Report No. 45, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry 92 [1960]), quoted in the
Advisory Committee’s note o PFRE 504, the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
•Qualification
For one to be considered a “psychotherapist,” a medical doctor need only be

“licensed” to practice medicine and need not be a psychiatrist, whereas a
psychologist must be “licensed” by the government.
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably

believed to be so cannot, without the
consent of the affected person, be
examined as to any communication or
by him or her, in his or her professional
character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs.
Priest – Penitent Privilege
The old provision limited the privilege to “penitential communications” made to a

minister or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the priest
or minister belongs. As worded, it is unduly preferential to the Roman Catholic
Church. The amendment expands the privilege to embrace any confidential
communication by a person to a minister or priest in his professional character as a
spiritual advisor.
(e) A public officer cannot be examined
during or after his or her tenure as to
communications made to him or her in
official confidence, when the court finds
that the public interest would suffer by the
disclosure.
The communication shall remain
privileged, even in the hands of a third
person who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original
parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality. (24a)
The use of the phrase “during or after his or her tenure” is a matter of style. The
Sub-Committee considered the word “tenure” to be more apt.
The elements of presidential communications privilege are:
1.The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power.”
2.The communication must be authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor
of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be
in "operational proximity" with the President.
3.The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that
may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought
"likely contains important evidence" and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive
privilege on the ground that the communications elicited “fall under conversation and
correspondence between the President and public officials" necessary in "her
executive and policy decision-making process" and, that "the information sought to
be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the
People's Republic of China." Simply put, the bases are presidential
communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy
or foreign relations.
Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the communications
elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications
privilege. First, the communications relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable
power" of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with
other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive
agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been
recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are "received"
by a close advisor of the President. Under the "operational proximity" test, petitioner
can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo's cabinet.
And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the
limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an
appropriate investigating authority. (Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, citing United
States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683; In Re: Sealed Case No. 96-3124, June 17, 1997;
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 365 F. 3d 1108, 361 U.S. App. D.C.
183, 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 141; CRS Report for Congress, Presidential Claims of
Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments; Bernas, S.J.,
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary, 2003 Ed., p.
903.
• Other privileged matters:
a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;

b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted;
c) trade secrets;
d) information contained in tax census returns;
e) bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act);
f) national security matters and intelligence information; and
g) criminal matter. (Eagleridge Dev't. Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700, Nov. 24, 2014)
There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from

taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. (Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro,
G.R. No. 198240, July 3, 2013)
Journalist-Source Privilege
Republic Act No. 1477 (1956) Republic Act No. 11458 (2019)
Without prejudice to his liability under Without prejudice to his liability under the
the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, civil and criminal laws, any publisher, owner, or
editor, columnist or duly accredited duly recognized or accredited journalist, writer,
reporter of any newspaper, magazine or reporter, contributor, opinion writer, editor,
columnist, manager, media practitioner
periodical of general circulation cannot be
involved in the writing, editing, production, and
compelled to reveal the source of any dissemination of news for mass circulation, of
news-report or information appearing in any print, broadcast, wire service organization,
said publication which was related in or electronic mass media, including cable TV
confidence to such publisher, editor or and its variants, cannot be compelled to reveal
reporter unless the court or a House or the source of any news item, report or
committee of Congress finds that such information appearing or being reported or
revelation is demanded by the security of disseminated through said media, which was
related in confidence to the abovementioned
the State.
media practitioners unless the court or the
House of Representatives or the Senate or
any committee of Congress finds that such
(NOTE: R.A. No. 1477 amended R.A. No. revelation is demanded by the security of the
53) State.”
2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege
No person may be compelled to testify No person shall be compelled to
against his parents, other direct testify against his or her parents, other
ascendants, children, or other direct direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants. (20a) descendants, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime
against that person or by one parent
against the other. (25a)
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege
• Use of the phrase “except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime
against that person or by one parent against the other” – incorporates Article 315
of the Family Code of the Philippines which provides that “[n]o descendant can be
compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and ascendants.”
A stepmother can be compelled to testify against stepdaughter, xxx they have

no common ancestry, privilege applies only to "direct" ascendants and
descendants. (Lee v. CA, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010)
The privilege is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is

not incompetent or disqualified to testify against an ascendant. xxx refers to a
privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be compelled
to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or
otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such
protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties
and the furtherance of justice may require. (n)
In Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc. (G.R. No. 172835, December 13,
2007), the Supreme Court held that trade secrets are of a privileged nature, but the
privilege is not absolute; the court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable
for doing justice. A trade secret was defined in said case “as a plan or process, tool,
mechanism or compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to
whom it is necessary to confide.” The definition was held to extend to “a secret
formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using it in
compounding some article of trade having a commercial value.” The Court went on to
explain that a trade secret may “consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation
of information that (1) is used in one’s business, and (2) gives the employer an
opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not possess the
information.
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
SECTION 26. Admission of a party. – SECTION 27. Admission of a party. –
The act, declaration or omission of a The act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him. (22) in evidence against him or her. (26a)
• Admission
Any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
• To be admissible, it must:
a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;

b) be categorical and definite;
c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and
inadmissible.
Section 28. Offer of compromise not
admissible
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is In civil cases, an offer of compromise is
not an admission of any liability, and is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the not admissible in evidence against the
offeror. offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct
nor statements made in compromise
In criminal cases, except those involving negotiations admissible, except evidence
quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or otherwise discoverable or offered for
those allowed by law to be compromised, another purpose, such as proving bias or
an offer of compromise by the accused prejudice of a witness, negativing a
may be received in evidence as an contention of undue delay, or proving an
implied admission of guilt. effort to obstruct a criminal investigation
of prosecution.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a In criminal cases, except those involving
lesser offense, is not admissible in quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or
evidence against the accused who made those allowed by law to be compromised,
the plea or offer. xxx an offer of compromise by the…
admissible
An offer to pay or the payment of …accused may be received in evidence as
medical, hospital or other expenses an implied admission of guilt.
occasioned by an injury is not admissible
in evidence as proof of civil or criminal A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
liability for the injury. (24a) unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence
against the accused who made the plea or
offer. Neither is any statement made in the
course of plea bargaining with the
prosecution, which does not result in a plea
of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty
later withdrawn, admissible.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,

hospital or other expenses occasioned by
an injury is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
(27a)
admissible
Offer of Compromise
a. Civil Cases
• NOT ADMISSIBLE as admission of any liability.

• ADMISSIBLE for other purposes (e.g., to prove bias of a witness, to
negate undue delay, to prove obstruction of criminal
investigation/prosecution)
Rule is NOT absolute:
If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the
purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the
existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim
amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness. (Tan v.
Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December 18, 2006)
admissible
b. Criminal Cases, EXCEPT quasi- offenses and those allowed to be
compromised
• ADMISSIBLE as an implied admission of guilt.

• INADMISSIBLE if plea of guilt withdrawn; if offer of plea of guilt to lesser
offense is not accepted; if statement made during plea bargain and no
plea of guilt results or plea is later withdrawn.
Offer made prior to the filing of the criminal complaint cannot xxx be an
implied admission of guilt, xxx as it was not made in the context of a criminal
proceeding. (San Miguel Corp. v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012)
Act of pleading for forgiveness, through letters from detention, xxx analogous
to an attempt to compromise. Offer must be made under a consciousness of
guilt, NOT merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment. (People v.
Nazareno, G.R. No. 180915, Aug. 9, 2010)

SECTION 28. Admission by third party. Now Section 29.
– The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided. (28)
Section 30. Admission by co-partner or
agent
The act or declaration of a partner or The act or declaration of a partner or
agent of the party within the scope of his agent authorized by the party to make a
authority and during the existence of the statement concerning the subject, or
partnership or agency, may be given in within the scope of his or her authority
evidence against such party after the and during the existence of the
partnership or agency is shown by partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence other than such act or evidence against such party after the
declaration. The same rule applies to the partnership or agency is shown by
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint evidence other than such act or
debtor, or other person jointly interested declaration. The same rule applies to the
with the party. (26a) act or declaration of a joint owner, joint
debtor, or other person jointly interested
with the party. (29a)
Section 31. Admission by conspirator
The act or declaration of a conspirator The act or declaration of a conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its in furtherance of the conspiracy and
existence, may be given in evidence during its existence, may be given in
against the co-conspirator after the evidence against the co-conspirator after
conspiracy is shown by evidence other the conspiracy is shown by evidence
than such act or declaration. (27) other than such act or declaration. (27)
The exception provided under Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule
allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the
conspiracy by evidence other than the confession. In this case, there is a
dearth of proof demonstrating the participation of Salapuddin in a
conspiracy to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman
Akbar. Not one of the other persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation
professed that Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in
the Batasan grounds.
Mere association with the principals by direct participation, without more, does not
suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy.
(Salapuddin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013)
Section 32. Admission by privies
Where one derives title to property from Where one derives title to property from
another, the act, declaration, or omission another, the latter’s act, declaration, or
of the latter, while holding the title, in omission, in relation to the property, is
relation to the property, is evidence evidence against the former if done while
against the former. (28) the latter was holding the title. (31a)
SECTION 32. Admission by silence. - SECTION 33. Admission by silence. -
An act or declaration made in the An act or declaration made in the
presence and within the hearing or presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper comment if not true, and when proper
and possible for him to do so, may be and possible for him or her to do so, may
given in evidence against him. (23a) be given in evidence against him or her.
(32a)
The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded claim xxx and
defend himself. It is xxx against human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing
in the face of false accusations. (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 208290, Dec. 11,
2013)
Silence during custodial investigation is not admission by silence as he has the

right to remain silent during that stage. (People v. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, Nov. 25,
2013)
SECTION 33. Confession. - The SECTION 34. Confession. - The
declaration of an accused acknowledging declaration of an accused acknowledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any his or her guilt of the offense charged, or
offense necessarily included therein, may of any offense necessarily included
be given in evidence against him. (29a) therein, may be given in evidence against
him or her. (33a)
Extrajudicial confessions are binding only on the confessant and cannot be

admitted against co-accused, except if there is prior establishment of the conspiracy
by evidence other than the confession. It must be proven that:
a)the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
b)the admission relates to the common object; and
c)it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
Mere association with the accused do not conclude that he was a participant in
the conspiracy to commit the crime. (Salapuddin v. CA,G.R. No. 184681, Feb. 25,
2013)
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
SECTION 34. Similar acts as evidence. SECTION 35. Similar acts as evidence.
— Evidence that one did or did not do a — Evidence that one did or did not do a
certain thing at one time is not admissible certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he did or did not do the to prove that he or she did or did not do
same or a similar thing at another time; the same or a similar thing at another
but it may be received to prove a specific time; but it may be received to prove a
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, specific intent or knowledge, identity,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or
and the like. (48a) usage, and the like. (34a)
SECTION 35. Unaccepted offer. — An SECTION 36. Unaccepted offer. — An
offer in writing to pay a particular sum of offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
money or to deliver a written instrument money or to deliver a written instrument
or specific personal property is, if rejected or specific personal property is, if rejected
without valid cause, equivalent to the without valid cause, equivalent to the
actual production and tender of the actual production and tender of the
money, instrument, or property. (49a) money, instrument, or property. (35)
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
• Previous Conduct as Evidence
Evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time.
Prior involvement in a cash shortage in the bank's branch does

not conclusively prove that she is responsible for the loss of money
in the new branch. (Metrobank v. Custodio, G.R. No. 17380, March
21, 2011)
Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or tends to show, that

the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime independent
from the offense for which he is on trial. A man may be a notorious
criminal, and may have committed many crimes, and still be
innocent of the crime charged on trial. (People v. Pineda, G.R. No.
141644, May 27, 2004)
5. HEARSAY
NEW SUBTITLE and PROVISION
SECTION 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a statement other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of
the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or
(2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an
assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in
these Rules.
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing

and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the
statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given
under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony
and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification
of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
NEW HEARSAY RULE
HEARSAY
- out of court statement made by witness-declarant, not made

during trial or hearing in a case
- statement = oral or written assertion, or conduct intended as
assertion
EXCEPTIONS:
1) Prior inconsistent statement under oath at a trial, hearing or other

proceeding, or in a deposition, to impeach witness-declarant;
2) Prior consistent statement only to rebut “an express or implied
charge against the declarant of recent fabrication, or improper
influence or motive”;
3) Identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
SECTION 37. Dying declaration. - The SECTION 38. Dying declaration. - The
declaration of a dying person, made declaration of a dying person, made
under the consciousness of an impending under the consciousness of an impending
death, may be received in any case death, may be received in any case
wherein his death is the subject of wherein his or her death is the subject of
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such surrounding circumstances of such
death. (31a) death. (37a)
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE: REQUISITES

a)the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death;
b)that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his
impending death;
c)the declarant was competent as a witness; and
d)the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide
where the declarant is the victim. (People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17,
2015)
Section 39. Statement of decedent or
person of unsound mind
SECTION 23. Disqualification by SECTION 39. Statement of decedent or
reason of death or insanity of adverse person of unsound mind. – In an action
party. — Parties or assignors of parties against an executor or administrator or
to a case, or persons in whose behalf a other representative of a deceased
case is prosecuted, against an executor person, or against a person of unsound
or administrator or other representative of mind, upon a claim or demand against
a deceased person, or against a person the estate of such deceased person or
of unsound mind, upon a claim or against such person of unsound mind,
demand against the estate of such where a party or assignor of a party or a
deceased person or against such person person in whose behalf a case is
of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
matter of fact occurring before the death occurring before the death of the
of such deceased person or before such deceased person or before the person
person became of unsound mind. (20a) became of unsound mind, any statement
of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind, may be received in …
Section 40. Statement of decedent or
person of unsound mind
…evidence if the statement was made
upon the personal knowledge of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind
at a time when the matter had been
recently perceived by him or her and
while his or her recollection was clear.
Such statement, however, is inadmissible
if made under circumstances indicating
its lack of trustworthiness. (23a)
Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "[i]f one party to the alleged transaction is
precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other
party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction." Thus, the alleged admission of the
deceased xxx cannot be used as evidence against [him] as the latter would be
unable to contradict or disprove the same. (Garcia v. Vda. de Caparas, G.R. No.
180843, April 17, 2013)
Section 40. Declaration against interest
SECTION 38. Declaration against SECTION 40. Declaration against
interest. - The declaration made by a interest. - The declaration made by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, person deceased, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the against the interest of the declarant, if the
fact asserted in the declaration was at the fact asserted in the declaration was at the
time it was made so far contrary to time it was made so far contrary to the
declarant's own interest, that a declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not reasonable person in his or her position
have made the declaration unless he would not have made the declaration
believed it to be true, may be received in unless he or she believed it to be true,
evidence against himself or his may be received in evidence against
successors in interest and against third himself or herself or his or her
persons. (32a) successors in interest and against third
persons. A statement tending to expose
the declarant to criminal liability and
offered to exculpate the accused is not
admissible unless corroborating
circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement. (38a)
Section 40. Declaration against interest
Declaration against interest vs. Admission against interest
Declaration against interest is made by a person who is neither a

party nor in privity with a party to the suit. xxx admissible only
when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
Admission against interest is made by a party to a litigation or by

one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and is
admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a
witness. (Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010)
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree
SECTION 39. Act or declaration SECTION 41. Act or declaration about
about pedigree. - The act or pedigree. - The act or declaration of a
declaration of a person deceased, or person deceased or unable to testify, in
unable to testify, in respect to the respect to the pedigree of another person
pedigree of another person related to related to him or her by birth, adoption, or
him by birth or marriage, may be marriage, or, in the absence thereof, with
received in evidence where it occurred whose family he or she was so intimately
before the controversy, and the associated as to be likely to have accurate
relationship between the two persons information concerning his or her pedigree,
is shown by evidence other than such may be received in evidence where it
act or declaration. The word "pedigree" occurred before the controversy, and the
includes relationship, family genealogy, relationship between the two persons is
birth, marriage, death, the dates when shown by evidence other than such act or
and the places where these facts declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
occurred, and the names of the relationship, family genealogy, birth,
relatives. It embraces also facts of marriage, death, the dates when and the
family history intimately connected with places where these facts occurred, and the
pedigree. (33a) names of the relatives. It embraces also
facts of family history intimately connected
with pedigree. (39a)
Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree
Elements:
a)the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;

b)the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth, marriage,
or adoption, or with whose family he was so intimately associated;
c)the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration; and
d)the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy.
The claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself xxx. A notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father
was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good
father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various
occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. However, a
student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as
authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures
are sufficient to establish filiation. (Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March
19, 2010, reiterating Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197)
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree
SECTION 40. Family reputation or SECTION 42. Family reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree. - The tradition regarding pedigree. - The
reputation or tradition existing in a family reputation or tradition existing in a family
previous to the controversy, in respect to previous to the controversy, in respect to
the pedigree of any one of its members, the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a witness testifying thereon be also a
member of the family, either by member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family consanguinity or affinity, or adoption.
bibles or other family books or charts, Entries in family bibles or other family
engravings on rings, family portraits and books or charts, engravings on rings,
the like, may be received as evidence of family portraits and the like, may be
pedigree. (34a) received as evidence of pedigree. (40a)
Section 42. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree
Family Reputation or Tradition regarding Pedigree
Requisites:
a)a statement by a member of the family either by

consanguinity, affinity, or adoption;
b)the statement is about the reputation or tradition of the family
in respect to the pedigree of any member of the family; and
c)the reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the
controversy.
Section 43. Common reputation
SECTION 41. Common reputation. SECTION 43. Common reputation. -
Common reputation existing previous to Common reputation existing previous to
the controversy, respecting facts of public the controversy, as to boundaries of or
or general interest more than thirty years customs affecting lands in the community
old, or respecting marriage or moral and reputation as to events of general
character, may be given in evidence. history important to the community, or
Monuments and inscriptions in public respecting marriage or moral character,
places may be received as evidence of may be given in evidence. Monuments
common reputation. (35) and inscriptions in public places may be
received as evidence of common
reputation. (41a)
The requirement of antiquity (“more than 30 years old”) is removed. Instead,

reliability is ensured because the testimony represents the consensus of the
community.
Section 44. Part of the res gestae
SECTION 42. Part of the res gestae. — SECTION 44. Part of the res gestae. -
Statements made by a person while a Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto immediately prior or subsequent thereto,
with respect to the circumstances thereof, under the stress of excitement caused by
may be given in evidence as part of the the occurrence with respect to the
res gestae. So, also, statements circumstances thereof, may be given in
accompanying an equivocal act material evidence as part of the res gestae. So,
to the issue, and giving it a legal also, statements accompanying an
significance, may be received as part of equivocal act material to the issue, and
the res gestae. (36a) giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae. (42a)
In People v. Putian (G.R. No. L-33049, November 29, 1976), the Supreme Court
noted that if the declaration was made at the time of, or immediately thereafter, the
commission of the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the startling
occurrence still continued in the declarant’s mind, it is admissible as part of the res
gestae.
Requisites of res gestae:
a)that the principal act, the res gestae be a startling occurrence;

b)the statements were made before the declarant had the time to
contrive or devise a falsehood; and
c)that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.
Tests in applying the res gestae rule:
a)the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or

connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself; and
b)the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.
Spontaneity, how determined:
a) the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or
transaction and the making of the statement;
b) the place where the statement is made;
c) the condition of the declarant when the utterance is given;
d) the presence or absence of intervening events between the
occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and
e) the nature and the circumstances of the statement itself. (Manulat
v. People, G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015)
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted
business activity
SECTION 43. Entries in the course of SECTION 45. Records of regularly
business. — Entries made at, or near conducted business activity. – A
the time of the transactions to which they memorandum, report, record or data
refer, by a person deceased, or unable to compilation of acts, events, conditions,
testify, who was in a position to know the opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing,
facts therein stated, may be received as typing, electronic, optical or other similar
prima facie evidence, if such person means at or near the time of or from
made the entries in his professional transmission or supply of information by a
capacity or in the performance of duty person with knowledge thereof, and kept
and in the ordinary or regular course of in the regular course or conduct of a
business or duty. (37a) business activity, and such was the
regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or
similar means, all of which are shown by
the testimony of the custodian or other
qualified witnesses, is excepted from the
rule on hearsay evidence. (43a)
Section 45. Records of regularly conducted
business activity
Entries in the Course of Business under the old Section 43:
The party offering must establish that:
a)the person who made those entries is dead, outside the country, or unable to
testify;
b)the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction to which they refer;
c)the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated therein;
d)the entries were made in the professional capacity or in the course of duty of the
entrant; and,
e)the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
(Landbank v. Oñate, G.R. No. 192371, January 15, 2014)
Under the new Section 45:
No more requirement that the entrant must be dead or unable to testify and must
have personal knowledge of the recorded matter. Adopted Rule 8, Section 1 of the
REE.
SECTION 44. Entries in official SECTION 46 Entries in official records.
records. — Entries in official records — Entries in official records made in the
made in the performance of his duty by a performance of his or her duty by a public
public officer of the Philippines, or by a officer of the Philippines, or by a person
person in the performance of a duty in the performance of a duty specially
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence
evidence of the facts therein stated. (38) of the facts therein stated. (44a)
Section 46. Entries in official records
Requisites:
a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or
by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law;
c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or
through official information.
A Traffic Accident Investigation Report cannot be given probative

weight when the investigating officer who prepared the same was not
presented in court to testify that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts
therein stated, and that he acquired them personally or through official
information. (Standard Insurance Co., Inc. v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 200055,
September 10, 2014)
SECTION 45. Commercial lists and the SECTION 47. Commercial lists and the
like. — Evidence of statements of like. — Evidence of statements of
matters of interest to persons engaged in matters of interest to persons engaged in
an occupation contained in a list, register, an occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation periodical, or other published compilation
is admissible as tending to prove the truth is admissible as tending to prove the truth
of any relevant matter so stated if that of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by compilation is published for use by
persons engaged in that occupation and persons engaged in that occupation and
is generally used and relied upon by is generally used and relied upon by
them therein. (39) them therein. (45)
Commercial lists and the like:

Statement of matters contained in a periodical may be admitted only "if that
compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is
generally used and relied upon by them.” (MERALCO v. Quisumbing, G.R. No.
127598, February 22, 2000)
SECTION 46. Learned treatises. — A SECTION 48. Learned treatises. — A
published treatise, periodical or pamphlet published treatise, periodical or pamphlet
on a subject of history, law, science or art on a subject of history, law, science or art
is admissible as tending to prove the truth is admissible as tending to prove the truth
of a matter stated therein if the court of a matter stated therein if the court
takes judicial notice, or a witness expert takes judicial notice, or a witness expert
in the subject testifies, that the writer of in the subject testifies, that the writer of
the statement in the treatise, periodical or the statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his profession pamphlet is recognized in his or her
or calling as expert in the subject. (40a) profession or calling as an expert in the
subject. (46a)
Learned treatises:
History books and published findings of scientists fall within this exception
provided that an expert on the subject testifies to the expertise of the writer.
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a
former proceeding
The testimony or deposition of a The testimony or deposition of a
witness deceased or unable to testify, witness deceased or out of the
given in a former case or proceeding, Philippines or who cannot, with due
judicial or administrative, involving the diligence, be found therein, or is
same parties and subject matter, may be unavailable or otherwise unable to testify,
given in evidence against the adverse given in a former case or proceeding,
party who had the opportunity to cross- judicial or administrative, involving the
examine him. (41a) same parties and subject matter, may be
given in evidence against the adverse
party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him or her. (47a)
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a
former proceeding
For the admissibility of a former testimony or deposition that the adverse party
must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the
prior proceeding.
The issues involved in both cases must, at least, be substantially the same;
otherwise, there is no basis in saying that the former statement was — or would have
been — sufficiently tested by cross-examination or by an opportunity to do so.
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, Dec. 13, 2011)
Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary

investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (PCGG v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194159,
Oct. 21, 2015, reiterating Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, January 21,
2015)
Requisites for applicability:
a) The person making the hearsay statement is credible;
b) There must be “substantial basis” for crediting the hearsay (NOT to be
confused with “substantial evidence”)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically covered
by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that (a)
the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is
more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (c) the
general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will be best
served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement
may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the
pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse
party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent‘s intention to
offer the statement and th particulars of it, including the name and address of
the declarant. (n)
NEW PROVISION
Rather than add a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, the Sub-
Committee opted to adopt the residual or catchall exception provided in
Rules 803 (24) and 804 (b) (5) [now Rule 807] of the FRE.
The catchall exception found in the FRE stemmed from the ruling in
Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. (286 F. 2d 388 [5th
Cir. 1961]), which admitted an old newspaper article to prove that a fire
occurred at the court tower during construction. Although not falling under
any of the recognized hearsay exceptions, the news article was admitted
because of “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness based on the fact
that the individual reporting the fire had no motive to falsify and that a false
report of a matter so easily checked by readers of the paper would have
subjected the reporter to considerable embarrassment.”
The catchall exception should be “used very rarely and only in
exceptional circumstances.” (Id.)
6. OPINION RULE

SECTION 48. General rule. — The Now Section 51.
opinion of a witness is not admissible,
except as indicated in the following
sections. (42)
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness
Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witness
SECTION 49. Opinion of expert witness. - SECTION 52. Opinion of expert witness. -
The opinion of a witness on a matter The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he is shown to experience or training or education, which
possess, may be received in evidence. he or she is shown to possess, may be
(43a) received in evidence. (49a)
SECTION 50. Opinion of ordinary SECTION 53. Opinion of ordinary
witness. - The opinion of a witness for witness. - The opinion of a witness for
which proper basis is given, may be which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding — received in evidence regarding —
a)The identity of a person about whom he a)The identity of a person about whom he
has adequate knowledge; or she has adequate knowledge;
b)A handwriting with which he has sufficient
b)A handwriting with which he or she has
familiarity; and sufficient familiarity; and
c)The mental sanity of a person with whom c)The mental sanity of a person with whom
he is sufficiently acquainted. he or she is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his or
The witness may also testify on his her impressions of the emotion, behavior,
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (50a)
condition or appearance of a person. (44a)
Section 52. Opinion of expert witness
Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witness
Admissibility of opinion of an ordinary witness on:
a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and
d) may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person.
Admissibility of opinion of an expert witness who:
a) has the required professional knowledge, learning and skill of the subject under
inquiry sufficient to qualify him to speak with authority on the subject; and
b) is familiar with the standard required of a professional under similar
circumstances.
The principle is that the witness' familiarity, and not the classification by title or
specialty, should control issues regarding the expert witness' qualifications.
(Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015)
REASONABLE MEASURE OF RELIABILITY: BROAD LATITUDE GIVEN TO THE

JUDGE
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 54. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions
(a) In Criminal Cases: Evidence of a person’s character or a
trait of character is not admissible for the
(1) The accused may prove his good purpose of proving action in conformity
moral character which is pertinent to the therewith on a particular occasion, except:
moral trait involved in the offense
(a)In Criminal Cases:
charged.
(1) The character of the offended party
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution
may be proved if it tends to establish in
may not prove his bad moral character
any reasonable degree the probability or
which is pertinent to the moral trait
improbability of the offense charged
involved in the offense charged.
(2) The accused may prove his or her
(3) The good or bad moral character
good moral character, pertinent to the
of the offended party may be proved if it
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
tends to establish in any reasonable
However, the prosecution may not prove
degree the probability or improbability of
his or her bad moral character unless on
the offense charged.
rebuttal.
Section 54. Character evidence not
generally admissible; exceptions
(b) In Civil Cases: (b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a Evidence of the moral character of a

party in a civil case is admissible only party in a civil case is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of character when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case. involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, (c) In Criminal and Civil Cases
Section 14. (46a, 47a)
Evidence of the good character of a
witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached.
In all cases in which evidence of

character or a trait of character of a
person is admissible, proof may be made
by testimony as to reputation or by …
Section 54. Character evidence not
generally admissible; exceptions
…or by testimony in the form of an
opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is
allowable into relevant specific instances
of conduct.
In cases in which character or a trait

of character of a person is an essential
element of a charge, claim or defense,
proof may also be made of specific
instances of that person’s conduct. (51a;
14; Rule 132)
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
GENERAL RULE: INADMISSIBLE
- the “circumstantial use” of character evidence, that a person acted in

a similar way in the past because that is his or her character or he or
she has a propensity for doing similar acts
- Prohibited because it is circumstantial at best and it tends to confuse
the issues or creates unfair surprise or prejudice
EXCEPTIONS: ADMISSIBLE
Criminal Cases
1)Accused - may prove his or her moral trait pertinent to the charge
- the prosecution, on rebuttal, may prove the accused’s bad moral
character
2)Offended party – character may be proved if it tends to establish probability or

improbability of charge
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Civil Cases
- only when moral character of a party is pertinent to the issue of character

involved
Character of a Witness
- good character of a witness may only be proven after such witness’

character has been impeached
HOW TO PROVE CHARACTER:
1)Testimony on reputation – traditional form

2)Testimony in the form of an opinion – previously not allowed, but now
recognized that testimony on reputation is just “opinion”
3)On cross-examination only: the character witness may be asked about
relevant prior specific conduct for the limited purpose of testing knowledge and
credibility of such witness
RULE 131
BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of
evidence
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to Burden of proof is the duty of a party
present evidence on the facts in issue to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or necessary to establish his or her claim or
defense by the amount of evidence defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. (1a, 2a) required by law. Burden of proof never
shifts.
Burden of evidence is the duty of a

party to present evidence sufficient to
establish or rebut a fact in issue to
establish a prima facie case. Burden of
evidence may shift from one party to the
other in the course of the proceedings,
depending on the exigencies of the case.
(1a)
Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence
The “burden of proof” remains throughout the trial with the
party upon whom it is imposed. It is the “burden of evidence”
that shifts from party to party during trial. (Republic v. Mupas,
G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015)
BURDEN OF PROOF
- the duty to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary
to establish the claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law (Section 1, Rule 131)
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
- “burden of going forward,” the burden of proving a fact in
issue
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions

The following are instances of The following are instances of
conclusive presumptions: conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own (a) Whenever a party has, by his or her
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally own declaration, act, or omission,
and deliberately led another to believe a intentionally and deliberately led another
particular thing true, and to act upon such to believe a particular thing true, and to
belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in
out of such declaration, act or omission, any litigation arising out of such
be permitted to falsify it; declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny
the title of his landlord at the time of the (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny
commencement of the relation of landlord the title of his or her landlord at the time
and tenant between them. (3a) of the commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions
Given the existence of the lease, the petitioner’s claim denying the respondents’
ownership of the residential house must be rejected. According to the petitioner, it is
Adoracion who actually owns the residential building having bought the same,
together with the two parcels of land, from her father Tomas, who, in turn, bought it in
an auction sale.
It is settled that "[o]nce a contact of lease is shown to exist between the

parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the
conclusive presumption that the lessor has a valid title to or a better right of
possession to the subject premises than the lessee." xxx In Santos v. National
Statistics Office, the Court expounded on the rule on estoppel against a tenant and
further clarified that what a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relation. If the
title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply. (Midway
Maritime and Technological Foundation v. Castro, G.R. No. 189061, August 6, 2014)
Section 3. Disputable presumptions
NOTE: Amendments made to the disputable presumptions enumerated under

Section 3, Rule 131 were for GENDER INCLUSIVENESS.
c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary

act;
It is presumed that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary

act and unless the requirements for proper substitution were made, a lawyer
enjoys the presumption of authority given him by his client. Racines does not
deny that the signatures in the pleadings were his. He also does not claim that he
was prevented by Atty. Manalad from reading the contents thereof. He only said
that since he fully trusted Atty. Manalad he immediately signed the documents.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Racines acquiesced and gave his stamp of
approval to the pleadings filed in court. (Racines v. Morallos, A.M. No. MTJ-08-
1698, March 3, 2008)
d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns;
Case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a
document without first informing himself of its contents and
consequences. Further, under Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally
presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular. This
behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document
before he signs and delivers it. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 208113, December 2,
2015)
j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent

wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that
things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are
owned by him or her;
Celedonio never claimed ownership of the subject items. When the alleged stolen
items were found in his motorcycle compartment which he had control over, the
disputable presumption of being the taker of the stolen items arose. He could
have overcome the presumption, but he failed to give a justifiable and logical
explanation. Thus, the only plausible scenario that could be inferred therefrom
was that he took the items. (Celedonio v. People, G.R. No. 209137, July 1, 2015)
k) That a person in possession of an order on himself or herself for the
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or
delivered the thing accordingly;
w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he or she is considered dead for all purposes, except
for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his or
her succession until after an absence of ten years. If he or she disappeared after
the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in
order that his or her succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division
of the estate among the heirs:
1.A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is
missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or
aircraft;
2.A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has
been missing for four years;
3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
whose existence has not been known for four years; and
3. If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse
present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance,
where there is danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying
again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided
in the Family Code and in the rules for a declaration of presumptive death of
the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse.
ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a
particular person has actually conveyed it to him or her when such
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his or her
successor in interest;
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy
or illegitimacy
There is no presumption of legitimacy There is no presumption of legitimacy or
or illegitimacy of a child born after three illegitimacy of a child born after three
hundred days following the dissolution of hundred days following the dissolution of
the marriage or the separation of the the marriage or the separation of the
spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of such child must prove or illegitimacy of such child must prove
his allegation. (6) his or her allegation. (4a)
There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded
on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children
born in wedlock are legitimate. This presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the
absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses
during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the
child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse
with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way
that sexual intercourse is not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which
absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. (SSS v. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, February
27, 2006)
NEW PROVISIONS
SECTION 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions
and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with
evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.
If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier

considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight,
neither presumption applies. (n)
SECTION 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a presumed

fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a
defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)
NEW PROVISION: SECTION 5
This amendment was taken from Rule 301 of the FRE and clarifies that
presumptions should affect only the burden of evidence or production, referred to as
the “bursting bubble” approach to presumptions.
As for the second paragraph, the Supreme Court has held that, in case of
conflicting presumptions, “it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption,
and determine what logical or social basis exists for each presumption, and then
determine which should be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail
over the other.” (People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995) Thus,
between the presumption that “a young Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it
is not true” and the presumption of innocence, the latter should prevail because it “is
founded upon the first principles of justice, and is not a mere fom but a substantial
part of the law.” (Id.)
NEW PROVISION: SECTION 6
The model of this amendment is Rule 303 (b) of the URE and is
designed to deal with a situation in a criminal case where the
prosecution relies solely upon a presumption to establish guilt or the
element of a crime and not any other evidence. The Court may view
the presumption in such a case as conclusive or as shifting the
burden of proof.
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded
The entire proceedings of a trial or The entire proceedings of a trial or
hearing, including the questions hearing, including the questions
propounded to a witness and his answers propounded to a witness and his or her
thereto, the statements made by the answers thereto, the statements made by
judge or any of the parties, counsel, or the judge or any of the parties, counsel,
witnesses with reference to the case, or witnesses with reference to the case,
shall be recorded by means of shorthand shall be recorded by means of shorthand
or stenotype or by other means of or stenotype or by other means of
recording found suitable by the court. recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the A transcript of the record of the

proceedings made by the official proceedings made by the official
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
certified as correct by him shall be certified as correct by him or her shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement deemed prima facie a correct statement
of such proceedings. (2a) of such proceedings. (2a)
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

A witness must answer questions, A witness must answer questions,
although his answer may tend to although his or her answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. However, it establish a claim against him or her.
is the right of a witness: However, it is the right of a witness:
(a)To be protected from irrelevant, (a)To be protected from irrelevant,

improper, or insulting questions, and from improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh or insulting demeanor; harsh or insulting demeanor;
(b)Not to be detained longer than the (b)Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require; interests of justice require;
(c)Not to be examined except only as to (c)Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue; matters pertinent to the issue;
(d)Not to give an answer which will tend (d)Not to give an answer which will tend
to subject him to a penalty for an offense to subject him or her to a penalty for an
unless otherwise provided by law; or offense unless otherwise provided by
law; or
Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

e) Not to give an answer which will tend e) Not to give an answer which will tend
to degrade his reputation, unless it be to degrade his or her reputation,
to the very fact at issue or to a fact unless it be to the very fact at issue or
from which the fact in issue would be to a fact from which the fact in issue
presumed. But a witness must answer would be presumed. But a witness
to the fact of his previous final must answer to the fact of his or her
conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a) previous final conviction for an
offense. (3a, 19a)
A witness need not worry that the oral examination might subject him or her to
badgering by adverse counsel. The trial court’s duty is to protect every witness
against oppressive behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the
witness is of advanced age. (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177861, July 13,
2010)
Section 5. Direct examination
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent
SECTION 5. DIRECT EXAMINATION. - SECTION 5. DIRECT EXAMINATION. -
Direct examination is the examination-in- Direct examination is the examination-in-
chief of a witness by the party presenting chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue. him or her on the facts relevant to the
(5a) issue. (5a)
SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION; SECTION 6. CROSS EXAMINATION;
ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon ITS PURPOSE AND EXTENT. - Upon
the termination of the direct examination, the termination of the direct examination,
the witness may be cross-examined by the witness may be cross-examined by
the adverse party as to any matters the adverse party on any relevant matter,
stated in the direct examination, or with sufficient fullness and freedom to
connected therewith, with sufficient test his or her accuracy and truthfulness
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and freedom from interest or bias, or the
and truthfulness and freedom from reverse, and to elicit all important facts
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to bearing upon the issue. (6a)
elicit all important facts bearing upon the
issue. (8a)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
DELETED “as to any matters stated in the direct examination,

or connected therewith”
REPLACED WITH “on any relevant matter”
Shift from the American Rule, the Scope-of-Direct Rule, which

limits cross-examination to matters taken up in the direct
examination or anything connected therewith, to the English
Rule, or the Wide Open Rule, which permits cross on any
relevant matter.
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose
and extent
After the cross-examination of the After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be witness has been concluded, he or she
re-examined by the party calling him, to may be re-examined by the party calling
explain or supplement his answers given him or her, to explain or supplement his
during the cross-examination. On re- or her answers given during the cross-
direct examination, questions on matters examination. On re-direct examination,
not dealt with during the cross- questions on matters not dealt with
examination, may be allowed by the court during the cross-examination, may be
in its discretion. (12) allowed by the court in its discretion. (7a)
Section 8. Re-cross examination

Upon the conclusion of the re-direct Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re- examination, the adverse party may re-
cross-examine the witness on matters cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his re-direct examination, and stated in his or her re-direct examination,
also on such other matters as may be and also on such other matters as may
allowed by the court in its discretion. (13) be allowed by the court in its discretion.
(8a)
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions
A question which suggests to the A question which suggests to the witness
witness the answer which the examining the answer which the examining party
party desires is a leading question. It is desires is a leading question. It is not
not allowed, except: allowed, except:
(a)On cross examination; (a)On cross examination;

(b)On preliminary matters; (b)On preliminary matters;
(c)When there is difficulty in getting direct (c)When there is difficulty in getting direct
and intelligible answers from a witness and intelligible answers from a witness
who is ignorant, or a child of tender who is ignorant, or a child of tender
years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf- years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-
mute; mute;
(d)Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or (d)Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e)Of a witness who is an adverse party (e)Of a witness who is an adverse party
or an officer, director, or managing agent or an officer, director, or managing agent
of a public or private corporation or of a of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an partnership or association which is an
adverse party. adverse party.
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions
A misleading question is one which A misleading question is one which
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to assumes as true a fact not yet testified to
by the witness, or contrary to that which by the witness, or contrary to that which
he has previously stated. It is not he or she has previously stated. It is not
allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a) allowed. (10a)
A child of tender years may be asked leading questions under Section 10(c), Rule
132 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness also provides that the court may allow leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice. This rule was
formulated to allow children to give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma
to children, encourage them to testify in legal proceedings and facilitate the
ascertainment of truth. (People v. Ilogon, G.R. No. 206294, June 29, 2016)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s
witness
A witness may be impeached by the A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called, by party against whom he or she was called,
contradictory evidence, by evidence that by contradictory evidence, by evidence
his general reputation for truth, honesty, that his or her general reputation for truth,
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he honesty, or integrity is bad, or by
has made at other times statements evidence that he or she has made at
inconsistent with his present testimony, other times statements inconsistent with
but not by evidence of particular wrongful his or her present testimony, but not by
acts, except that it may be shown by the evidence of particular wrongful acts,
examination of the witness, or the record except that it may be shown by the
of the judgment, that he has been examination of the witness, or the record
convicted of an offense. (15) of the judgment, that he or she has been
convicted of an offense. (15)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s
witness
Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness,
although the calling party does not vouch for the witness’ veracity, he
is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not contradicted or
remains unrebutted.
A party who calls his adversary as a witness is, therefore, not

bound by the latter’s testimony only in the sense that he may
contradict him by introducing other evidence to prove a state of facts
contrary to what the witness testifies on. A rule that provides that the
party calling an adverse witness shall not be bound by his testimony
does not mean that such testimony may not be given its proper
weight, but merely that the calling party shall not be precluded from
rebutting his testimony or from impeaching him. (Gaw v. Chua, G.R.
No. 160855, April 16, 2008)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 12. Impeachment by evidence of conviction or crime. – For the
purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by
final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a
penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of
the penalty.
However, evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the
subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. (n)
• Instead of adopting the qualification under Rule 609 (a) (1) of the FRE allowing
impeachment “if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of
one year,” the Sub-Committee deleted “death” because of the abolition of death
penalty in our jurisdiction.
• Instead of adopting the provision in Rule 609 (a) (2) of the FRE, allowing
impeachment if the crime “involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of
the punishment,” the Sub-Committee opted to substitute the qualification “(b) [if]
the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty” considering that
“moral turpitude” has a settled meaning in our law and conviction of such a crime
has an unquestionable bearing on honesty, veracity and integrity.
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her
own witness
Except with respect to witnesses referred Except with respect to witnesses referred to
to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 of
the party producing a witness is not this Rule, the party producing a witness is
allowed to impeach his credibility. not allowed to impeach his or her credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling A witness may be considered as unwilling

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

declared, or the witness who is an adverse declared, or the witness who is an adverse
party, may be impeached by the party party, may be impeached by the party
presenting him in all respects as if he had presenting him or her in all respects as if he
been called by the adverse party, except or she had been called by the adverse party,
by evidence of his bad character. except by evidence of his or her bad
character.
Section 13. Party may not impeach his or her
own witness
He may also be impeached and cross- He or she may also be impeached and
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examined by the adverse party, but
cross examination must only be on the such cross examination must only be on
subject matter of his examination-in-chief. the subject matter of his or her
(6a, 7a) examination-in-chief. (12 a)
Section 14. How witness impeached by
evidence of inconsistent statements
Before a witness can be impeached Before a witness can be impeached
by evidence that he has made at other by evidence that he or she has made at
times statements inconsistent with his other times statements inconsistent with
present testimony, the statements must his or her present testimony, the
be related to him, with the circumstances statements must be related to him or her,
of the times and places and the persons with the circumstances of the times and
present, and he must be asked whether places and the persons present, and he
he made such statements, and if so, or she must be asked whether he or she
allowed to explain them. If the statements made such statements, and if so, allowed
be in writing they must be shown to the to explain them. If the statements be in
witness before any question is put to him writing they must be shown to the witness
concerning them. (16) before any question is put to him or her
concerning them. (16)
[SECTION 14 on the “Evidence of good character of witness” was incorporated in
Section 55, Rule 130.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses

On any trial or hearing, the The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall
judge may exclude from the court order witnesses excluded so that they cannot
any witness not at the time under hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule
examination, so that he may not does not authorize exclusion of (a) a party who
hear the testimony of other is a natural person, (b) a duly designated
witnesses. The judge may also representative of a juridical entity which is a
cause witnesses to be kept party to the case, (c) a person whose presence
separate and to be prevented is essential to the presentation of the party‘s
from conversing with one another cause; and (d) a person authorized by a statute
until all shall have been to be present.
examined. (18)
The court may also cause witnesses to be
kept separate and to be prevented from
conversing with one another, directly or through
intermediaries, until all shall have been
examined. (15a)
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum
A witness may be allowed to refresh his A witness may be allowed to refresh his or
memory respecting a fact, by anything her memory respecting a fact, by anything
written or recorded by himself or under his written or recorded by himself or herself or
direction at the time when the fact occurred, under his or her direction at the time when
or immediately thereafter, or at any other the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter,
time when the fact was fresh in his memory or at any other time when the fact was fresh
and he knew that the same was correctly in his or her memory and he or she knew
written or recorded; but in such case the that the same was correctly written or
writing or record must be produced and recorded; but in such case the writing or
may be inspected by the adverse party, record must be produced and may be
who may, if he chooses, cross-examine the inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
witness upon it, and may read it in he or she chooses, cross-examine the
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify witness upon it, and may read it in
from such a writing or record, though he evidence. So, also, a witness may testify
retain no recollection of the particular facts, from such a writing or record, though he or
if he is able to swear that the writing or she retain no recollection of the particular
record correctly stated the transaction when facts, if he or she is able to swear that the
made; but such evidence must be received writing or record correctly stated the
with caution. (10a) transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution. (16a)
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS
Section 19. Classes of documents
For the purpose of their presentation in For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or evidence, documents are either public or
private. private.
Public documents are: Public documents are:
a)The written official acts, or records of a)The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign authority, the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of officers, whether of the Philippines, or of
a foreign country; a foreign country;
b)Documents acknowledged before a b)Documents acknowledged before a
notary public except last wills and notary public except last wills and
testaments; and testaments; and

c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, c) Documents that are considered public
of private documents required by law documents under treaties and
to be entered therein. conventions which are in force
between the Philippines and the
All other writings are private. (20a) country of source; and
d) Public records, kept in the Philippines,
of private documents required by law
to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (19a)

Section 20. Proof of private documents

Before any private document offered as Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be execution and authenticity must be
proved either: proved by any of the following means:
a)By anyone who saw the document a)By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or executed or written;
b)By evidence of the genuineness of the b)By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker. signature or handwriting of the maker; or
c)By other evidence showing its due
Any other private document need only execution and authenticity.
be identified as that which it is claimed to
be. (21a) Any other private document need only
be identified as that which it is claimed to
be. (20)
Section 20. Proof of private documents
• Public documents
◆ Admissible without proof of due execution and genuineness.
a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and
testaments; and
c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
d) Public documents under treaties and conventions.
• Private documents
◆ Due execution and authenticity must be proved:
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker;
c) By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
Section 22. How genuineness of
handwriting proved
The handwriting of a person may be The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to proved by any witness who believes it to
be the handwriting of such person be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or because he or she has seen the person
has seen writing purporting to be his write, or has seen writing purporting to be
upon which the witness has acted or his or her upon which the witness has
been charged, and has thus acquired acted or been charged, and has thus
knowledge of the handwriting of such acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
person. Evidence respecting the such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the comparison, made by the witness or the
court, with writings admitted or treated as court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
(23a) (22)
Section 22. How genuineness of
handwriting proved
It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own
independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court
judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts, especially when the question
involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a
visual Comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of the
currently existing ones. Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly
authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting
"with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence
is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.” (Carbonell v.
Carbonell-Mendes, G.R. No. 205681, July 1, 2015)
Section 24. Proof of official record
The record of public documents The record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose, may be when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and record, or by his or her deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office such officer has the custody.
in which the record is kept is in a foreign
country, the certificate may be made by a If the office in which the record is kept
secretary of the embassy or legation, is in a foreign country, which is a
consul general, consul, vice consul, or contracting party to a treaty or convention
consular agent or by any officer in the to which the Philippines is also a party, or
foreign service of the Philippines considered a public document under
stationed in the foreign country in which such treaty or convetion pursuant to
the record is kept, and authenticated by paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof,…
the seal of his office. (25a)
…the certificate or its equivalent shall be
in the form prescribed by such treaty or
convention subject to reciprocity granted
to public documents originating from the
Philippines.
For documents originating from a

foreign country which is not a contracting
party to a treaty or convention referred to
in the next preceding sentence, the
certificate may be made by a sectretary
of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
or her office.
A document that is accompanied by a
certificate or its equivalent may be
presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate or its equivalent
being prima facie evidence of the due
execution and genuineness of the
document involved. The certificate shall
not be required when a treaty or
convention between a foreign country
and the Philippines has abolished the
requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality. (24a)
Section 25. What attestation of a copy
must state
Whenever a copy of a document or Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy substance, that the copy is a correct copy
of the original, or a specific part thereof, of the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be. The attestation must as the case may be. The attestation must
be under the official seal of the attesting be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the officer, if there be any, or if he or she be
clerk of a court having a seal, under the the clerk of a court having a seal, under
seal of such court. (26a) the seal of such court. (25a)
Section 25. What attestation of a copy
must state
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following
requisites are mandatory: (1) it must be attested by the officer having legal
custody of the records or by his deputy; and (2) it must be accompanied by a
certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of
his office. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer
has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the
authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must
be under the official seal of the attesting officer. (Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V.
Rotterdam v. Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd., G.R. No. 156330, November 19,
2014)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record
A written statement signed by an officer A written statement signed by an officer
having the custody of an official record or having the custody of an official record or
by his deputy that after diligent search no by his or her deputy that after diligent
record or entry of a specified tenor is search no record or entry of a specified
found to exist in the records of his office, tenor is found to exist in the records of
accompanied by a certificate as above his office, accompanied by a certificate
provided, is admissible as evidence that as above provided, is admissible as
the records of his office contain no such evidence that the records of his or her
record or entry. (29) office contain no such record or entry.
(28a)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record
In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, where the

wife failed to present the actual marriage license, or a copy
thereof, and relied on the marriage contract as well as the
testimonies of her witnesses to prove the existence of said
license, and the husband, to prove that no such license was
issued, turned to the office of the civil registrar which had
allegedly issued said license, the Supreme Court held that the
certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value,
as his duty was to maintain records of data relative to the
issuance of a marriage license. (Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No.
183896, January 30, 2013, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994)
Section 31. Alteration in document, how
to explain
The party producing a document as The party producing a document as
genuine which has been altered and genuine which has been altered and
appears to have been altered after its appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the question in dispute, must account for the
alteration. He may show that the alteration. He or she may show that the
alteration was made by another, without alteration was made by another, without
his concurrence, or was made with the his or her concurrence, or was made with
consent of the parties affected by it, or the consent of the parties affected by it,
was otherwise properly or innocently or was otherwise properly or innocently
made, or that the alteration did not made, or that the alteration did not
change the meaning or language of the change the meaning or language of the
instrument. If he fails to do that, the instrument. If he or she fails to do that,
document shall not be admissible in the document shall not be admissible in
evidence. (32a) evidence. (31a)
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 35. When to make offer
As regards the testimony of a witness, All evidence must be offered orally.
the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify. Documentary The offer of the testimony of a witness
and object evidence shall be offered after in evidence must be made at the time the
the presentation of a party's testimonial witness is called to testify.
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally
unless allowed by the court to be done in The offer of documentary and object
writing. (n) evidence shall be made after the
presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence. (35a)
Section 35. When to make offer
Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial evidence presented
and exclude the documents not offered. Documents which may have been identified
and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in
evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such
unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It must be
stressed that there is a significant distinction between identification of documentary
evidence and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and
trial is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is
done only when the party rests its case. The mere fact that a particular document is
identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as
part of the evidence.
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal
offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and
rejected. (Heirs of Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007)
Section 36. Objection
Objection to evidence offered orally Objection to offer of evidence must be
must be made immediately after the offer made orally immediately after the offer is
is made. made.
Objection to a question propounded in Objection to the testimony of a witness

the course of the oral examination of a for lack of a formal offer must be made as
witness shall be made as soon as the soon as the witness begins to testify.
grounds therefor shall become Objection to a question propounded in
reasonably apparent. the course of the oral examination of a
witness must be made as soon as the
An offer of evidence in writing shall be grounds therefor become reasonably
objected to within three (3) days after apparent.
notice of the offer unless a different
period is allowed by the court. In any The grounds for the objections must be
case, the grounds for the objections must specified. (36a)
be specified. (36a)
Section 36. Objection
This amendment incorporates the ruling in Catuira v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
105813, September 12, 1994), a case where the prosecution failed to offer in
evidence the testimony of a complaining witness upon calling her to testify and that
the offer was made only after her testimony and after the accused had moved that
the testimony be stricken off the record. The Supreme Court held that the procedural
error or defect was waived when accused did not object to the testimony when it was
not first offered upon calling the complainant.
Section 37. When repetition of objection
unnecessary
When it becomes reasonably apparent When it becomes reasonably apparent
in the course of the examination of a in the course of the examination of a
witness that the questions being witness that the questions being
propounded are of the same class as propounded are of the same class as
those to which objection has been made, those to which objection has been made,
whether such objection was sustained or whether such objection was sustained or
overruled, it shall not be necessary to overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for repeat the objection, it being sufficient for
the adverse party to record his continuing the adverse party to record his or her
objection to such class of questions. continuing objection to such class of
(37a) questions. (37a)
Section 39. Striking out answer
Should a witness answer the question Should a witness answer the question
before the adverse party had the before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to
opportunity to voice fully its objection to
the same, and such objection is found to the same, or where a question is not
be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objectionable, but the answer is not
objection and order the answer given to responsive, or where a witness testifies
be stricken off the record. without a question being posed or
testifies beyond limits set by the court, or
On proper motion, the court may also when the witness does a narration
order the striking out of answers which instead of answering the question, and
are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise such objection is found to be meritorious,
improper. (n) the court shall sustain the objection and
order such answer, testimony or narration
given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also

order the striking out of answers which
are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise
improper. (39a)
RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined
In civil cases, the party having the In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case burden of proof must establish his or her
by a preponderance of evidence. In case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all involved lies, the court may consider all
the facts and circumstances of the case, the facts and circumstances of the case,
the witnesses' manner of testifying, their the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity intelligence, their means and opportunity
of knowing the facts to which they are of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability or they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same personal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trial… may legitimately appear upon the trial…
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined
…The court may also consider the …The court may also consider the
number of witnesses, though the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number. (1a) greater number. (1a)
Preponderance of evidence:
- burden of proof in civil cases
- is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side
- synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of
credible evidence
It is presumed that a person is innocent of wrong; that a person takes ordinary

care of his concerns; that private transactions have been fair and regular; and
that the ordinary course of business has been followed. Based on these
presumptions, [it is presumed] that xxx NAIA III [was] built in accordance with the
specifications required The burden of proof lies with the Government to prove by
preponderance of evidence that the NAIA III suffered from structural defects.
(Republic v. Mupas, G.R. NO. 181892, September 8, 2015)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
In a criminal case, the accused is In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
such a degree of proof as, excluding mean such a degree of proof as,
possibility of error, produces absolute excluding possibility of error, produces
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
or that degree of proof which produces required, or that degree of proof which
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a) produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. (2a)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt:

- burden of proof in criminal cases.
- does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty
- moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind.
- still the standard for criminal prosecutions under the Intellectual Property Code.
(ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when
sufficient
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
for conviction if: conviction if:
a)There is more than one circumstance; a)There is more than one circumstance;
b)The facts from which the inferences are b)The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and derived are proven; and
c)The combination of all the c)The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other
inferences. (4a)
The amendment incorporates the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Austria
(G.R. No. 55109, April 8, 1991) where it was held that the “conviction of appellant
Eduardo Austria on an inference based on another inference cannot be maintained. It
is axiomatic that conviction should be made on the basis of a strong, clear and
compelling evidence.”
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the following requisites
must concur:
a) there must be more than one circumstance to convict;
b) the facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and
c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads one to a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the
guilty person. (Franco v. People, G.R. No. 191185, February 1, 2016, citing People v.
Ayola, G.R. No. 138923, September 4, 2001)
Although there was no eyewitness or direct evidence xxx (which) point to the
petitioner as the one who killed his wife, there was also no direct evidence
establishing that the victim took her own life, circumstantial evidence may be
established or admitted. It is the quality of the circumstances, rather than the
quantity, xxx, (which must) consist of an unbroken chain that will inescapably lead to
the conclusion that the accused is guilty without an iota of doubt. (Manulat, Jr. v.
People, G.R. No. 190892, Aug. 17, 2015)
NEW PROVISION
SECTION 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. – In
any case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court
has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such
opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
a)Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;

b)Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
c)Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case; and
d)Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)
This new provision gives guidance to judges in determining weight to be given to

expert opinion. It hews to the basic sense expressed by the US Supreme Court in
Daubert v. Merrel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the judge must have considerable
leeway in the matter and that the listing of particular factors was meant to be “helpful”
rather than “definitive.”
SECTION 5. Substantial evidence. - In SECTION 6. Substantial evidence. - In
cases filed before administrative or quasi- cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by established if it is supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion. (n) a conclusion. (5)
Substantial Evidence:
- burden of proof in administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.

- means "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.”
- affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence (Punongbayan &
Araullo v. Lepon, G.R. No. 174115, November 9, 2015)
SECTION 6. Power of the court to stop SECTION 7. Power of the court to stop
further evidence. — The court may stop further evidence. — The court may stop
the introduction of further testimony upon the introduction of further testimony upon
any particular point when the evidence any particular point when the evidence
upon it is already so full that more upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive. But this power should be persuasive. This power shall be
exercised with caution. (6) exercised with caution. (6a)
SECTION 7. Evidence on motion. — SECTION 8. Evidence on motion. —
When a motion is based on facts not When a motion is based on facts not
appearing of record the court may hear appearing of record the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions the matter on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties, but presented by the respective parties, but
the court may direct that the matter be the court may direct that the matter be
heard wholly or partly on oral testimony heard wholly or partly on oral testimony
or depositions. (7) or depositions. (7)
THANK YOU

MSnewrules Evidenceppt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSnewrules Evidenceppt

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

MSnewrules Evidenceppt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Amendments to the

Revised Rules on Evidence

• Acknowledged technological advances,

Old Provision Revised Provision

Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has 'rational probative

Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by the Constitution,

Admissibility of Evidence is NOT Weight of

Physical evidence ranks higher in hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.

A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or

• Photographs as documentary evidence

• In Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 November 1995; College

allowed the use of photographs as documentary evidence because they are

The “Best Evidence Rule” (BER) is a misnomer because it misleadingly suggests

(e) When the original is not closely-

• In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil.

• The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-related to a

• Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment is

(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same

a)Documents where its contents are the subject of inquiry – still

When what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of a

b)Duplicate original – still retained

The offeror must prove:

a) existence or due execution of the original;

The offeror must prove:

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the

• As early as 1977, the Supreme Court, in Compaña Maritima v. Allied Free

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or

Oral testimony, of person who has an interest in the outcome

b) it serves as the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting

•This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in deferring to the contracting

Religious or political belief, interest in

Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility if the testimony is

Old Provision Revised Provision

NEW CONCEPT AS LACK OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE

INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

•A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the

If the lawyer and client become involved in a dispute between themselves

iv. Document attested by the lawyer.

The privilege does not apply to “a communication relevant to an issue concerning

a) A person licensed to practice

For one to be considered a “psychotherapist,” a medical doctor need only be

(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably

The old provision limited the privilege to “penitential communications” made to a

a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news;

There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from

A stepmother can be compelled to testify against stepdaughter, xxx they have

The privilege is not strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is

a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;

An offer to pay or the payment of medical,

• NOT ADMISSIBLE as admission of any liability.

Rule is NOT absolute:

• ADMISSIBLE as an implied admission of guilt.

Old Provision Revised Provision

Silence during custodial investigation is not admission by silence as he has the

Extrajudicial confessions are binding only on the confessant and cannot be

Prior involvement in a cash shortage in the bank's branch does

Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or tends to show, that

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing

- out of court statement made by witness-declarant, not made