RULE 130

SECS. 29-36

What is the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debit?
“Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.”

This principle provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another.

What are the 2 branches of this principle?

1. Rule 130, Section 28 – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided such as vicarious
admissions.

2. Rule 130, Section 34 – Previous Conduct/Propensity Rule. Evidence that one did or
did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do
the same or a similar thing at another time.

What is the rationale for this principle?

On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding
upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it
would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be
bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers.

What, if any, are the exceptions to this principle?

1. Admissions by a co-partner or agent
2. Admission by privies
3. Interlocking confession
4. Admission by conspirator
5. Admission by silence

SECS. 37-50

What is hearsay evidence?

Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
a hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. It is an evidence which
is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and
which consequently does not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the
confidence which the court may have in him.

What are the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule? To be admissible, what are
the requisites for each exception?
1. Dying declaration
a. The declaration is made by a dying person under a consciousness of an
impending death;
 b. The declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death;
c. It was made by a declarant competent to testify as witness, had that person
been called to testify;
d. The statement is complete in itself;
e. The declarant thereafter died; and
f. The declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject
of the inquiry.

2. Declaration against interest

a. That the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
b. That it relates to a fact against the interests of the declarant;
c. That at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that it was
contrary to the aforesaid interest; and
d. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and he believed such declaration to
be true.

3. Act or declaration about pedigree

a. The declarant is already dead or unable to testify;
b. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question;
c. The pedigree of a person must be in issue;
d. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in
question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; and
e. Declaration must be made before the controversy has occurred.

4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

a. There is a controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a
family;
b. The reputation or tradition of the pedigree existed previous to the controversy;
and
c. The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of
the person must be a member of the family of said person.

5. Common reputation
1. Reputation existed prior to the controversy, respecting:
a. Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old;
b. Marriage; and
c. Moral character.

2. Monuments or inscription in public places may be received as evidence of common

reputation.

6. Res gestae
1. Spontaneous Statements
a. The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
 b. The statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and
c. The statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.

2. Verbal acts
a. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
b. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
c. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
d. The statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act.

7. Entries in the ordinary course of business

a. The person who made the entry must be dead, or unable to testify;
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they
refer;
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a
duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious; and
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

8. Entries in official records

a. That it was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by
law to do so;
b. That it was made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, or by
another person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
c. The public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts
stated by him, which he must have acquired personally or through official
information.

9. Commercial lists and the like

a. There is a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation;
b. Such published compilation contains statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation;
c. The compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation;
and
d. The compilation is generally used and relied upon by the persons engaged in
that occupation.

10. Learned treatises

a. The court can take judicial notice of it; or
b. A witness, expert in the subject, testifies that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert in the subject.

11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

a. The witness is dead or unable to testify;
 b. His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same
interests;
c. The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case,
although on different causes of action;
d. The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue
involved in the present case; and
e. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case.

May hearsay evidence which is not specifically covered by any of the foregoing
exceptions be still considered admissible?
Yes. Under Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a statement not
specifically covered by any of the exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that:

a. The statement is offered as evidence of 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;
c. The general purpose of these rules and interest of justice will be best served
by admission of the statement into evidence; or
d. The proponent makes known to the adverse party of the statements being
offered, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or in the pre-trial stage.

What is dying declaration?

Under Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, dying declaration is a
declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of the inquiry, as evidence
of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

When may statements made by someone other than the declarant be admissible
as part of the res gestae?
In People V. Hernandez, the testimony by a person regarding the statements made by
another as that startling occurrence was taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, although essentially hearsay, is admissible on the theory that said
statements are “natural and spontaneous, unreflected and instinctive, made before
there had been opportunity to devise or contrive anything contrary to the real fact
occurred.

May the declaration of a dying person be considered part of the res gestae?
Yes. In Martuillas v. People, the fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying
declaration does not preclude it from being admitted as part of res gestae, if the
elements of both are present.

Thus, in the case of People v. Laquinon, where the victim replied “I don’t know” as to
whether he believed he would die, his declaration cannot be considered made under
consciousness of his imminent death; although the same may be admitted as part of the
res gestae.

What is a declaration against interest? How is it different from a self-serving

declaration?
Declaration against interest is a declaration made by a person deceased or unable to
testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at
the time it was made so far contrary to the declarant’s own interest.

The difference between declaration against interest and self-serving declaration is the
trustworthiness of the statement. Self-serving declaration is untrustworthy because to
permit their introduction would open the door to frauds and perjuries; while declaration
against interest is trustworthy, hence, admissible. There is a presumption that men will
not falsify to their prejudice. In Baker v. State, persons do not make statements that are
disadvantageous to themselves without substantial reason to believe that the
statements are true. Self-interest induces men to be cautious in saying anything against
themselves. In other words, we can safely trust a man when speaks against his interest.

How is a declaration against interest different from admission?

Page 715 of the Memory Aid. Basis for distinction:

1. Applicability of Hearsay Rule

2. Kind of Evidence
3. Whether declarant be a party
4. To whom applicable
5. Admissibility upon death
6. When made

What is pedigree? When may an act or declaration regarding pedigree be

received in evidence?
Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, dates when
and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It also
embraces facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.

It is the history of family descent which is transmitted from one generation to another by
both oral and written declarations and by traditions.

In Tecson V. COMELEC, the act or declaration regarding pedigree may be received in

evidence if the following are present:

1. The declarant is already dead or unable to testify;

2. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question;
3. The pedigree of a person must be at issue;
4. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree in question
must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; and
5. Declaration must be made before the controversy occurred.
What is the underlying principle for the “Survivorship Disqualification Rule” or
“Dead Man’s Statute”? Do we still adhere to this rule/statute?
The rationale behind this principle is if death closed the lips of one party, the policy of
the law is to close the lips of the other. Another reason is that the temptation to
falsehood and concealment in such cases is considered too great to allow the surviving
party to testify in his own behalf.

No, we no longer adhere to this rule. The present rules on evidence treated the “Dead
Man’s Statute” as an exception to the rule on hearsay and not as a disqualification of a
witness on giving his testimonial evidence. Under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence, any statement of the deceased or person of unsound mind, may be
received in evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind at the time when the matter had been recently
perceived by him and while his recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is
inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.

SECS. 51-53

Are the witness’ opinions admissible in evidence?

As a general rule, a witness may testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge. Thus, a mere opinion or inference drawn from the facts observed
cannot be admissible in evidence.

What are the exceptions to the opinion rule?

1. Opinion of expert witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience
or training which he is shown to possess;

2. Opinion of an ordinary witness.

Who is an expert witness?

A person who is so qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, as to
enable him to form a definite opinion of his own respecting any division about which
persons having no particular training or special duty are incapable of forming accurate
opinions or of deducing correct conclusions.

May an ordinary witness testify based on his/her opinion?

Yes. On the following matters: on a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; the mental sanity of a
person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; or the witness’ impressions of the
emotion, behavior, appearance, or condition of a person.

SEC. 54

When may the character of the offended party be proved?

In criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged. The offended party may prove his good
moral character as long as it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the
offense charge.

In civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible
only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.

May the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the accused?
The prosecution may not prove bad moral character of the accused unless in rebuttal
when the latter opens the issue by introducing evidence of his good moral character.

When may evidence of the bad character of a witness be admissible?

The bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party but not
evidence of his good moral character, unless such character has been impeached.

RULE 131

SEC. 1

What is burden of proof?

The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

What is burden of evidence?

The duty to prove the case of a party or overcome the evidence of the opponent as
demanded by the exigencies of the trial.

SECS. 2-4

What are presumptions?

An inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual
connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to
what course of human affairs ordinarily take.

What are conclusive presumptions? How are they different from disputable
presumptions?
Conclusive presumption is a presumption of law that is irrebuttable and not permitted to
be overcome by any proof to the contrary; while disputable presumption is that which
the law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary, otherwise, the
same remains satisfactory.

What are examples of disputable presumptions?

1. Presumption of innocence;
2. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
3. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
6. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid
xxx

What are the instances of conclusive presumptions?

1. Estoppel in pais – whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true and to
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it;

2. Estoppel by deed – the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

SEC. 5

In civil actions, what is the effect of a presumption?

A presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going
forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.

How do we resolve inconsistent presumptions?

The presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If
considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies.

SEC. 6

In criminal cases, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond

reasonable doubt. Under the new Rules, what presumption, if any, is created
against an accused?
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.

RULE 132

SECS. 1-10

How should witnesses be examined?

1. Shall be done in open court;
2. Under oath or affirmation; and
3. Orally, unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer.

What are the rights and obligations of witnesses?

1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her reputation.

What is direct examination?

Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to
the issue.

What is cross-examination?
Examination of the witness by the adverse party after said witness has given his
testimony on direct examination.

What is re-direct examination?

Examination of a witness by the counsel who conducted the direct examination after the
cross-examination to elicit testimony to correct or repel any wrong impression or
inferences that may have been created in the cross-examination.

What is re-cross examination?

It is where the adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination and also on such matters as may allowed by the court in its discretion.

What are leading questions?

One that is framed in such a way that the question indicates to the witness the answer
desired by the party asking the question.

Are leading questions allowed? When?

It is not allowed except on the following instances:

1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, a child of tender years, is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party.

What are misleading questions? Are they allowed?

One which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
which he or she has previously stated. It is not allowed.

May witnesses be recalled after the completion of their testimonies?

Only after the examination of a witness by both sided has been concluded, and with
leave of court.
SECS. 11-14

How and when may witnesses be impeached?

1. By contradictory evidence;
2. By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad;
3. By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony; or
4. By evidence of conviction of crime provided that the crime was punishable by a
penalty in excess of one year or the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.

May a party impeach his/her own witnesses?

A party may not impeach his or her own witnesses except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10:

1. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

2. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation, or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party.

Who is a hostile witness?

One declared by the court upon adequate showing of his or her adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his or her having misled the party into calling him or
her to the witness stand.

SEC. 15

When may witnesses be excluded?

The court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall order witnesses excluded so that they
cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.

When may witnesses be separated?

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.

SECS. 16-18

When testifying in open court, may a witness be allowed to refer to or consult a

written memorandum? If so, when and how is it done?

Yes. See Section 16 of Rule 132.