SALIENT FEATURES OF THE

2019 AMENDMENTS TO THE

1989 REVISED RULES ON
EVIDENCE
by:
Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
October 16, 2020 830am-330pm
Supreme Court En Banc Session Hall
PHILJA 2698 ROC-CivPE (1) ‘20
 Timelines – Rules on Evidence
✔10 RCL 860
Components of Law – a) Substantive b) Procedural

Procedural – pleadings, practice and evidence

Aldeguer vs. Hoskyn [1902] – no vested right,

cf. retrogressive effect [Arts. 4, 2254, NCC]; ex
post facto [Sec. 22, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution]

Bustos vs. Lucero [1948] – procedural;

 cf. Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo [2017]
Section 5 (5), Art. 8, 1987 Constitution;
People vs. Moner [2018 FN 29] – a traditional
power of the SC, inclusive of rules of evidence.
 Timelines – Rules on Evidence
1901 – Act # 190 - An Act Providing a Code of Procedure in
Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine
Islands, [Code of Civil Procedure] dated 080701, Secs.
273-347.
1940 – Sections 1 to 100, Rule 123, Rules of Court.
1964 – Rules 128 to 134, Revised Rules of Court, effective
010164, formerly Rule 123 of the Rules of Court
cf. 1 Padilla, Evidence Annotated, 1971, pp. 2-3.
1989 – Bar Matter # 411 dated 031489, effective 070189
2008 – Sub-Committee for Review, reorganized later
2010 – initial draft; the vacuum
2019 – re-organized Committee [Memorandum Order #
03-2019 dated 011419]
2019 – Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rues on
Evidence [AM # 19-08-15-SC dated 10819, effective
050120]
 Provisions of Act # 190 on Evidence
cf.3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 2nd
Edition, Revised, 1940, pp. 660-679:
Sections 273-376 – Salient Features:
Preponderance of Evidence, uniformity of rules,
judicial notice, personal knowledge and hearsay
with some exceptions, res inter alios acta,
original writing rule, parol evidence,
interpretation, onus, evidence for certain facts,
proof of documents, writings and handwritings,
irremovability of public document, presumptions,
alterations, examination of witnesses,
impeachment, affidavits and depositions and
perpetuation of testimony.
 AXIOMS
 Principal Source: 1987 Constitution
 cf. Article 3, Secs. 1-3,12-14,17,22.

People vs. Sapla, GR # 244045, June 16, 2020

 De la Torre vs. CA [1998]

 Other sources: Rules 128 – 133,

Rule 134 transposed to Rule 24 [prior to
action or pending appeal]

 Some Foreign Sources: 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

Wigmore on Evidence
McCormick Handbook on Evidence
Jones on Evidence
Chamberlayne’s/Greenleaf’s
Treatise/
Kennedy, Trial Evidence,
Lilly, Principles of Evidence
 SNAPSHOT OF CHANGES
A) minor – re-numbering,
gender inclusivity [Section 14,Article 2, Constitution,
RA 9710],
recognition of technological progression; [RA 8792,
AM # 01-7-01-SC dated 071701, effective 080101, Rules
on Electronic Evidence;]

cf. SC Administrative Order # 251-2020 dated 091120, effective

100120 – Guidelines on Hague Service Convention Service
Abroad of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters;
Section 19 (c), Rule 132.

B) major – concept of a picture and as documentary

evidence, expansion of privileged communications,
dichotomy of personal knowledge from hearsay,
modification of exceptions to hearsay, residual exception,
Apostille Convention, modes of impeachment, burden of
evidence, oral offer, objection and ruling, factors for an
expert opinion.
 Rule 128 – General Provisions
Section 1, Rule 128 – cf. Section 1823, Code of Civil Procedure
of California.
Section 3, Rule 128

Integration of the 1987 Constitution

People vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57;64;66-68 (1991)]; Yrasuegui vs.

Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008;
People vs. Mendoza [1999], People vs. Maqueda [2995]
cf. Pimentel vs. LEB [2019 FN 222, citing Guzman vs. NU]
Waterous Drug Corporation vs. NLRC [280 SCRA 735;747
(1997)].

Rules 101-104, 401-403, FRE.

 Rule 128 – General Provisions

Article 17, GDPR – right to be forgotten

Section 16 (8)(d), RA 10173 [2012];

Google LLC vs. CNIL [2019]

NT1 & NT2 vs. Google LLC [2018]

Google vs. Spain [2014]

Pollo vs. David [2011]

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts

Assertion vs. Factual Issue vs. Legal Issue

cf. Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC [2019]
Jabalde vs. People [2016]

Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum

Evidence vs. Proof
Evidence vs. Weight

cf. People vs. Moner [2018 after FN 27] – breach of S21 RA

9165 affects weight rather than inadmissibility.

Tan, Jr. vs. Hosana [2016] – problem over a void document

Tests for admissibility of Evidence: Relevant, Competent,

Material, etc.

05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts

Section 21, RA 9165 – chain of custody rule

RA 10640 - approved 071514 – 3 witness to 2 witness

rule [elected public official, NPS, or media]

Cases:

People vs. Buesa 091620 – corpus delicti

People vs. Vargas 090720 – Room 319 arrest and
witnesses summoned; preserved integrity of drug.
Tuates vs. People [2019] – prison strip search
People vs. Romy Lim [2018] – strict guidelines
People vs. Sood [2018] – witnesses must be present
during arrest.
People vs. Briones [2016] - indiscriminate firing and
subsequent arrest for shabu.
05/23/19
 Rule 128 – Basic Concepts
Doctrines:

a) Conditional Admissibility
cf. 3 Wigmore 2468,2470, 1 Wigmore 43
[1904]; Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix [1929]; Sec.
39, Rule 132, De la Torre vs. CA

b) Multiple Admissibility
cf. People vs. Yatco [1955]

c) Curative Admissibility – American, English,

Massachusettes; cf. Sec. 17, Rule 132.

cf. Rules 104 (b), 105 FRE

05/23/19
 Rule 129 – What need not be proved
[judicial notice, judicial admission, presumption]
a) Section 1, Rule 129
insertion of National Government
Elbanbuena Case [2018] – S100, RA 10951 [2017]
cf. allow evidence for or against judicial notice?
Section 3, Rule 129
stages of judicial notice, initiative, extent of hearing.
cf. presentation of information or evidence?
FASAP vs. PAL [2018] – forego evidence of audited statements re
financial quagmire in rehabilitation
Herrera vs. Bollos [2002] – rental value
Land Bank vs. Honeycomb Farms [2012] – nature of land
Silkair vs. CIR [2010] – present original
b) Section 4, Rule 129 c) Secs. 2-3, Rule 131
imputed admission not made
cf. Rule 201, FRE.
 Rule 129 – judicial notice

Republic vs. Provincial Government of Palawan [2018] –

extent of territorial boundary of LGU.

Sakai vs. Republic [2018] – no judicial notice of foreign

judgments and laws.

cf. Nullada vs. Civil Registrar of Manila [2019] – allege

and prove foreign law.

Republic vs. Manalo [2018] - second paragraph,

Article 26, FC construed:

“… a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by

the alien spouse...”

05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial notice

Second paragraph, Section 2, Art. 12, 1987 Constitution - “The

State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve
its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”

cf. Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 3,

August 25, 1986, R.C.C. No. 65:
“MR. CONCEPCION: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: I just want to call attention to the fact that the waters
within the economic zone are part of the high seas. The exclusive
economic zone refers to the exploitation of the seabed. The waters above
that portion form part of the high seas and are subject to the general
principles of international law.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we agree with this construction by
the Supreme Court's Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Let that be on record.”
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
Section 4, Rule 129 vs. Section 27, Rule 130
No need for personal knowledge: Wigmore, Gilbert,
McCormick, Weissenbgerber and Duane
No need for verbal precision: 29Am Jur., 2d., 120, 31 CJS
1153, Francisco
05/23/19
Wigmore’s Theory; 29A Am Jur 136 – waiver; substitute for legal
evidence
cf. Saldana vs. Spouses Niamatali [2018 FN 15] –
incontrovertible

Effects of evidence to fortify or denigrate a judicial admission

cf. Investment and Underwriting Corporation v. Comprotonics
[1990], Saraum vs. People [2013], People vs. Tripoli [2017],
People vs. Gayon [2019]

Qualified judicial admission - cf. Bitong vs. CA [1998];

cf. Greenleaf – consider entire context; CIR vs. Avon Products
[2018] – consider totality of evidence
 Rule 129 – judicial admission
Best – “self-harming” or “self-disserving"

Republic vs. Estate of Menzi [2012] – proof contrary to

admission must be ignored, irrespective of objection

Theory of Adoptive Admission

cf. Estrada vs. Desierto [2001] – conduct or inability to
refute.
Republic vs. Kenrich [2006] - forms: expression of
concurrence with another, repetition of another’s utterance,
inability to refute an assertion, written conformity with
statement of another

Impermissible Admissions – Section 1, Rule 34,

Arts. 48,60, FC, Arts. 2034,2035, NCC.
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission

Forms of admission in general – oral, written, omission.

31 C.J.S. – implied from conduct [4 Martin, page 50]

cf. Logrosa vs. Sps. Azares [2019] – expression of an

intention.
Fact Finding Investigation Bureau OMB vs. Miranda
[2019] – admission by silence.
cf. Section 33, Rule 130.
Negative pregnant – People vs. Adalia [2020]

Declaration against interest – Sec. 40, Rule 130; Nuñez

vs. Moises-Palma [2019 FN 74]
statement in exculpation requires corroboration [29A
Am Jur 166]

05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission

a) pre-trial: [Sec. 2, Rule 118; Secs. 4,7,

Rule 18]

Fule vs. CA [1988];

People vs. Likiran [2014] - waiver
In Re: Justice Badoy, etc. [2003]

b) trial: [Sec. 7, Rule 30; Sec. 5, Rule 10 –

conform to evidence]

Collado vs. Hernando [1988] – partial

stipulations
People vs. Hernandez [1996]
05/23/19
 Rule 129 – judicial admission

Effect of an Amended Pleading: [Sec. 8, Rule

10 – “… may be offered in evidence...”]

Judicial or extra-judicial?

a) Justice Regalado’s view – judicial

b) Jones – extra-judicial

Ching vs. Court of Appeals [2000], Director

of Lands vs. CA [1991]

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Real Evidence

Sison vs. People [1995]

People vs. Moreno [2020], People vs. Nuñez

[2017] – totality of circumstances test for a
picture; avoid impermissible suggestion on
identification.

People vs. Sapla [2020] – totality of circumstances

test on probable cause re: tip in a drug case –
SCOTUS

People vs. Ramos [2020] – drug itself as corpus

delicti
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 2, Rule 130 – concept of documentary
evidence – documents as evidence consists of
writings, recordings,photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
cf. Rule 1001, FRE – to include every written
memorial in any form; Rule 1002, FRE – necessity for
original to prove contents.

Best Evidence Rule a misnomer

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Secs. 2-3, Rule 130

Problem on photograph of:

a) a document – real, documentary, or testimonial?

i.e. medical record

b) an object – real, documentary, or

testimonial?

i.e. stolen art object

05/23/19
The purpose?
 Rule 130 – Documentary Evidence

Sections 3 (b) (e), 4, Rule 130 - original

document rule – includes writing, recording,
photograph or other record

Section 3 (b) – adverse party’s control … or

the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures.

Section 3 (e) – when the original is not

closely-related to a controlling issue.
[collateral facts rule, or parallel facts]
cf. Rule 1001 (a)-(d), FRE
cf. Section 31, Rule 132 – alteration
05/23/19
 Rule 130 Section 3 – Original Document Rule
Estrada vs Desierto [2001] – forego original if
contents not bona fide impugned

Present original of falsified document?

a) US vs. Gregorio [1910]

b) Borje vs. SB [1983]
c) Pacasum vs. People [2009] – notice to
accused to produce original; Jones’ view

Collateral Facts Rule:

De Leon vs. People [2018] – xerox copy of
buy bust money
People vs. Tandoy [1990]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Section 4 – original of a document [overhaul;

intended to strike a balance between original
and accurate copy]
a) An “original” of a document is the
document itself or any counterpart intended to
have the same effect by a person executing or
issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes
the negative or any print therefrom. If data is
stored in a computer or similar device, any
printout or other output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately, is an “original.”
cf. Rule 1001 (d), FRE
Section 10, RA 8792
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Section 4. Original of a document

b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by
means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately
produce the original.

cf. Rule 1001 (e), FRE

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule
Section 4. Original Document.

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 original.

cf. Rule 1003, FRE

Section 2, Rule 4, Rule on Electronic Evidence:

copy akin to original, if an accurate reproduction of
the original.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule

Effects of Breach of Original Document Rule

a) The offeror – Sections 3 (a), 5, Rule 130

cf. 10 RCL 903; Section 3 (e), Rule 131;
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Heirs of
Alvarez [2018]

b) The adverse party – Sections 3 (b), 6, Rule

130;
cf. 1 Jones on Evidence, 483.
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark
Equipment Corp. [2014]

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Original Document Rule;
Parol Evidence Rule

Section 7 – summaries vis-à-vis Section 3 (c),

Rule 130
cf. Rules 1006, FRE;
Republic vs. Mupas [2015] – availability of
originals for inspection.

Section 10 – Parol Evidence Rule; verified

pleading
cf. Cruz vs. CA [1990] – receipt
Western Mindanao Lumber vs. Medalle [1977];
Cruz vs. JM Tuason [1977] – exclusive list in Art.
1403 (2) NCC.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Testimonial Evidence
Wigmore’s components for testimonial assertion,
either judicial or extra-judicial:
cf. 1 Wigmore, 585-587.
a) Observation;
b) Recollection;
c) Communication
People vs. Sota [2017] – age inconsequential
Forum: People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao [2018]
Child Witness – Section 4 (a), Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness [AM # 00-4-07
approved on 112100;
Remote Appearance of high-risk inmates or
with contagious disease per Video Conference
Technology [AM # 19-05-06-SC dated 062519]
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Testimonial Evidence
Section 21, Rule 130, 1989 – deleted insanity or
immaturity vs. Section 21, Rule 130, 2019 power of
perception:
observation, recollection, communication

Dumont’s witness – perceiving or deposing

cf. Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr., [2013] –

restrictive list of disqualified witnesses.

Section 6, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

- Child presumed competent to testify

cf. People vs. Golidan [2018]

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 22 – Personal Knowledge; Rule 602, FRE

vs. Section 37, Rule 802, FRE – Hearsay;dichotomy

cf. Dumont - Original vs. Inoriginal [derived]

cf. People vs. Valdez [2000]

Section 23 – “… against...”; restricted to adverse

spousal testimony;

cf. Alvarez vs. Ramirez [2005] – strained relations;

arson.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 24 – expanded privileged

communication:
a) attorney - reasonable belief; scope
b) physician, psychotherapist - belief;
[overhaul];
cf. Lim vs. CA [1992]
Chan vs. Chan [2013] – wife’s subpoena
prior to trial of husband’s medical record vis-a-
vis Rule 27 for nullity of marriage.
c) minister – any communication;belief
[overhaul]
d) public officer – tenure [Art. 203, RPC]
e) third person
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 24 (b) Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege:
a) Furtherance of a crime or fraud;
cf. People vs. Sandiganbayan [1997]
Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, 199 – a
perversion of the privilege; conspiracy
b) Claimants through same deceased client;
c) Breach of duty by lawyer or client – a self-defense
concept;
d) Document attested by the lawyer;
e) Joint Clients
Section 26 – trade secrets
cf. Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, Air Philippines vs.
Pennswell, Inc. [2007]

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – other privileges
cf. Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr. [2013] –
conciliation in labor disputes;

Almonte vs. Vasquez [1995] – presumptive

privilege, state secrets, military, diplomatic and
similar matters, judicial deliberations.

Section 6, RA 9194 – covered institution in AMLA

cases;

Articles 290-292, Revised Penal Code;

RA 11458 – journalists.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 28 – compromise negotiations; plea
bargaining
Exceptions:
statement of independent fact
cf.L.M. Handicraft vs. CA [1990], Trans-Pacific vs. CA [1994]
a) discoverable evidence or offered for another
purpose
b) proof of bias of a witness;
c) negativing idea of undue delay;
d) proof of obstruction of criminal investigation or
prosecution.
cf. Rules 408-410, FRE
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Res Inter Alios Acta Concept

Section 30 – Admission by co-partner or agent –

authority is expected for a statement.
cf. Rule 801 (2)(c), FRE.
Section 31 – Admission by conspirator – in
furtherance of the conspiracy

Section 32 – Admission by privies – predecessor’s

admission over property, while holding the title,
can affect a successor

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Hearsay Evidence
Section 37 – 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.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 37 – Hearsay
visible vs. invisible witness for an assertion
First paragraph – visible witness
Second paragraph – invisible who became
visible
Situations: inconsistent, consistent,
identification.
cf. Rules 801-807, FRE
Independently Relevant Statement
 Rule 130 – Hearsay Evidence
Concepts:

Statement – an oral, written, or nonverbal conduct

coeval with an assertion
cf. Rule 801 (a), FRE
Declarant – person who asserts a fact
cf. Rule 801 (b), FRE.

Components:
a) Declarant’s out-of-court statement, and
b) Offered as an assertion
cf. Rule 801 (c), FRE.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Sections 38-50 – Exceptions to Hearsay

Section 39 – statement of deceased or insane;

Bentham’s criticism of DMS: “blind and brainless”

Sanson vs. CA [2003, FN 29] – incompetency refers

to testimonial evidence, hence, documentary
evidence like a check is excluded by the proscription.
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 40 – declaration against interest;

Corroborative evidence in exculpatory statement

cf. Sections 27,33,34, Rule 130, Estrada vs.

Desierto [2001];
cf. Rule 804 (b), (3) (B), FRE.

Lazaro vs. Agustin [2010] – ‘… deceased or

unable to testify...’ as precondition [cf. 20 Am. Jur.
468, Fuentes, Jr. vs. CA [1996]]
contra: Benito vs. People [2015] – testimony on witness
stand
Manila Electric Co. Vs. Heirs of Spouses Deloy [2013] –
document, with adverse contents, introduced in trial.
05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Section 41 – act or declaration of pedigree; adoption,

intimate association

Section 45 – business record; regularity

Section 50 – residual exception

cf. Dallas County vs. Commercial Union Assurance

Trustworthy, Material, Probative, best interest, notice

cf. Rules 803-807, FRE.

05/23/19
 Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
Section 54 – Character Evidence –

Weissenberger and Duane - propensity rule or

behavioral inclination.

transposed evidence of good character of

witness from Section 14, Rule 132.

testimony as to reputation, opinion, or

specific conduct

cf. Sec. 6, RA 8505 [1998]; Sec. 30, Rule on

Examination of Child Witness [2000]
Rules 404-405, FRE
 Rule 131 – Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence
and Presumptions
Section 1 – burden of evidence; create or refute a prima facie
case; shift
cf. Republic vs. Sereno [2018]; People vs. Quijano [2020] –
animus possidendi of drug
Section 5 – presumption in civil actions and proceedings
Burden of evidence of going forward with evidence weightier
policy for inconsistent presumptions; neutral effect

Section 6 – presumption of fact against accused in criminal

cases; establish basic fact beyond reasonable doubt and with
presumed fact follows basic fact.

Art. 217, RPC.

cf. Rules 301-302, FRE

 Rule 131 - Presumption
Hizon vs. CA [1996]:
no constitutional objection; presumed
innocence vs. presumed culpability.
Sec. 33, PD 704 – possession of explosives on
a boat; prima facie inference
Effects of a Presumption:
a) Thayer’s view: Bursting Bubble Theory
b) Morgan’s view or Pennsylvania Rule
Private Hospitals Association vs Medialdea [2018]
– presumed medical malpractice; Sec. 5, RA
10932 – premised on breach of statutory norm.

Weissenberger and Duane: aversion of applying

Rule 301 FRE to criminal cases.
05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Dumont: a) complete and b) accurate

Section 6 – ‘… on any relevant matter...’; English rule

Section 12 – impeachment by final conviction of

crime: [1] penalty in excess of one year, [2] moral
turpitude irrespective of penalty, except: [a] amnesty
or [b] annulment of conviction.

cf. Section 13 – impeachment of own witness

Section 15 – exclusion of witnesses - sua sponte or

on motion, except: [a] party a natural person, [b]
juridical entity’s apoderado, [c] essential to a party’s
cause, [d] person authorized by statute.
cf. Rule 615, FRE
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Secs. 11-14, Rule 132 – Impeachment

People vs. Buduhan [2008] – legally

impermissible to air inconsistencies only on
appeal.

People vs. Sambahon [2010] – necessity for

laying of the predicate.

4 Martin 534-535 [58 Am Jur 395] – a witness

can be impeached by another via bad
character.

05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Trial in Isolation: [Sec. 21, Rule 119; Sec. 2,

Rule 135]
cf. Garcia vs. Domingo [1973] – chamber
trial.
Child Witness:
cf. Genil vs. Rivera [2006]
Extradition : [Sec. 8 (1), PD 1069]

Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony

cf. Kim Liong vs. People [2018]
Doctrine of Inordinate Delay:
cf. People vs. SB [2019] – 3 year delay
hardly vexatious.
05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Section 19 (c) – public documents under treaties and
conventions by reciprocity

Apostille Convention, effective May 14, 2019 – abolished

consularization [diplomatic or consular legalisation] for
foreign public documents.

Section 24 – proof of official record

value of certificate as prima facie evidence of due

execution and genuineness of the document, save for a
treaty or convention which abolished such requirement.
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
Sections 34-40 - oral offer, oral objection, oral ruling
removal of written offer, objection, ruling – item 13 (c),
RGCTCC
objection for want of offer
cf. People vs. Java [1993], Catuira vs. CA [1994],
People vs. Moralde [2003] – court’s authority to bar an
immaterial question.
irresponsive answer, anticipatory answer, transcends time limit
for testimony, narrative testimony
Self-serving Doctrine – excludes court-room declaration: Cuison
vs. CA [1993], Hernandez vs. CA [1993]
Narrative: People vs. Calixtro [1991]
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Ruling: Section 38, Rule 132

a) Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance [1930] –

borderline evidence or ‘..for whatever it is
worth..’
b) Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. NPC [2015] –
admissibility distinct from weight
c) Uniwide Sales vs Titan-Ikeda [2006]; People
vs Ignas [2003] – only for the specified offer.
d) Chamberlayne: reiterate strike out re:
conditional admissibility; De la Torre vs. CA;
e) Echaus vs CA [1990] – Sec. 5 (g), Rule 135
– inherent judicial power to rectify orders.
05/23/19
 Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence

Harmless Error Doctrine – Sec. 6, Rule 51.

FASAP vs. PAL [2018 FNs 49-52]:
“The harmless error rule obtains during review of the
things done by either the trial court or by any of the parties
themselves in the course of trial, and any error thereby found
does not affect the substantial rights or even the merits of the
case. The Court has had occasions to apply the rule in the
correction of a misspelled name due to clerical error; the
signing of the decedents' names in the notice of appeal by the
heirs; the trial court's treatment of the testimony of the party
as an adverse witness during cross-examination by his own
counsel; and the failure of the trial court to give the plaintiffs
the opportunity to orally argue against a motion. All of the
errors extant in the mentioned situations did not have the
effect of altering the dispositions rendered by the respective
trial courts."
05/23/19
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Section 4 – circumstantial evidence
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences

4 Jones 1860 – pertinence of circumstantial evidence to a civil

case
Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec [2016] – pieces of circumstantial
evidence:
a)Statistics;
b) Fact of abandonment as an infant in church;
c) Typical Filipino features;
d) Disputable inference that things happened according to
ordinary course of nature and habits of life.
MCC Ind. Sales Corp. vs. Ssangyong Corp. [2007] – perfected
contract of sale from other relevant evidence.
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

People vs. Moya [2019] – summation of age

of victim for proper charge re: Art. 266-A, Art.
336 RPC, as amended, Sec. 5, RA 7610.

People vs. Belen [2017] – guidelines for age

as element of crime or qualifiying
circumstance, as People’s onus:
Birth certificate
Authentic document
Testimonial sponsor of family member
Complainant’s testimony if expressly and
clearly admitted by accused

05/23/19
 Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 5 – weight accorded to expert witness:

factors:

a) Sufficient facts or data;

b) Reliable principles and methods;
c) Application of principles and methods to facts;
d) Other factors helpful to determination;

Daubert vs. Merrel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., -

leeway to judge; non-exhaustive list of factors

cf. Rules 702-706, FRE; Sec. 52, Rule 130.

05/23/19
 Rule 133 – addendum

Art. 9, NCC – Ocampo vs. Enriquez [2017]

Sec. 6, Rule 135

cf. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. Villarin [2019
FN 53]
Zabal vs. Duterte [2019 after FN 65]
Revilla vs. SB 1st Div [2018 FNs 86-87]

Doctrine of Procedural Void

Go vs. CA [1998]
cf. Wilmon Auto Supply vs. CA [1992], Vda. De
Legaspi vs. Avendano [1977]
Republic vs. Sunvar Realty [2012]

05/23/19
 Rule 133 - caveat
1 Moore, A Treatise on Facts or the Weight and
Value of Evidence, 1908, page 62, citing a host of
cases such as Yaggle vs. Allen, 24 N.Y. App. Div. 594;
1 Moore, Vide, page 61 – “… The sea of suspicion has
no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is
without rudder or compass.” [citing Boyd vs.
Glucklich, (C.C.A.), 116 Fed. Rep. 131, per Caldwell,
J.]”;

cf. People vs. Cardenas [2018], Republic vs.

Spouses Salvador [2017].