Res Inter Alios Acta: Iv. Laying The Foundations For Evidence
Res Inter Alios Acta: Iv. Laying The Foundations For Evidence
In case of an honest doubt about the admissibility of evidence, it is better policy to rule in favor of its admission. An erroneous rejection of evidence will be unfair to the offeror
since the judge cannot validly consider it even if after the trial, the judge realizes his mistake. On the other hand, if the judge had erred in admitting a piece of evidence, he may
simply give it little or no weight when deciding the case.
In determining the competency of an offered piece of evidence, the court must examine the requisites provided by the pertinent rule or law for its admissibility. These requisites
must be established as foundations for the evidence. For example, for a declaration of an agent to be admissible against his principal, as an exception to the res inter alios acta
rule,[31] the declaration must be: (1) within the scope of the agent’s authority; (2) made during the existence of the agency; and (3) the agency is shown by evidence other than
[32]
by such declaration. If the agent’s declaration is on a matter outside the scope of his agency, or is made after the agency had ceased, the agent’s declaration cannot be
admitted against his principal; the general rule of res inter alios acta will apply instead.
Similarly, the foundation required by the Rules for the proper presentation of evidence must be laid, lest the evidence be rejected. For example, when the original of a document is
unavailable, before secondary evidence thereof is admitted, the proponent must establish: (1) the existence or execution of the original document, and (2) the circumstances of
the loss or destruction of the original, or that the original cannot be produced in court.
A. Judicial Notice
Not everything alleged in a party’s pleading is required to be proved. Certain matters may be so well known to the court that to compel a party to prove it would be a waste of time
and effort.
Under the Rules, it shall be mandatory for the court to take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history, forms of government and symbols of nationalities, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political Constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of the three departments of the Philippine government, the laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical divisions.[33] Courts may
take judicial notice of matters which are: (a) of public knowledge, (b) capable of unquestionable demonstration, or (c) ought to be known to judges because of their official
functions.[34]