1. ) Q: What is Judicial Notice?

A: Judicial notice means that “What is known need not be proved.”

Case law:
1. ) It means no more than the court will bring to its aid and consider without proof of
the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all
well-informed persons.
2. ) Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take
and act on without proof because they already know them. Under the Rules of Court,
judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary.

2.) Q: What is the purpose of judicial notice?

A: Judicial notice by the court is made for the purpose of:
1. ) Taking the place of proof in connection with the issue in the case; and
2. ) It will abbreviate the proceedings.

3. ) Q:What are the requisites of judicial notice?

A: 3 requisites to any judicial notice of any suggested fact have been stated, namely:
1. ) That it must be a matter of general or common knowledge;
2. ) That it must be well and authoritatively settled, and not doubtful and uncertain;
3. ) That it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

4. ) Q: What is the principle behind judicial notice:

A: The principle on which judicial notice is based will be as follows, to wit:
a. ) Convenience - Considering that parties will be relieved of its duty to present
proof on facts which is already judicially known to the judge;
b. ) Expediency - Considering that the trial will be more speedy and expeditious
since facts already known to the judge requires no more presentation of proof.

5. ) Q: What is the basis of the “Doctrine of Judicial Notice”?

A: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts
which must be exercised with caution.

Case law:
In relation thereto, it has been held that the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
wisdom and discretion of the courts; however, the power to take judicial notice is to
be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly
resolved in the negative.

When is Judicial Notice Mandatory?

Sec. 1, Rule 129 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence provides for the rule when judicial notice is mandatory. It states that:

“Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall 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
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official
acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National
Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions.”

1. ) Q: When is judicial notice mandatory?

A: A court shall take judicial notice mandatorily, without the introduction of evidence
on the following matters:
A. ) The existence and territorial extent of states;
B. ) Their political history;
C. ) Forms of government and symbols of nationality;
D. ) The law of nations;
E. ) The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
F. ) The political constitution and history of the Philippines;
G. ) The official acts of legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the
National Government of the Philippines.
H. ) The laws of nature;
I. ) The measure of time; and
J. ) The geographical divisions.

2. ) Q: What are the other matters that the court should take judicial notice of
mandatorily?
A: 1.) Amendment to the Rules of Court;
2.) Decision of the Supreme Court;
3. ) Official acts and declaration of the President;
4. ) Banking practices;
5. ) Financial status of the government;
6. ) Powers of the President;
7. ) Court records.

3.) Q: Can the court take judicial notice of the official acts of the Supreme
Court and the Seanate in validating the title of UP over its landholding?
A: Yes, court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the National
Government of the Philippines.

Case law:
Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court mandates that a court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the National Government of the
Philippines. Thus, as both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and consistently
validated and recognized UP’s indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and
the CA clearly erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true
copies of its titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate
originals or the certified true copies issued by the Register of Deeds of QC. Indeed,
the RTC and the CA should have taken judicial notice of UP’s title over its
landholdings, without need of any other evidence.

4. ) Q: Is it mandatory for the court to take judicial notice of the official acts of
the Senate?
A: Yes. Courts should take judicial notice of the official acts of the Senate under
Sec. 1, Rule 129.

Case law:
Taking judicial notice of acts of the Senate is well within the ambit of the law
under Sec.1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial Notice is the cognizance of
certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they
already know them; it is the duty of the court to assume something as a matter of
fact without need of further evidentiary support. Otherwise stated, by the taking of
judicial notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of presentation of
evidence, I.e, the rigorous rules of evidence and court proceedings such as cross-
examination.

5. ) Q: Is it mandatory for the court to take judicial notice of its decision?

A: Yes, the court should mandatorily take judicial notice pf its decision under Sec.1
of Rule 129.

Case law:
The court takes judicial notice of its Decision in Secretary of National Defense
vs. Manalo, which assessed the account of Manalo to be candid and forthright
narrative of his, and his brother Reynaldo’s abduction by the military in 2006, there is
no compelling reason for the Court, in the present case, to disturb its appreciation in
Manalo’s testimony.

6. ) Q: Is it mandatory for the court to take judicial notice on law of nature

involving physical science?
A: Yes, laws of nature involving the physical sciences, specifically biology, including
the structural make-up and composition of living things such as human beings.

7.) Q: Why will the court take judicial notice of the law of the nations?
A: The Philippines being a member of the United Nations and therefore adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity
with all the nations.

Legal Basis:
Courts are mandatorily requires to take judicial notice of the Law of Nations
since the Philippines is a member nation of the United Nations, and it is expressly
provided under the Constitution that “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equally, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.” (Sec.2, Article II of
the Constitution)

8.) Can the court take judicial notice that buy-bust operations are “susceptible
to police abuse”?
A: Yes, since it will serve as a safeguard to minimize if not eradicate abuse.

Case law:
It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-bust operations are “susceptible to police
abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.” The high
possibility of abuse was precisely the reason why the procedural safeguards
embodied in Sec. 21 of RA. 9165 have been put up as a means to minimize, if not
eradicate such abuse. The procedural safeguards not only protect the innocent from
abuse and violation of their rights but also guide the law enforcers on ensuring the
integrity of the evidence to be presented in the court.
Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both
offenses, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved.
This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the
substance possessed or illegally sold was the very substance presented in court
must be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required
sustaining a conviction. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain of
custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it
ws presented in court as proof of corpus delicti. In short, the chain of custody
requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence
are minimized if not altogether removed.

9.) Q: Can the courts mandatorily take judicial notice of documents?

A: No, documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires the
Court to take judicial notice of, without any introduction of evidence, petitioner would
have the CTA do. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court reads:

“Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall 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
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official
acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National
Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions.”
2.When is Judicial Notice Discretionary?
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial
notice of matters which are
of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.

1. ) Q: When is judicial notice discretionary?

A: A court may take judicial notice of the following matters:
A. ) Those matters which are of public knowledge; or
B. ) Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
C. ) Matters which are ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.

A. ) Judicial Notice in Cases of Court Records:

1. ) Q: Can the court take judicial notice of the contents of other court
records?
A: As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the records of other cases, except that in the absence of objection and as a
matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the
original record of the case.

Case law:
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take
and act on without proof because they already know them. Section 3, Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court pertinently provides:

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial

and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on
the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on
appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any
matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.

“As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
the records of other cases even when such cases have been tried or are pending in
the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or
are actually pending before the same judge. However, this rule is subject to the
exception that in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all
parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case
filed in its archives as read into the records of a case pending before it, when with
the name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated.
Thus, for said exception to apply, the party concerned must be given an opportunity
to object before the court could take judicial notice of any record pertaining to other
cases pending before it.”

2. ) Can the courts mandatorily take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, though the same have been tried or are pending in the
same court or before the same judge?
A: Generally, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the
same court or before the same judge.

Case law:
The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it
fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is
equivalent to proof. Generally, courts are not authorized to “take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are
pending in the same court or before the same judge.” They may, however, take
judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same
court if: (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the
other party; or (2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so. In either case,the
courts must observe the clear boundary provided by Sec.3, Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court.

B. ) Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws:

1. ) Q: What are the requirements for the court to take judicial notice of the
foreign laws?
A: The requirements in order for the court to take judicial notice of foreign laws are
as follows, to wit:
1. ) The issue involved is one of fact and not of law; and
2. ) The foreign law must be proved like any other fact. (Secs. 24 and 25, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court)

2.) Q: What are the exceptions?

A: The exceptions are:
A. ) When the court has actual knowledge of the foreign laws;
B. ) When the court has already ruled upon in a case involving the said foreign law.

Case law:
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Hence, executors or administrators of the
decedent’s estate are duty-bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the
foreign court which admitted to probate the will of the decedent.

5.) Q: What is the doctrine of “presumed-identity approach” or “processual

presumption”?
A: Foreign law not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
foreign law is the same as ours.

Case law:
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the
presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.

6.) Q: Is the doctrine of processual presumption applicable in case of foreign

divorce in the Philippines?
A: No, the doctrine of processual presumption is not applicable in case of
recognition of foreign divorce since it is not recognized in the Philippines, and in the
absence of the seal of the office where it was obtained.

Case law:
It may be noted that in Bayot vs. CA, we relaxed the requirement on certification
where we held that “[petitioner therein] was clearly an American citizen when she
secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States
of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated
by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient.” In this case however,
it appears that there is no seal from the office where the divorce decree was
obtained.

Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did
with respect to the property regime of the parties, the recognition of divorce is
entirely a different matter because, to begin with, divorce is not recognized between
Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it
follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial court thus
erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.

C.) Judicial Notice on Municipal Ordinance

1.) Q: Are courts mandatorily required to take judicial notice of laws and
ordinances?
A: 1.) In the case of Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, they are mandatorily required to take judicial notice of the laws
and ordinances of the city or municipality where they sit.
2.) In case of Regional Trial Court, they are not mandatorily required to take
judicial notice of, except in the following instances:

A.) When it is required by law or the statute;

B.) In case of appeal involving the ordinance;
C.) In case of issue of facts which are of unquestionable demonstration.

3.When is Hearing Necessary in Judicial Notice:

“Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial

and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on
the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. Before judgment or on
appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any
matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.”

1. ) Q: When is hearing necessary in case of taking judicial notice?

A: Hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial notice of facts in the following
instances, to wit:

A. ) During pre-trial and trial

During pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion shall hear
the parties, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon.

B. ) After trial but before judgment:

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, motu proprio
or upon motion shall hear the parties to on the propriety of taking judicial notice of
any matter.

II. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. Judicial Admissions:
“Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by
[the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact,
made.”

1. ) Q: What is the rule on judicial admission?

A: An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or by
showing that the imputed admission was not in fact made.

2. ) Q: What is a judicial admission?

A: A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof
with respect to the matter of fact admitted.

Case law:
A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof
with respect to the matter of fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or by showing that the imputed admission
was not in fact made. Under Sec. 5, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, petitioners may
not contradict this judicial admission unless they are able to show that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

3. ) Q: What are the requisites for a valid judicial admission?

A: It must be definite, certain and unequivocal.

Case law:
Any statement, to be considered as an admission for purposes of judicial
proceedings, should be definite, certain and unequivocal, otherwise, the disputed
fact will not be settled.

4. ) Q: What is the purpose of admission? Can it be contradicted?

A: Every admission is taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for the one side
limit, modify, or destroy its effect on the other side. It can be contradicted by
evidence aliunde to show that it was made through palpable mistake.

Case law:
Every alleged admission is taken as taken as an entirety of the fact which makes
for the one side with the qualifications limit, modify, or destroy its effect on the other
side. Mere part of a statement of a party may be used against him. The reason for
this is connected with it and should weigh any other portion of the statement.In other
words, while admission is admissible in evidence, its probative value should be
determined from the whole statement and others intimately related or connected
therewith as an integrated unit. Although acts or facts admitted do not require proof
and cannot be contradicted, however, evidence aliunde can be presented to show
that the admission was made through palpable mistake. The rule is always in favor
of liberality in construction of pleadings so that the real matter in dispute may be
submitted to the judgment of the court.

5. ) Q: What is the remedy in case admissions in a pleading was made through

palpable mistake?
A: Admissions in a pleading even if not shown to be made through "palpable
mistake" can still be corrected or amended provided that the amendment is
sanctioned under Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.

Case law:
To begin with, the said provision does not set the be-all and end-all standard
upon which amendments to
pleadings may or may not be allowed. Matters involving the amendment of pleadings
are primarily governed by the pertinent provisions of Rule 10 and not by Sec. 4 of
Rule 129 of the Rule of Court. Hence, allegations (and admissions) in a pleading
even if not shown to be made through "palpable mistake" can still be corrected or
amended provided that the amendment is sanctioned under Rule 10 of the Rules of
Court.

6. ) When is judicial admission made?

A: A party may make judicial admissions in: (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial,
either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or © in other stages of the
judicial proceeding.

Case law:
“Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by [the]
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.”

“A party may make judicial admissions in (a) pleadings; (b) during the trial, either
by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding. It is an established principle that judicial admissions cannot be
contradicted by the admitted who is the party himself and binds the person who
makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made the palpable mistake,
no amount of rationalization can offset it."

7. ) Q: Is mere allegation of a former counsel that this admission was made

through palpable mistake in his rush to file the answer a valid ground to set
aside the same?
A: No, bare allegations of the counsel of palpable mistake in his rush to file the
answer unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof and not a valid
ground to set aside the same.

Case law:
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by
a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof,
and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake. The petitioners argue that such admission was the palpable mistake of their
former counsel in his rush to file the answer, a copy of which was not provided to
them.

This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely self-serving claim unsupported by

any, iota of evidence. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof. Furthermore, the Court notes that this position was adopted by
the petitioners only almost eight (8) years after their original answer was filed, in
response to the amended complaint of the respondent spouses. In their original
answer to the complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a partition
into northern-half and southern-half portions, was the very essence of their defense.
It was precisely this admission which moved the respondent spouses to amend their
complaint. The petitioners cannot now insist that the very foundation of their original
defense was a palpable mistake.

8.) Q: What is the nature of the admission made during pre-trial conference?
A: The statement made during pre-trial conference is a judicial admission, it does
not require proof according to Sec. 4. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

Case law:
The admission by Nonito's counsel during the pre-trial proceedings before the
RTC that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial
admission because the statement is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of a
party's attorney during judicial proceedings in open court about a concrete or
essential fact within that party's peculiar knowledge. Since such statement is a
judicial admission, it does not require proof according to Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. -- An admission, verbal or written, made by a

party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Moreover, there was 10 palpable mistake on the part of Nonito's counsel in

making the admission because in the offer of Nonito's testimony on December 2,
2008, he state: that the land was the property in suit was never sold to him by his
brother Tranquilino Agbayani." That is not all The admission by Nonito himself, on
cross-examination by Tranquilino's counsel, that Tranquilino was in the United
States at the time of the purported transaction supports the statement of the counsel
of Nonito that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito.

9.) Q: What are the effects of judicial admission?

A: Judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it and cannot thereafter
take a position contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings.
Case law:
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. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in

the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.

The Answer submitted by the heirs of Juan, as well as the testimony of Juan
constitute judicial admissions. Well- settled is the rule that a judicial admission
conclusively binds the party making it. He cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings. Acts or facts admitted do not
require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the admission was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

10) Q: What is the effect of judicial admissions in the pleading?

A: An admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making
such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the
party or not.

Case law:
In any case, as correctly held by the lower court, Efren is estopped from claiming
that he did not convert the mangrove forest area. In his Letter of Appeal, Efren
admitted that he caused the cutting of number of trees inside the old fishpond,"
which is deemed as a judicial admission. A judicial admission, verbal or written, is
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case which does not
require proof. To contradict one's own admission, the person who made the same
must show that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
admissions. In the case at bar, no denial was made on the part of Efren that he cut a
number of trees in the mangrove forest. As elucidated by this Court in Alfelor vs.
Halasan:

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the 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.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the
party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to
the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained
in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently
take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded.

11.) Q: What is the effect if extrajudicial confession made by a co-conspirator

is repeated in court?
A: If the declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession
becomes a judicial admission making the testimony admissible as to both
conspirators.

Case law:
While it is true that statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator
are admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy, if the
declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a
judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.

12.) Q: Is mere denial of lack of knowledge on the due execution of an

actionable document sufficient?
A: No, admission in the answer on the due execution of an actionable document can
only be contradicted by palpable mistake.

Case law:
A person's denial for lack of knowledge of things that by their nature he ought to
know is not an acceptable denial. xxx An admission in the answer and due execution
of the plaintiff's actionable document, can only be contradicted by showing that
defendant made such admission through palpable mistake.

13) Q: What is the distinction between admitted facts and proposed facts to be
admitted?
A: The Rules of Court has no rule that treats the statements found under the
heading Proposed Evidence as admissions binding on the party - on the contrary,
the Rules of Court has even distinguished between admitted facts and facts
proposed to be admitted during the stage of pre-trial.

14.) Q: What is the effect of the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint?
A: Facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding
upon him.

Case law:
A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial
as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense
with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied with.
Correspondingly, "facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the
plaintiff and binding upon him.” "The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a
pleading are conclusive as against the pleader."

15. ) Q: What are the distinctions between judicial admission and judicial
confession?
A:
A.) Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case.
B.) Judicial admission does not result in liability.
C.) Judicial admission may be express or implied.
D.) Judicial admission is more of a broader scope which includes judicial confession
E.) Judicial admission may be made by any party.

A.) Judicial confession is an acknowledgment of one's guilt in the same case.

B.) Judicial confession connotes admission of one's liability.
C.) Judicial confession is always express or tacit.
D.) Judicial confession is only limited to the confession of a person.
E.) Judicial confession can only be made by the accused in a criminal proceeding.

16. ) Q: What are the distinctions between judicial admission and extrajudicial
admission?
A:
A.) Judicial admission is an admission made in the same case.
B.) Judicial admission need not be proven by the party being conclusive on the part
of the admitter, unless it was made through palpable mistake or when there is no
admission made.
A.) Extrajudicial admission is an admission made in another case or out of court
admission.
B.) Extrajudicial admission needs to be alleged and proved like any other fact.

17. ) Q: What are the instances where judicial admissions can be made?
A: The following are the instances where judicial admission can be made by the
party:
1) Admissions made in the pleadings;
2) Admissions made during pre-trial conference;
3) Admissions made in motions filed before the court,
4) Admissions made by the witness on the witness stand;
5) Admissions made in answer to written request for admission;
6 Admissions made in the answer in the written interrogatories;
7) Admissions made in open court during trial;
8) Admission on testimonies, deposition, and affidavits;
9)Agreement of facts by the parties.

2. Judicial admission in relation to “Hypothetical Admission Rule:;

1. ) Q: What is the effect of filing a motion to dismiss?

A: When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are
deemed to be hypothetically admitted.

Case law:
When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are
deemed to be hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical admission, extends not only
from the relevant an material facts well pleaded in the complaint, but also to
inferences that may be fairly deduced from them.

3.Judicial admission in relation to Request for Admission under Rule 26:

Sec. 2, Rule 26 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure provides for the rule on implied admission:

“Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an

admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) calendar
days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow
on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the
party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically
the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he or she cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.

Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by

the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his or her
sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his or her
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved,
which resolution shall be made as early as practicable.”

1. ) Q: What is the duty of the party served with written request for admission
under Rule 26?
A: Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, the party served will:
1.) File and serve upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement
either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is request forth in
detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters which
shall not be less fifteen (15) days after service thereof; or
2) Within such further time as the court may allow on motion.
2) Q: What is the effect of failure to file an answer under oath on the request
for written request for admission?
A: The silence of defendant on the plaintiff's request for admission amounts to an
implied acceptance of the facts set forth therein with the effect that plaintiff's claim
stood undisputed.

Case law:
Each matter must be denied specifically under oath setting forth in detail the
reason why he cannot truthfully admit or deny. The silence of defendant on the
plaintiff’s request for admission amounts to an implied acceptance of the facts set
forth therein with the effect that plaintiff’s claim stood undisputed.

3.) What is the effect of redundant, unnecessarily and vexatious request for
admission?
A: The redundant and unnecessarily vexatious nature of petitioner's request for
admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant so as to proscribe the
operation implied admission rule in Sec. 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.

Case law:
In this case, the redundant and unnecessarily vexatious nature of the petitioner’s
request for admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant so as to proscribe
the operation implied admission rule in Sec. 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. There
being no implied admission attributable to respondents’ failure to respond, the
argument that a preliminary hearing is imperative loses its point.

4.) What is the remedy of the person making an implied admission?

A: A party making an implied admission can file before the court a Motion to be
Relieved of Implied Admission.

3. Judicial Admission in relation to Judgment on the Pleadings:

1.) Q: What is the effect of filing of a motion for Judgment on the pleadings?
A: A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits the truth of all the material and
relevant allegations of the opposing party and the judgment must rest on those
allegations taken together with such other allegations as are admitted in the
pleadings.

Case law:
A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits the truth of all the material and
relevant allegations of the opposing party And the judgment must rest on those
allegations taken together with such other allegations as are admitted in the
pleading. It is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading However, when it appears
that not all the material allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer for
some of them were either denied or disputed, and the defendant has set up certain
special defenses which, if proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff's main
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered.

4. Implied Admission in relation to Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases:

Section 28, Rule 130 of Revised Rules on Evidence. Offer of compromise

not admissible.-
Xxx
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-off enses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
1.) Q: What is the effect of an offer of compromise in criminal cases?
A: In criminal cases, except those involving quasi- offenses (criminal negligence) or
those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
6. Judicial Admission in Relation to Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense:

Sec. 2, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the rule on
plea of guilty to a lesser offense. It states that:

"Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. At the arraignment, the accused,

with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included
in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may
still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea
of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary."

1) Q: What is the nature of the plea of guilty to a lesser offense by the

accused?
A: In case the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, it is equivalent to a judicial
admission of an offense and all the ingredients necessarily included in the offense
charged contained in the former information.

2) Q: What are the requirements in case the accused would plead to a lesser
offense?
A: During the arraignment, the court may allow the accused to make a plea to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged, subject to the
following rules:

a) The plea to a lesser offense must be made by the accused with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor; and

b) After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.

7. Judicial Admission in relation to Plea of Guilty to a Capital Offense:

Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the rule on plea
of guilty to a capital offense. It states that:

“Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. - When the

accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.”

1) Q: What are the matters to consider in case the accused pleads guilty to a
capital offense?
A: Under this Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when plea of guilty
to capital offense is entered: (a) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences
thereof; (b) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (c) the court must
ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do
so if he desires.

2) Q: What is the effect of plea of guilty if it does not constitute a crime?

A: If plea of guilty do not constitute a crime or violation of law, such plea does not
have the effect of admitting the commission of a crime or the violation of a law.

Case Law:
 In People of the Philippines vs. Villasco, et al. (89 Phil. 512), the plea of guilty
entered by the accused admits the facts set out in the information, and if these do
not constitute a crime or violation of law, such plea does not have the effect of
admitting the commission of a crime or the violation of a law, for there is none
charged in the information, or of supplying what has been omitted or what has not
been pleaded therein, to the extent of curing a defective information or one that does
not allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense or a violation of law.

Judicial Admission in relation to Plea of Guilty to a Non-Capital Offense:

Sec. 4, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the rule on
plea of guilty to a non-capital offense. It states that:

“Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence,

discretionary. - When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the
court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be
imposed."

1) Q: What is the duty of the court in case of plea of guilty to a non-capital

offense?
A: In case the accused will make a plea of guilty to a non-capital offense, the court is
duty bound to receive evidence from the parties for the determination of the penalty
to be imposed.

2) Q: What are the factors to be considered by the court in the exercise of

discretion in case of plea of guilty?
A: The judge should take into consideration the gravity of the offense and the
probability that the accused did not actually understand fully the meaning of his plea
and the consequence thereof.

Case Law:
In the exercise of the discretion of the judge, he should take into consideration
the gravity of the offense
charged and the probability that the accused did not actually understand fully the
meaning of his plea and the
consequence thereof.

RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
I. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

A. Basic Concept

1. Q: What are the three (3) major kinds of evidence under the Rules?
A: There are three (3) major kinds of evidence under the Rules which are as follows:

a) Object or Real evidence or "Autoptic Proference" (Evidence of one's senses) is

the kind of evidence which is directly addressed to the senses of the court and
consists of tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court;

b) Documentary evidence is an evidence which consist of writing or any material

containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents; and

c) Testimonial evidence or "Viva Voce Evidence" is an oral evidence given by the

witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding.

A. OBJECT OR REAL EVIDENCE

1. Object Evidence Defined:
 Sec. 1, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May
1, 2020) provides for the rule on object evidence. It states that:

“Sec. 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to

the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may
be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court."

1) Q: What is object evidence?

A: Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court, and when it
is relevant to the fact in issue it may be exhibited, examined, or viewed by the court.

2) Q: What is the scope of Object/Real Evidence?

A: 1) Sense of vision;
2) Sense of hearing (auditory);
3) Sense of touch (tactile);
4) Sense of taste (gustatory); and
5) Sense of smell (olfactory).

3) Q: What are the effects if the object evidence is relevant to the issue in the
case?
A: When object evidence is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be:
Exhibited to;
Examined; or
Viewed by the court.

4) Q: What are the requisites for the admissibility of object evidence?

A: The requisites for the admissibility of evidence are as follows, to wit:
1) It must be relevant;
2) It must be authenticated;
3)It must be identified by a competent witness;
4) It must be formally offered.

5) Q: What are the limitations on the admission of object or real evidence?

A: Object or real evidence may be refused admittance by the court on the following
grounds, to wit:
1) When the object evidence is repulsive or its exhibition is contrary to public policy,
morals or sense of decency;
2) When it would result only in delays, inconvenience, or would entail unnecessary
expenses;
3) When it is confusing or misleading (e.g., When its purpose is to prove the former
condition of the object);
4) When there is a testimonial or documentary evidence already presented which
already described the object.

6) Q: What are the exceptions?

A: The exceptions are:
a) When the object evidence is necessary in the interest of justice;
b) When the immoral object is the very basis of the prosecution of the civil or
criminal case.

7) Q: What are the instances when a document is considered an object or real

evidence?
A: A document may be considered as an object or real evidence when its purpose is
based on the following, to wit:
1)When it tends to prove the existence or non- existence of the document;
2) When the purpose is to prove the nature of the handwriting in the document;
3) When the intention of the party is to determine the age of the paper or material
used;
4) When its purpose is to prove the alterations, blemishes or forgery in a document.

A. ) Chain of Custody Rule in relation to Object Evidence

1) Q: What is the “Chain of Custody Rule”?

A: Chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."

2) Q: What is the scope of application of chain of custody rule?

A: It shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were
made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

Case Law:
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and
time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

While a perfect chain of custody is almost always unbroken chain becomes

impossible to achieve, an indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug
cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only

where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law —
otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.

3) Q: What are requirements for the Chain of Custody to apply?

A: Testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up
to the time it is offered into evidence, and the witnesses should describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the item.

Case Law:
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial is the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object and its consideration. The delivery of the
thing sold, and the payment thereof. x x x [t]he chain of custody requirements that
must be met in proving that the seized drugs are the ones presented in court are as
follows: (1) testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
item.

4) Q: What are the elements for the conviction of dangerous drugs?

A: The elements for the prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of drugs are,
the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, such possession was not
authorized by law; and the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of dangerous drugs.
Case Law:
At the outset, the use of dangerous drugs necessarily entails possession thereof.
A conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires an indubitable
showing of the following elements: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous
drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. The
dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offense. It is thus paramount for the prosecution to establish that the identity and
integrity of the seized drug were duly preserved in order to sustain a conviction.
Otherwise, there would be no basis to convict for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs because the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in
a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More
than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the
first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established
with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.”

In People of the Philippines vs. Obmiranis, this Court held that "a unique
characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is that they are not distinctive
and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to
determine their composition and nature. And because they cannot be readily and
properly distinguished visually from other substances of the same physical and or
chemical nature, they are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination,
substitution and exchange whether the alteration, tampering, contamination,
substitution, and exchange be inadvertent or otherwise not."

5) Q: What is the purpose and function of the Chain of Custody requirement?

A: It is intended to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are removed.

Case Law:

1) The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the
integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to
the identity of the evidence are removed.

It has been judicially settled that in buy-bust operations, the testimony of the
police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit
because
of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. (People of the
Philippines vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011)

2)The unbroken link in the chain of custody also precluded the possibility that a
person, not in the chain, precautions taken to ensure that the seized item was not
altered or tampered with. (Arnel Calahi, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
195043, November 20, 2017)

7)Q: What are the affirmative safeguards to avoid tampering of seized

evidence?
A: The corpus delicti in the drug-related offenses of illegal sale and illegal
possession must be the substance possessed and the very substance presented in
court which is so essential to the conviction and incarceration of the offenders.

Case Law:
Among the new approaches of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 was the incorporation of affirmative safeguards to deny wayward law enforcers
apprehending violators any opportunity for tampering with the confiscated evidence,
and to ensure the preservation of the integrity of the evidence from the moment of
seizure until the ultimate disposal thereof upon order of the trial court. This approach
was a true recognition of the value as evidence of guilt of the seized illegal
substances themselves which are no less the corpus delicti in the drug-related
offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession so essential to the conviction and
incarceration of the offenders.

On top of the elements for proving the offense of illegal possession, therefore, is
that the substance possessed is the very substance presented in court. The State
must establish this element with the same exacting degree of certitude as that
required for ultimately handing down a criminal conviction. To achieve this degree of
certitude, the Prosecution has to account for all the links in the chain of custody of
the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it is
presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. The process, though tedious, must
be undergone, for the end is always worthwhile the preservation of the chain of
custody that will prevent prescribed to preserve the chain of custody of the
contraband the presumption of regularity does not apply. unnecessary doubts about
the identity of the evidence. (Leonardo Casona vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 179757, September 13, 2017)

8) Q: What is the effect of unbroken chain of custody in drug cases?

A: If the chain of custody remains unbroken though procedural requirement has not
been complied with, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.

Case Law:
As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural
requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the
guilt of the accused will not be affected. (People of the Philippines vs. Francisco
Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, January 12, 2011)

9) Q: What is the rule on the presumption of regularity in the preservation of

seized drugs?
A: The unjustified failure of the police officers to show that the integrity of the object
evidence (shabu) was properly preserved negates the presumption of regularity.

Case Law:
The unjustified failure of the police officers to show that the integrity of the object
evidence (shabu) was properly preserved negates the presumption of regularity
accorded to acts undertaken by police officers in the pursuit of their official duties.
(People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Bentacan Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6,
2011)

10. Q: Will the presumption of regularity apply if there is failure to apply the
affirmative safeguard mandated by law?
A: Non-compliance with the affirmative safeguards prescribed to preserve the chain
of custody of the contraband the presumption of regularity does not apply.

Case Law:
The Court has already recognized that strict adherence to the rule on chain of
custody was almost always impossible to do. Strict adherence is not always
expected, therefore, as borne out by the saving declaration in the last paragraph of
Sec. 21(a) of the IRR to the effect that the seizure and custody of the dangerous
substances should not be rendered void or invalid by the non-compliance with the
requirements under justifiable grounds for as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved by the apprehending officers. But such
saving declaration did not come into play herein because, one, the seizing officers
did not tender their justification for the lapses committed; and, two, there was really
no showing by the State that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu had
been properly preserved.

Too much reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official

duties on the part of the arresting officers in the prosecution of drug-related offenses
is unwarranted if the records show noncompliance with the affirmative safeguards
prescribed to preserve the chain of custody of the contraband. The presumption of
regularity applies only when there is no showing of non-compliance. (Leonardo
Casona vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017)

11) Q: What is the corpus delicti in the prosecution for illegal drugs?
A: The substance itself constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital
to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Law:
In prosecution involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance
itself constitutes part of the
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment
of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody requirement is
essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed
through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the
accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. (People of the
Philippines vs. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010) In other words, the existence
of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction. (People of the
Philippines vs. De Guzman y Danzil, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010)

12) Q: What is the effect of failure of the prosecution to establish the identity
of the corpus delicti?
A: The concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of
the corpus delicti produces doubts as to the origins of the seized paraphernalia.

Case Law:

People vs. Morales explained that "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section
21, Article II of R.A.9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the
prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.” It "produce[s] doubts as to
the origins of the (seized paraphernalia)."

Compliance with Sec. 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of
the seized items. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus
delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed.

Fidelity to the chain of custody requirements is necessary because, by nature,

narcotics may easily be mistaken for everyday objects. Chemical analysis and
detection through methods that exceed human sensory perception, such as specially
trained canine units and screening devices, are often needed to ascertain the
presence of dangerous drugs. The physical similarity of narcotics with everyday
objects facilitates their adulteration and substitution. It also makes planting of
evidence conducive. (People of the Philippines vs. Josua Que, G.R. No. 212994,
January 31, 2018)

13) Q: What is the meaning and importance of the "marking” on the seized
evidence?
A: Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items after they have been seized, and the starting point
in the custodial link.

Case Law:

Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her

initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point
in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the
succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. The chain of
custody rule also requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done “(1) in
the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation."
(People of the Philippines vs. Myrna Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017)

14) Q: Who must be present during the taking of photograph of the seized
items?
A: Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that the seized items be photographed in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative each from the
media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.

Case Law:
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that the seized items be photographed in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
constitutes a first gap in the chain of custody. the seized drugs has been
compromised so that an acquittal should follow as long as the prosecution can
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have
been preserved. (People of the Philippines vs. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, April 6,
2011) and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative each
from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. The records of these
cases, however, were bereft of any showing of these photographs while the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses were most notably silent on whether
photographs were actually taken as required by law. (People of the Philippines vs.
Pablo Arposeple and Jhunrel Sulogaol, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017)

15) Q: What are the requirements for the marking of seized drugs?
A: The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be
done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation
to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the
ones offered in evidence.

Case Law:
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be
done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation
to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the
ones offered in evidence.

While the rule allows marking of evidence to be done in the nearest police
station, this contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures. Failure to
comply with the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation.

Non-compliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in

the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that
an acquittal should follow as long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized has been preserved.

16) Q: What is the nature of the marking of the seized evidence?

A: Marking of evidence is vital since it will be used by succeeding handlers as
reference.

Case Law:

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that
the seized contraband is
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the
markings as reference. (People of the Philippines vs. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715,
January 19, 2011)
17) Q: What is the effect of failure to make an immediate marking of the seized
evidence?
A: The failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the
integrity of chain of custody as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved.

Case Law:
The failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the
integrity of chain of custody as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved, as these would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. (People of the Philippines vs. Morales, G.R.
No. 188608, February 9, 2011)

18) Q: What is the effect of failure to mark the seized shabu at the place of
arrest?
A: Failure to mark the seized shabu at the place of arrest does not make the
confiscated evidence inadmissible.

Case Law:

The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from
him is inadmissible. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused by
ruling that the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and photograph
the two plastic sachets containing the shabu subject of this case do not render the
confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Likewise, the failure of the policemen to
mark the two plastic sachets containing shabu at the place of arrest does not render
the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People vs. Resureccion, G.R. No.
186380, October 12, 2009, it was held that “the failure of the policemen to
immediately mark the confiscated items does not automatically impair the integrity of
chain of custody." (Francisco Imson y Adriano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 193003, July 13, 2011)

19) Q: Is prompt marking of the seized items necessary?

A: Prompt marking of the seized items is vital because it serves as the starting point
in the custodial link and succeeding handlers of the specimens often use the
marking as reference.

Case Law:
Prompt marking of the seized items is vital because it serves as the starting
point in the custodial link and succeeding handlers of the specimens often use the
marking as reference. None of the officers involved in the seizure marked the plastic
sachets of alleged drugs. The markings took place at the police station already and it
is not clear who made them. XXX Since the officers in this case could not even
agree as to who made the required marking, then it would be difficult for the
Supreme Court o rest easy that the specimens presented before the trial court were
the same specimens seized from Ulep. These lapses cast a serious doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. (Domingo
M. Ulep vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183849, June 1, 2011)

20) Q: When to establish a chain of custody?

A: The chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs were
confiscated and eventually marked until the same is presented during trial.

Case Law:
 The chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs were
confiscated and eventually marked until the same is presented during trial. (People
of the Philippines vs. Roselle Santiago, G.R. No. 191061, February 9, 2011)

21) Q: What is the effect of failure to follow the procedure for the custody of
the seized article?
A: Failure to follow the proper procedure for the custody of confiscated drugs would
result in acquittal.

Case Law:
Even prior to the passage of R.A. 9165, shows that this Court did not hesitate to
strike down convictions for failure to follow the proper procedure for the custody of
confiscated dangerous drugs. Prior to R.A. 9165, the Court applied the procedure
required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, amending
Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974.

Non-compliance with the express requirements under par. 1, Sec. 21, Art. II of
R.A. 9165 justified where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and,
therefore, explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized has been
preserved. (People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6,
2011)

22) Q: What is the rule on the testimony on the chain of custody?

A: Testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.

Case Law:
Testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. (People of the Philippines vs. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198,
January 26, 2011)
23) Q: What are the matters that the police chemist will testify to establish the
custodial link?
A: Police chemist should testify that he received the seized article as marked,
properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and
that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered
pending trial.

Case Law:
Here, the police officers did not mark the sealed plastic sachets to show that
they were the same things they took from the accused. Rather, the marking on the
items were done by the station investigator who would have no way of knowing that
the substances were really seized from the accused. The marking of captured items
immediately after hey are seized from the accused is the starting point in the
custodial link. This step is vital because succeeding handlers of the specimens will
use the markings as reference. Failure to place such markings paves the way for
swapping, planting, and contamination of the evidence. These lapses seriously cast
doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable
doubt.

Further, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should
ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and
intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his
own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In
case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they
should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary
steps mentioned. (People of the Philippines vs. Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya, G.R.
No. 190640, January 12, 2011)
24) Q: When to establish the chain of custody of evidence?
A: The chain of custody from the time of seizure up to its presentation in court.

Case Law:

The chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs were
confiscated and eventually marked until the same is presented during trial. (People
of the Philippines vs. Roselle Santiago, G.R. No. 191061, February 9, 2011)

25) Q: What are the effects in case of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165
on the arrest of the accused or confiscation of item?
A: Failure to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest
illegal or the items seized/ confiscated from him inadmissible.

Case Law:
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the R.A. 9165 does not render an accused's
arrest illegal or the items seized/ confiscated from him inadmissible. (People vs.
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011)

26) Q: Where to make the physical inventory of the seized items?

A: Physical inventory of the seized item may be done at the nearest police station.

Case Law:

The IRR of R.A. 9165 provides that the physical inventory of the seized items
may be done at the nearest police station, if the same cannot be done at the place
where the items were seized. However, it must be emphasized that the IRR also
provides that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items." Accordingly, non-compliance with the
procedure shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the drugs only
when: (1) such non-compliance is attended by justifiable grounds; and (2) the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team. There must be proof that these two (2) requirements were met
before such non-compliance may be said to fall within the scope of the proviso.
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273) Ergo,
the failure to establish, through convincing proof, that the integrity of the seized
items has been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of custody is
enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused. (People of the
Philippines vs. De Guzman y Danzil, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010)

27)Q: What are the effects of failure to strictly comply with the physical
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs?
A: The failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and photograph of the
two plastic sachets containing the shabu subject of this case do not render the
confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.

Case Law:
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused's
arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The Supreme
Court upheld the conviction of the accused by ruling that the failure of the policemen
to make a physical inventory and photograph the two plastic sachets containing the
shabu subject of this case do not render the confiscated items inadmissible in
evidence. Likewise, the failure of the policemen to mark the two plastic sachets
containing shabu at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items
inadmissible in evidence. In People vs. Resureccion, G.R. No. 186380, October 12,
2009, it was held that "the failure of the policemen to immediately mark the
confiscated items does not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody."
(Francisco Imson y Adriano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193003, July 13,
2011)

28) Q: What is the duty of police officer upon confiscation of the prohibited
item?
A: The police officer involved should immediately place identifying marks on the
cover, and if the drugs are not in a sealed container, the officer is to place them in a
plastic container, seal the container and put his marking on the cover.

Case Law:
Since the custody and possession of the drugs usually change from the time
they are seized to the time they are presented in court, it is indispensable that, if the
drugs are already in sealed plastic sachets, the police officer involved immediately
place identifying marks on the cover. If the drugs are not in a sealed container, the
officer is to place them in a plastic container, seal the container and put his marking
on the cover. In this way, there is assurance that the drugs would reach the crime
laboratory analyst in the same condition it was seized from the accused. This did not
happen here. (Dominion M. Ulep vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183849,
June 1, 2011)

29) Q: Is the presence of an ultraviolet fluorescent powder indispensable in

proving receipt of marked money?
A: Presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder is not an indispensable evidence to
prove receipt of marked money.

Case Law:
The presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder is not an indispensable evidence
to prove that the appellant received the marked money. Moreover, there is no rule
requiring that the police officers must apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust
money to prove the commission of the offense. In fact, the failure of the police
operatives to use fluorescent powder on the boodle money is not an indication that
the entrapment operation did not take place. (PO2 Jessie Flores vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018)

B. DNA Evidence Rule in Relation to Object Evidence (Bar Exam 2010):

1. Application of other Rules on Evidence

Sec.2 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5 SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the application of the rules on evidence. It states that:

“Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. – In all matters not

specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules of Court and other pertinent
provisions of law on evidence shall apply.”

1) Q: When will the Rules of Court on matters not covered by DNA Evidence
Rule applies?
A: The rule states that in all matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules
of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply.

2. Definition of Terms:
Sec. 3 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15,
2007) provides for the definition of terms under the rules. It states that:

“Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – For the purposes of this Rule, the following
terms shall be defined as follows:
(a)“Biological sample” means any organic material originating from a
person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA
testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and
bones;
(b) “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules
found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is
unique for the individual, except identical twins;
© “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and
other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological
sample;
(d) “DNA profile” means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a
biological sample obtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly
identifiable as originating from that person;
(e) “DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which
include the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA
profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing
of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable
certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct
biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if
the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis); and
(f) “Probability of Parentage” means the numerical estimate for the
likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a
random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population.”

1) Q: What is a biological sample?

A: “Biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body,
even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes
blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs, and bones.

2) Q: What is DNA?
A: “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in
every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the
individual, except for identical twins.

Case Law:
DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic make-up.
DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person.
Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person’s DNA profile can determine his identity.
(Rosendo Herrera v Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented By His Mother Armi A. Alba,
and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court,
Manila, G.R. No 148220, June 15, 2005)

3) Q: What is DNA evidence?

A: “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.

4) Q: What is DNA profile?

A: “DNA profile” means genetic information derived from DNA testing of biological
sample obtained from a person which biological sample is clearly identifiable as
originating from that person.

5) Q: What is DNA testing?

A: “DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the
extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the
comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples
for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA
obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same
person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related
persons (kinship analysis).

6) Q: What is DNA Analysis?

A: DNA Analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample
obtained from an individual is examined.

Case Law
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological
sample obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate
a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the individual from whom the sample is take. This
DNA profile is unique for each person, except for identical twins. We quote relevant
portions of the trial court’s February 3, 2000 order with approval. (rosendo Herrera
vs. Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented By His Mother Armi. A Alba, and Hon Nimfa
Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch 489, Regional Trial Court, Manila,
Respondents, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005)

7) Q: What is probability of parentage?

A: “Probability of Parentage” means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of
parentage of a putative parent compared with probability of a random match of two
unrelated individuals in a given population.

2. Application for DNA Testing:

Sec. 4 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15,
2007) provides for the requirement of DNA Testing Order. It states that:
“Sec 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The appropriate court
may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall
issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the
following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type
of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing,
but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider
as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule
shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the
behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit
proceeding is commenced.”

1) Q: How to apply for a DNA Testing Order?

A: The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of
any person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing.

2) Q: What are the requirements for DNA Testing Order?

A: The order for DNA testing shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties
upon showing of the following:
1) A biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
results may require confirmation for good reasons;
2) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to type of DNA
testing no requested: or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results
may require confirmation for good reason:
3) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
4) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
5) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall not
preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any
party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is
commenced.

3) Q: What is the purpose of the hearing on DNA testing?

A: The hearing should be confined in ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing.

Case law
Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it
would be unbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Sec. 4(d) notwithstanding.
The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with
due regard to the standards set in Sec.4(a), (b), (c), and of the Rules. (People of the
Philippines vs. Rufino Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007)

4) Q: Is DNA testing available in a petition for correction of entries to impugn

paternity of the child?
A: No. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court charts the procedure by which an entry in the
civil registry may be cancelled or corrected, and the trial court has no jurisdiction to
nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation in such petition much less DNA
testing.

Case Law:
The Petition fails. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule
108 (Cancellation of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no
jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis-à-vis Art. 412 of the Civil Code charts the
procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The
proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used only to correct clerical,
spelling typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical error
is on e which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; and error made
by a clerk or transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such
as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the
occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only
in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due
process is properly observed.

The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly who that
petitioner seek to nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it
is bigamous and impugn Patrick’s filiation in connection with which they ask the
court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test. (Ma. Cristina Torres Braza,
Paolo Josef T.,. Braza and Janelle Ann T. Braza, Paolo Josef T. Braza and Janelle
Ann. T. Braza vs. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental,
minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza, represented by Leon Titular, Cecilia Titular and
Lucille C. Titular, G.R. No. 181174, December 4, 2009)

5) Q: Will non-paternity of the accused through DNA Test negate the crime of
rape?
A: No, pregnancy and the subsequent birth of child are not elements of the crime of
rape. Moreover, non-paternity of the appellant through DNA testing, if that be the
case, will not necessarily negate the crime of rape as positively proved and
established by credible testimony of the victim.

Case Law
1) Accused-appellant would have the Court credit him for having insisted
that a DNA test to be conducted on AA’s daughter. He claims that had he raped the
victim and fathered her child, he would not have the nerve to challenge the result of
a DNA test, as such procedure would definitely reveal whether he is the father or
not.
The court cannot accommodate the accused-appellant.
 As the trial court correctly asserted, AA’s pregnancy and the subsequent
birth of her child are not elements of the crime of rape. Moreover, non-paternity of
the appellant, if that be the case, will not necessarily negate the crime of rape as
positively proved and established by AA’s credible testimony. There may or may not
be conception after the commission of the crime of rape because the offense may be
consummated even without full penetration or even complete ejaculation of the part
of the assailant.

The Court has time and again stressed that among the most important
consideration in a rape case is the credible testimony of the victim. The Court has
repeatedly held that when a woman says she has been raped, her declaration alone
is ll that is necessary to show that she had indeed been raped and her sole
testimony is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to
convict the accused. Considering that AA’s testimony meets the test of credibility,
the court finds no justification not to affirm appellant’s conviction and rule an
acquittal in the instant appeal, even assuming for the nonce that AA’s daughter had
a different father other than the accused-appellant. (People of the Philippines vs.
Ramon Canales Rayles, G. R. No. 169874, July 27, 2007)
2) Be that as it may, even if the DNA test were conducted and it established
that appellant had not fathered the private complainant’s child, it would still be
inconclusive to prove that appellant was not guilty of having raped private
complainant on July 13, 2002. Appellant cannot obtain an acquittal based on the
circumstance of private complainant’s pregnancy. Impregnation is not an element of
rape. Even the proof that the child was fathered by another man does not show that
the appellant is not guilty. For the conviction of an accused, the pregnancy of the
victim is not required to be proved, since it is sufficient that the prosecution establish
beyond reasonable doubt, as it had in this case, that the accused had forced sexual
relations with the victim. (People of the Philippines vs. Efren Maglente y Cervantes
G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008)

6) Q: When to raise the issue of DNA testing?

A: It must be brought during the proceedings below otherwise waived.

Case Law

It should be noted that during the pre-trial on 25 September 2002, appellant

had not mentioned anything about a DNA test. Soon thereafter, on 1 October 2002,
the child was born. Still the subject of the DNA test was not brought up by the
appellant. It was only after six months had elapsed since the child was born and was
already adopted by strangers, that the appellant began to ask private complainant to
reveal the identity of the person who had arranged the adoption, and thereby trace
the whereabouts of the child. After the lack of interest consistently shown by the
appellant to locate the child, he cannot now be allowed to impute any reluctance to
conduct the DNA test to the private complainant. (People of the Philippines vs. Efren
Maglente y Cervantes, G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008)

7) Q: What are the matters to be considered in DNA Testing in paternity

filiation case?
A: The court shall consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing,
and if there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA
test result would only be corroborative.

Case Law:
During the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present
prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity. Not
surprisingly, Sec. 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions
that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Sec. 4
states:
 "Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. - The appropriate court may, at
any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue
after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing
of the following:

(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
results may require confirmation
for good reasons;

(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and

(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.”

This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at
the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order
will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are
established. x x x Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the
petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
possibility of paternity. Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the
issuance of a DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court
may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing.
If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test
result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA
testing. (Jesse U. Lucas vs. Jesus S. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, Second Division,
June 6, 2011, Nachura, J.)

8. Q: What is the effect if the State failed to produce the semen specimen?
A: Failure to produce the semen specimen not a ground for acquittal.

Case Law:

Webb, et al., are not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the state to produce the
semen specimen at the late stage of the proceedings. There is no right for acquittal
due to loss of DNA evidence. (Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
176389, December 14, 2010, Abad, J.)

4. DNA Testing Order:

Sec. 5 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on the DNA Testing Order. It states that:

"Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. - If the court finds that the requirements in
Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall -

(a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any
person or crime scene evidence;

(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the

integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the
test results, including the condition that the DNA test results shall be
simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case; and
(c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the
conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where
additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained,
issue an order requiring all
parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be
conducted. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory
and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated there from
shall not, in any
way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a Higher Court issues an
injunctive order. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed
as an automatic admission into evidence of any Rule 65 absence of grave
abuse of discretion, but rather component of the DNA evidence that may be
obtained as a result thereof."

1) Q: What are the actions that may be included in the DNA Testing Order?
A: If the court finds that the requirements in Sec. 4 hereof have been complied with,
the court shall:

a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or
crime scene evidence;

b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of

the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the test results,
including the condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to
parties involved in the case; and

c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of
confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological
samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all
parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted.

2) Q: What is the nature of the DNA testing order?

A: Under the rules, an order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately
executory and shall not be appealable
.
3) Q: What is the remedy in case of issuance of DNA Testing Order?
A: Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order.

4) Q: When is petition for certiorari not available in case of DNA testing order?
A: Order of DNA testing not subject of certiorari under under Rule 45.

Case Law:
The foregoing considered, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public respondent for upholding orders of the trial court which both denied the
petitioner's motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for DNA testing.
Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy of certiorari is only
available "when any tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.” In Land Bank of the Philippines vs. The Court of Appeals
where the Court dismissed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the
Court discussed at length the nature of such a petition and just what was meant by
"grave abuse of discretion."

The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a

petition review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the
other hand, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act
complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or agency with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available
to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.
(Arnel L. Agustin vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and minor Martin Jose Prollamante,
represented
by his mother/guardian Fe Angela Prollamante, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005)

5) Q: Will the grant of application be construed as admission of the result?

A: No, the grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be
obtained as a result thereof.
6) Q: Is taking of DNA samples from the party violates the right of the accused
against self-incrimination?
A: No, DNA samples taken from the party does not violate the right of the accused
against self-incrimination since it is only applicable in case of testimonial
compulsion.

Case Law:

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the

respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will
not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence
that is "communicative" in essence taken under duress. (People vs. Olvis, 154
SCRA 513 [1987]) The Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-
incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of
evidence taken from his body when it may be material. As such, a defendant can be
required to submit a test to extract virus from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis,
supra); the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as
evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145); morphine forced
out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu Hong, 26 Phil. 735); an
order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed
(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman accused of
adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since the
gist of privilege is the restriction on "testimonial compulsion." (Rosendo Herrera,
Petitioner vs. Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented By His Mother Armi A. Alba, and
Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court,
Manila, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005)

7).Q: What are the possible remedies in case of refusal to comply for DNA
testing?
A: Enter a default judgment at the request of the appropriate party; or if a trial is
held, allow the disclosure of the fact of the refusal unless good cause is shown for
not disclosing the fact of refusal.

Case Law:
In a proceeding under this act before trial, the court, upon application made by or
on behalf of either party, or on its own motion, shall order that the mother,
child and alleged father submit to blood or tissue typing determinations, which may
include, but are not limited to, determinations of red cell antigens, red cell
isoenzymes, human leukocyte antigens, serum proteins, or DNA identification
profiling, to determine whether the alleged father is likely to be, or is not, the father of
the child. If the court orders a blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling to
be conducted and a party refuses to submit to the typing or DNA identification
profiling, in addition to any other remedies available, the court may do either of the
following:

(a) Enter a default judgment at the request of the appropriate party;

(b) If a trial is held, allow the disclosure of the fact of the refusal unless good cause
is shown for not disclosing the fact of refusal. (Sec. 6, Rules on DNA Evidence).
(Arnel L. Agustin vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and minor Martin Jose Prollamante,
represented by his mother/guardian Fe Angela Prollamante, G.R. No. 162571, June
15, 2005)

5. Post Conviction DNA Testing:

Sec. 6 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-

11-5-SC, October 15, 2007) provides for the rule on the availment of post-conviction
DNA Testing. It states that:

"Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. - Post- conviction DNA testing may

be available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any
person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a
biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the
institution and the qualification of the analyst testing would probably result in
the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.”

1) Q: When to avail a post-conviction DNA Testing? What are the

requirements?
A: Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided
that the following are present:

1) a biological sample exists;

2) such sample is relevant to the case; and
3) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the
judgment of conviction.

6. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence:

Sec. 7 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06- 11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on the assessment of probative value of the DNA evidence. It
states that:

“Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. - In assessing

the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider
the following:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the
samples;

(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in

analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable

standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience
of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly
established; and

(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided. The

provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall
apply suppletorily."

1) Q: What are the matters to be considered in assessing the probative value of the
DNA evidence?
A: In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall
consider the following:
 1) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected,
how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;

2) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing

the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance
with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

3) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable

standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in
forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and

4) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided. The provisions of

the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.

2) Q: What are the matters to be considered in the assessment of the probative

value of DNA analysis as evidence?
A: In assessing probative value of DNA evidence therefor, courts should consider
how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests,
and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

Case Law:
a) The 2002 case of People vs. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence.
This may be considered a 190 degree turn from the Court's wary attitude towards
DNA testing in the 1997 Pre Lim case, where [the Court] stated that “DNA, being a
relatively new science, xxx has not yet been accorded official recognition by our
courts.” In Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim
matched the accused's DNA profile. (The Court] affirmed the accused's conviction of
rape with homicide and sentenced him to death. [It] declared:

In assessing probative value of DNA evidence therefor, courts should consider,

among other things the following date: how the samples were collected, how they
were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. (Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, Minor, Represented By
His Mother Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch
48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005)

2.)In assessing probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider,
among other things the following date: how the samples were collected, how they
were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper Standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. (People of the Philippines vs. Rufino Umanito, G.R. No.
172607, October 26, 2007)

3) Q: What is the effect of DNA analysis based on contaminated specimen?

A: DNA analysis based on a contaminated specimen is not conclusive.

Case Law:
Accused-appellant makes much of the result of the DNA analysis conducted by
the NBI that his profile was not in the victim's vaginal smear. Hence, he argues he is
innocent of the crime charged.

In People vs. Yatar, we held that in assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples
were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

Here, while the DNA analysis of the victim's vaginal smear showed no complete
profile of the accused-appellant, the same is not conclusive considering that said
specime was already stained or contaminated which, according to the forensic
chemist, Aida Villoria-Magsipoc, deters a complete and good result for DNA profiling.
She explained in her testimony that generally, with the vaginal smear, they could see
if there is a male profile in the smear. However, in this case, when they received the
vaginal smear on the stained slide, the same had already undergone serological
analysis. Hence, according to the chemist, the DNA testing conducted on the
specimen subject of this case was inconclusive. In light of this flawed procedure, [the
Court] hold[s] that the result of the DNA examination does not entitle accused-
appellant to an acquittal. (People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Pascual y Ildefonso,
G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009)

4) Q: What is the duty of parties and court in case of DNA Result?

A: It shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the
results in accordance with the rules of evidence. Court shall assess the DNA results.

Case Law:
After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who
wish to avail of the same to offer the results in accordance with the rules of
evidence.
The RTC in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as
evidence in keeping with Secs. 7 and 8 of the Rules. (People of the Philippines vs.
Rufino Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007)

7. Reliability of the DNA Testing Methodology:

Sec. 8 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on the reliability of the DNA Testing methodology. It states that:

“Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. - In evaluating whether

the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the
following:

(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the
theory or technique can be and has been tested;

(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;

(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant

scientific community;

(d)The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the

correctness of data generated;

(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations

used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.”

1) Q: When is a methodology of DNA Testing reliable? What are the

requirements?
A: In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall
consider the following:
1) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or
technique can be and has been tested;

2) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;

3) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific

community;

4) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the

correctness of data generated;

5) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

6) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in

comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations
used in comparing DNA profiles.

8. Evaluation of the DNA Testing Results:

Sec. 9 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on the evaluation of the DNA Testing results. It states that:

"Sec. 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. - In evaluating the results of

DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:

(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of
mismatching DNA evidence;

(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other
evidence presented in the case; and that;

(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is
less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or
higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.”

1) Q: What are the rules as regards the weight of evidence in the evaluation of
the DNA Testing Results?
A: In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:

1) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of

mismatching DNA evidence;

2) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence
presented in the case; and that

3) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive
proof of non-paternity.If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 29.9%,
the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the
value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.

9. Post-conviction DNA Testing Results: Remedy if favorable:

Sec. 10 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on the post-conviction DNA Testing results and the remedy if
favorable. It states that:
 “Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Remedy if the Results Are
Favorable to the Convict. - The convict or the prosecution may file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-
conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In case the court, after
due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the
judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued
detention is justified for a lawful cause. A similar petition may be filed either in
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said
courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the
court of origin and issue the appropriate orders."

1) Q: What is the remedy in case of favorable post- conviction DNA Testing?

A: The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to
the convict.

2) Q: What are the courses of action of the court in case of favorable DNA
Testing?
A: In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall:

1) Reverse or modify the judgment of conviction;and

2) Order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful
cause.

3) Q: Where to file the petition?

A: A similar petition may be filed either in:
1) The Court of Appeals; or
2) The Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts.

Q: What are the courses of action of the Supreme Court on the petition?
A: The Supreme Court in case of a petition filed before it may:
1) Conduct a hearing thereon; or
2) Remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.

10. Confidential Nature of the Profiles and Result:

Sec. 11 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on confidentiality of the DNA profiles, results and information. It
states that:

"Sec. 11. Confidentiality. - DNA profiles and all results or other information
obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the
court, a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA
testing shall only be released to any of the following, under such terms and
conditions as may be set forth by the court:

(a) Person from whom the sample was taken;

(b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence
is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented;

(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;

(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and

(e) Other persons as determined by the court.

 Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information
concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for
indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered,
presented or sought to be offered and presented. Where the person from
whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the
court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the
person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the
same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request."

1) Q: What is the nature of the DNA profiles and results of the person? What is
Exception?
A: DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall
be confidential. Except upon order of the court.

Case Law:
The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of confidentiality
and preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Secs. 11 and 12 of the
Rules. (People of the Philippines vs. Rufino Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26,
2007)

2) Q: Who are the persons entitled to the copy of DNA profiles, results, and
information?
A: DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall
only be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as may be
set forth by the court:

1) Person from whom the sample was taken;

2) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is
offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented;
3) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
4) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
5) Other persons as determined by the court.

3) Q: What is the effect of unlawful disclosure of DNA profiles, etc.?

A: Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a
DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the
court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered
and presented.

4) Q: When is the disclosure of the DNA profiles, results, and information

allowed?
A: Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written
verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the
DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA
testing, the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified
request.

11. Preservation of DNA Evidence:

Sec. 12 of the DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on preservation of the DNA evidence. It states that:

“Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall preserve the
DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA
profiles and result or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For
this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to
preserve the DNA evidence as follows:

(a) In criminal cases:

I. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an
offense; or,
ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has
served his sentence; and

(b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the
DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.

The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before
the expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that:

(a) A court order to that effect has been secured; or

(b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in
writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.”

1) Q: What is the rule regarding the preservation of DNA evidence?

A: The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all
biological samples, DNA profiles an results or other genetic information obtained
from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government
agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows:

a) In criminal cases:
i. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense;
or,
ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has
served his sentence; and

b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA
evidence was introduced has become final and executory.

2) Q: When can the court order the physical destruction of the biological
sample?
A: The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the
expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that:

1) A court order to that effect has been secured; or

2) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to
the disposal of the DNA evidence.

12. Applicability of the Rules to Pending Cases:

Sec 13 of the DNA Evidence Rule AM No 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
provides for the rule on applicability of the DNA evidence rule to pending cases. It
states that:

“Sec. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases – Except as provided in sections 6

and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the time of its
effectivity.”

1) Q: Will the rule on DNA Evidence Rule applicable to pending cases?

A: Except as provided in secs 6 and 10 hereof, this rule shall apply to cases pending
at the time of its effectivity.

C. Paraffin Testing in Relation to Object Evidence:

1) Q: What is the effect of failure to present the results of paraffin test?

A: Failure to present the results of the paraffin test is inconsequential since it is not
indicative of his guilt or Innocence of the crime charged since it is inconclusive and
unreliable.

Case Law
That the prosecution failed to present the results of the paraffin test made on
Peralta is inconsequential since it is not indicative of his guilt or innocence of the
crime charged. In People vs Gaborne, the Court discussed the probative value of
paraffin tests, to wit:

Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this court.

Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test was extremely unreliable
for use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the
hand; however, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or
nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only
as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a
person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other
that gunpowder. (Joselito Peralta vs People of the Philippines, GR NO 221991,
August 30, 2017)

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. Documentary Evidence Defined

Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on
documentary evidence. It states that:

“Sec 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence consists of

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”

1) Q: What is documentary evidence?

A: Documents as evidence consists of writing or any material containing:
a) Recordings;
b) Photographs including still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films,
motion pictures or videos; or
c) Any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or
their equivalent or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their
contents.

2) Q: Is it required that actual damages be proved by documentary evidence?

A: Yes, actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence.

Case Law
Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence, such as
receipts, in order to prove expense incurred as a result of the death of the victim or
the physical injuries sustained by the victim. (Philippine Hawk Corporation vs Vivian
Tan Lee, GR No. 166969, February 16, 2010)

3) Q: Is it required to prove loss of earning capacity by evidence to

substantiate his claims? What are the exceptions?
A: As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim
for loss of earning capacity, unless claimant is self-employed and receiving less, or
he is a daily wage earner less than the minimum wage.

Case Law
As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim
for loss earning capacity. (See also: People vs Roberto Lopez GR 188902, February
16, 2011) Exceptions: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken
of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work, no documentary evidence is available;
or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws. (Tan vs OMC Carriers, Inc., GR No.
190521, January 12, 2011)

4) Q: Is absence of official receipts defeats prosecution of illegal recruitment?

A: No, the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal
prosecution for illegal recruitment.

Case Law
The Court has ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not
defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. According to People vs Pablan,
the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as
the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the
accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the
offense despite the want of receipts. Consequently, as long as the State established
through credible testimonial evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal
recruitment, her conviction was justified, as it is herein. (People vs Abat, GR 168651,
March 16, 2011)

5) Q: Is presentation of marine insurance policy indispensable for the insurer

to recover from the common carrier?
A: NO, presentation of marine insurance policy is indispensable for the insurer to
recover from the common carrier.

Case Law
The presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable
before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lost
cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory rights. (Asian Terminals, Inc vs Malayan
Insurance CO., Inc, GR No 171406, April 4, 2011)

2. Electronic Document:

a) Electronic Document defined:

Sec 1(h), Rule 2 of the AM No 01-7-01-SC, otherwise known as the

Electronic Evidence Rule provides for the definition of electronic document. It
states that:

“Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of

information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which
is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or Electronic document. For purposes of these Rules,
the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with “electronic
data message”

1) Q: What is an electronic document? Electronic data message?

A: “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information,
data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document.

2) Q: What is the purpose of electronic document?

A: Electronic document may be presented for the following purpose, to wit:
a) In order to establish a right;
b) In order to extinguish an obligation;
c) In order to prove or affirm a fact
.
3) Q: What are the originals of the electronic document? (Bar exam 2001)
A: An electronic document as evidence may include the following:
1) A digitally signed document; or
2) Any print-out or output readable by sight;
3) By any other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document.