EVIDENCE

HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH

Associate Justice, Court of Appeals
Professor, Ateneo Law School
Professor, UP Law School
Member, Corps of Professors, Philippine Judicial Academy
 EVIDENCE DEFINED

Evidence is the means, sanctioned

by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Section
1, Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence)
 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

The rules of evidence shall be the

same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise
provided by law or these
rules. (Section 2, Rule 128, Revised Rules
on Evidence)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE

Evidence is admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these
rules. (Section 3, Rule 128, Revised Rules
on Evidence)
 RELEVANCY OF
EVIDENCE
Evidence must have such a relation to
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on
collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
(Section 4, Rule 128, Revised Rules on
Evidence)
Exclusions
 BILL OF RIGHTS

Evidence obtained in violation of the

right against unreasonable searches and
seizures under Section 2, in relation to
Section 3 (2), of Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
 BILL OF RIGHTS

Evidence obtained in violation of the

right against unreasonable searches and
seizures under Section 2, in relation to
Section 3 (2), of Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
 BILL OF RIGHTS
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

(Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution)

 BILL OF RIGHTS
“1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.”
(Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution)
 BILL OF RIGHTS

Evidence obtained in violation of the

rights of an accused during the course
of custodial investigation under Section
12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
 BILL OF RIGHTS
“1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which

vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.”

(Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution)

 TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997
Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An
instrument, document or paper which is required
by law to be stamped and which has been signed,
issued, accepted or transferred without being duly
stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any
copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same
be admitted or used in evidence in any court until
the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto
and cancelled.
(Section 201, R.A. No. 8424)
 BILL OF RIGHTS

Evidence obtained in violation of an accused's

right against self incrimination under Section 17,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.”
 TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997
Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. - An
instrument, document or paper which is required
by law to be stamped and which has been signed,
issued, accepted or transferred without being duly
stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any
copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same
be admitted or used in evidence in any court until
the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto
and cancelled.
(Section 201, R.A. No. 8424)
 ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT
Any communication or spoken word, or the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured
by any person in violation of xxx this Act shall not
be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.
(Section 4, R.A. No. 4200)
SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds
issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as
of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the
depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or
invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

(Section 2, R.A. No. 1405, as amended)

RULE 128
General Provisions
RULE 128 – General Provisions

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
a. relevant, and
b. competent (not excluded by law or
rules)
RULE 128 – General Provisions

Relevant Evidence
any class of evidence which has a
‘rational probative value’ to the issue
in controversy.
determinable by:
i. Rules of Logic
ii. Human Experience
RULE 128 – General Provisions
Relevant evidence is any class of evidence
which has 'rational probative value' to the
issue in controversy. Logic and human
experience teach us that OCULAR
INSPECTION (NOT the Certificate of
Registration, development permit, license to
sell, building permit, and Condominium
Certificate of Title) is the best evidence to
prove the existence or non-existence of
condominium units. (OCA v. Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-
07-2076, 18 October 2010)
RULE 128 – General Provisions

There is no precise and universal test of relevancy

by law. However, the determination of whether
particular evidence is relevant rests largely in the
discretion of the court., which must be exercised
according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experiences. (People v. Galleno, G.R. No. 123546, July
2, 1998)
RULE 128 – General Provisions

Competent Evidence
NOT excluded by any law or rule.
if there is no law or rule excluding
evidence, it may be admitted subject only
to evidentiary weight accorded to it by the
courts.
RULE 128 – General Provisions

No provision in R.A. No. 9165 or in any

rule about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-
compliance with Sec. 21 (inventory and
photographs). (People v. Mercado, G.R. No.
207988, 11 March 2015)
RULE 128 – General Provisions

Marriage may be proven by any competent

and relevant evidence. Testimony of one of
the parties to the marriage, or one of the
witnesses to the marriage, or the
solemnizing officer, is admissible to prove
the fact of marriage. xxx the best
documentary evidence of a marriage is the
marriage contract itself. (Uy v. Sps.
Lacsamana, G. R. No. 206220, 19 August 2015)
RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved
Mandatory Judicial Notice - A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence:
a) of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality;
b) the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals;
c) the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the Philippines;
d) the laws of nature;
e) the measure of time;
f) and the geographical divisions;
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved

Judicial Notice signifies that there are certain “facta

probanda” or propositions in a party’s case, as to
which he will not be required to offer evidence; these
will be taken for true by the tribunal without the need
of evidence. Judicial notice, however, is a phrase
sometimes used in a loose way to cover some other
judicial action. Certain rules of evidence, usually
known under other names, are frequently referred to
in terms of judicial notice. (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No.
131516, 5 March 2003)
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved

A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and

records in the same case, of facts established in prior
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its
own records of another case between the same parties, of
the files of related cases in the same court, and of public
records on file in the same court. In addition judicial
notice will be taken of the record, pleadings, or judgment
of a case in another court between the same parties or
involving one of the same parties, as well as of the record
of another case between different parties in the same
court. Judicial notice will also be taken of court
personnel. (Republic v. CA, G.R. 119288, 18 August 1997)
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved

Discretionary Judicial Notice – Matters which are:

a)of public knowledge

b)capable of unquestionable demonstration

c)ought to be known to judges because of their

judicial functions
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved

Necessary Judicial Notice – During the trial, the court,

on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter
and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial and before judgment, or on appeal, the

proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party,
may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.
 RULE 129 – What Need Not Be Proved

Judicial Admissions – 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 that no such admission was made.
RULE 130
Rules of Admissibility
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

A. OBJECT OR REAL EVIDENCE (Sec. 10)

• Those addressed to the senses of the court.
Physical evidence ranks higher in hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence. When physical evidence
runs counter to witness' testimony, the primacy of
the physical evidence must be upheld. In
criminal cases xxx in which the accused stand to
lose their liberty if found guilty, the Court has [to]
rely principally upon physical evidence in
ascertaining the truth. (PO1 Ocampo v. People, G.R.
No. 194129, 15 June 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

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

example, of infancy, or of being under the age of
consent to intercourse), is admissible as object
evidence, the same being addressed to the senses
of the court. (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516,
March 2003)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Categories:
a.writings;
b.any other material containing modes of written
expression

Best Evidence Rule/Original Document Rule (Sec.

3)
• Only original document is admissible if the subject
of inquiry relates to the contents of the document.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The Best Evidence Rule stipulates that in proving the

terms of a written document the original of the document
must be produced in court. The rule excludes any
evidence other than the original writing to prove the
contents thereof, unless the offeror proves: (a) the
existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and
destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-
production in court; and (c) the absence of bad faith on
the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez,
G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Kinds of Original Documents (Sec. 4):

a. Documents where its contents is the subject of

inquiry;

When what is being questioned is the authenticity

and due execution of a deed of sale and there is no
real issue as to its contents, the best evidence rule
is inapplicable. (Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R.
No. 205879, 23 April 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Kinds of Original Documents (Sec. 4):
a. Duplicate original;
When carbon sheets are inserted between two
or more sheets of writing paper so that the
writing of a contract upon the outside sheet,
xxx, produces a facsimile upon the sheets
beneath, such signature being thus reproduced
by the same stroke of pen which made the
surface or exposed impression, all sheets are
regarded as duplicate originals. (Capital Shoes
Factory, Ltd. v. Traveler Kids, Inc., G.R. No. 200065,
14 September 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
3. Entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or
near the time of the transaction.

A VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale

of goods or services to the buyer, while a VAT
receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the
payment of goods or services received from the
seller. A VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should
not be confused and made to refer to one and the
same thing. (Northern Mindanao Power Corporation v.
CIR, G.R. No. 185115, 18 February 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

3. Exceptions (Secondary Evidence):

1. Original has been lost or destroyed (Sec. 5)
Offeror must prove:
a. existence or due execution of the original;
b. loss/destruction of original or reason for non-
production;
c. absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror.

Order of proof is: existence, execution, loss, and

contents. (MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment
Corp., G.R. No. 201001, 10 November 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
2. Original is in the custody or control of the adverse
party. (Sec. 6).

Offeror must prove:

a.the original exists;
b. document is under the custody or control of adverse
party
c. adverse party given reasonable notice to produce
original
d. adverse party failed to produce original despite
notice. (EDSA Shangri-la Hotel and Resort v. BF Corp., G.R.
No. 145842, 27 June 2008)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
3. Original consists of numerous accounts.
Summary of voluminous original documents may be
admitted if:
a.underlying writings are numerous;
b.an in-court examination of documents would be
inconvenient;
c.source documents must be shown to be original;
d.source documents must be accessible to the
opposing party;
e.summary identified by the person who prepared it or
who supervised the preparation (Republic v. PIATCO, G.R.
NO. 209917, 8 September 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

3. Original document is a public record

[Sec. 3 (d), Sec 7]
• Certified True Copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof.
• Certified photocopies of marriage
contracts, issued by custodian, admissible as
best evidence to prove bigamy. (Bunagan-
Bansig v. Atty. Celera, A.C. No. 5581, 14 January 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Best evidence to prove age of victims in criminal cases:

Original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof;

•In their absence:
a. baptismal certificate
b. school records.

•In the absence of both, testimony of :

a. victim’s mother; or
b. member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity;
c. victim's testimony, provided expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused. (People v. Misa III, G.R. No. 12336,
15 July 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Parol Evidence
•
Oral testimony, of person who has an interest in the
outcome of the case, in lieu of documentary evidence
may be admitted as evidence, subject to the following:
a.) existence of any of the following has been put in issue
in a party's pleading or has not been objected to by the
adverse party:
1) intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
agreement;
2) failure of agreement to express true intent of the
parties;
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

3) validity of agreement;
4) existence of other terms agreed to after execution
of the agreement.
b) serves as the basis of the conclusion proposed by
the presenting party. (Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, 8 April 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

The issue of admitting parol evidence is a

matter that is proper at the trial, not the
appellate, stage of a case. (Sps. Abella v. Sps.
Abella, G.R. No. 195166, 8 July 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Because an implied trust is neither dependent

upon an express agreement nor required to be
evidenced by writing, Article 1457 of our Civil
Code authorizes the admission of parol
evidence to prove their existence. Parol
evidence that is required to establish the existence
of an implied trust necessarily has to be
trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose,
equivocal or indefinite declarations. (Tong v.
Kun, G.R. No. 196023, 21 April 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Parol evidence cannot be admitted in the case

of express trusts.

No express trusts concerning an immovable or

any interest therein may be proved by parol
evidence. (Civil Code, Article 1443)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1.Qualification of Witnesses
a. Who are qualified?
Anyone sensible and aware of a relevant event or
incident, xxx regardless of age, religion, ethnicity,
gender, education, social status, beliefs, interest in
the outcome of a case, and conviction of a crime.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

b. Disqualification by reason of:

i. Mental incapacity (Sec. 21)

Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility
if the testimony is coherent. A mentally retarded
individual may be a credible witness. The acceptance
of her testimony depends on the quality of her
perceptions and the manner she can make them known
to the court. (People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, 30
January 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

ii. Immaturity (Sec. 21)

Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness
under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
(People v. Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, 22 June 2015)

iii. Marriage (Sec. 22)

Except in:
1. in civil actions between the spouses; and
2. in criminal cases for offenses committed by one
against the other, or the latter's direct descendants
or ascendants.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
iv. Death or insanity of adverse party

Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "[i]f one party

to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying
by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of
giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
account of the transaction." Thus, the alleged
admission of the deceased xxx cannot be used as
evidence against [him] as the latter would be unable
to contradict or disprove the same. (Garcia v. Vda. de
Caparas, G.R. No. 180843, 17 April 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

2. Attorney – Client;

Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer

are protected by the rule on privileged
communication even if the prospective client does
not thereafter retain the lawyer, or the latter declines
the employment. On the other hand, a
communication from a (prospective) client to a
lawyer for some purpose other than on account of the
(prospective) attorney-client relation is not
privileged. (Mercado v. Atty. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, 26 May
2005)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

v. Privileged communication between:

1. Husband – wife;
2. Attorney – client;
3. Physician – patient;
4. Priest – penitent;
5. Public officers and public interest.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

A Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA)

in the custody of creditor-bank is not a
privileged document. The LSPA which is an
assignment of a credit, produces no effect as
against third persons, unless it appears in a
public instrument, thus not privileged.
(Eagleridge Dev't. Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700, 24 November 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Other privileged matters:
a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news;
b)voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they
voted;
c) trade secrets;
d)information contained in tax census returns;
e) bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Act);
f) national security matters and intelligence information; and
g)criminal matter. (Eagleridge Dev't. Corp. v. Cameron Granville 3
Asset Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204700, 24 November 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

There is no provision of the Rules

disqualifying parties declared in default
from taking the witness stand for non-
disqualified parties. (Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro,
G.R. No. 198240, 3 July 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

There is no provision of the Rules

disqualifying parties declared in default
from taking the witness stand for non-
disqualified parties. (Marcos v. Heirs of Navarro,
G.R. No. 198240, 3 July 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
a.Parental and Filial Privilege
A stepmother can be compelled to testify against
stepdaughter, xxx they have no common ancestry,
privilege apply only to “direct” ascendants and
descendants. (Lee v. CA, G.R. No. 177861, 13 July 2010)

The privilege is not strictly a rule on

disqualification because a descendant is not
incompetent or disqualified to testify against an
ascendant. xxx refers to a privilege not to testify,
which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Admission
Any statement of fact made by a party against his
interest, or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he
contends, or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by
him.

To be admissible, it must:
a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;
b) be categorical and definite;
c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
d) be adverse to the admitter's interests, otherwise it
would be self-serving and inadmissible.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Offer of Compromise
a. Civil Cases
•
NOT admissible as admission of any liability.
Rule is NOT absolute:
If a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay
the same for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding
litigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in
the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the
existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal
to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is
admissible to prove such indebtedness. (Tan v. Rodil
Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, 18 December 2006)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

b. Criminal Cases, except quasi- offenses,

and those allowed to be compromised
•
May be received as implied admission of guilt.

Offer made prior to the filing of information is

not an implied admission of guilt of the criminal
complaint xxx, xxx as it was not made in the
context of a criminal proceeding. (San Miguel Corp.
v. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, 13 June 2012)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Act of pleading for forgiveness, through letters

from detention, xxx analogous to an attempt to
compromise. Offer must be made under a
consciousness of guilt, NOT merely to avoid
the inconvenience of imprisonment. (People v.
Nazareno, G.R. No. 180915, 9 August 2010)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Admission by silence (Sec. 32)
The natural instinct of man impels him to
resist an unfounded claim xxx and defend
himself. It is xxx against human nature to just
remain reticent and say nothing in the face of
false accusations. (People v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 208290,
11 December 2013)

Silence during custodial investigation is not

admission by silence as he has the right to
remain silent during that stage. (People v. Guillen,
G.R. No. 191756, 25 November 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Confessions
Extrajudicial confession
•binding only on the confessant;
•cannot be admitted against co-
accused,

Except, if there is prior establishment

of the conspiracy by evidence other
than the confession. It must be proven
that:
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence
other than the admission itself;
b) the admission relates to the common
object; and
c) it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

Mere association with the accused does not

conclude that he was a participant in the
conspiracy to commit the crime. (Salapuddin v.
CA,G.R. No. 184681, 25 February 2013)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence

Evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is

not admissible to prove that he did the same or
similar thing at another time.

Prior involvement in a cash shortage in the bank's

branch does not conclusively prove that she is
responsible for the loss of money in the new branch.
(Metrobank v. Custodio, G.R. No. 17380, 21 March 2011)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Evidence is not admissible when it shows, or

tends to show, that the accused in a criminal
case has committed a crime independent from
the offense for which he is on trial. A man
may be a notorious criminal, and may have
committed many crimes, and still be innocent
of the crime charged on trial. (People v. Pineda,
G.R. No. 141644, 27 May 2004)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

5. Testimonial Knowledge

A witness can testify only to those facts

which he knows of his personal knowledge.
Hearsay, which is evidence not of what
the witness knows himself but of what he
has heard from others, is inadmissible.
(Sec. 36)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Hearsay, definition.
Evidence not of what the witness knows
himself but of what he has heard from
others. (People v. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, 9 May
2003)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

Hearsay evidence – whether objected to or

not – has no probative value unless the
proponent can show that the evidence falls
within any of the exceptions to the hearsay
rule, as provided in the Rules of Court.
(Mallari v. People, G.R. No. 153911, 10 December 2004)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule:

a.Dying Declaration (Sec. 37)

The following conditions must concur:
a) the declaration must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant's death;
b) that at the time the declaration was
made, the declarant is conscious of his
impending death;
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

c) the declarant was competent as a witness;

and

d) the declaration is offered in a criminal

case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide
where the declarant is the victim. (People v.
Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, 17 June 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
b. Declaration Against Interest (Sec. 38)

Declarations against interest are those

made by a person who is neither a party
nor in privity with a party to the suit. xxx
admissible only when the declarant is
unavailable as a witness.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

b. Declaration Against Interest (Sec. 38)

• Should not be confused with admission
against interest.

Admissions against interest are those

made by a party to a litigation or by one in
privity with or identified in legal interest
with such party, and are admissible
whether or not the declarant is available
as a witness. (Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. NO. 152364,
15 April 2010)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Admissions against Declarations against
interest interest
Those made by a party to a Those made by a person
litigation or by one in privity who is neither a party nor in
with or identified in legal privity with a party to the
interest with such party suit, are secondary evidence,
and constitute an exception
to the hearsay rule
Admissible whether or not Admissible only when the
the declarant is available as declarant is unavailable as a
a witness witness

(Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010)

 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
c. Act or Declaration About Pedigree (Sec. 39)

Elements:
a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;
b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to
the subject by birth or marriage;
c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration; and
d) the act or declaration was made ante litem motam,
or prior to the controversy.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

The claim of filiation must be made by the

putative father himself xxx. A notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is
admitted by the putative father was considered
acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother
vowing to be a good father to the child and
pictures of the putative father cuddling the child
on various occasions, together with the certificate
of live birth, proved filiation.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

However, a student permanent record, a

written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father
gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic
writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of
baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to
establish filiation. (Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No.
181258, 19 March 2010, reiterating Herrera v. Alba, 460
SCRA 197)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
d. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding
Pedigree

Requisites:
1)That there is a controversy in respect to the
pedigree of any of the members of a family;
2)That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree
existed previous to the controversy; and
3)That the witness testifying to the reputation or
tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must
be a member of the family of said person.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
d. Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding
Pedigree

The word “pedigree” under Section 39 of the

same Rule includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when
and places where these facts occurred, and the
names of relatives. (People v. Llanita, G.R. No.
134101, 5 September 2001)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

e. Common Reputation

The reputation refers to a matter of public or general

interest, or respecting marriage or moral character and
said matter is more than 30 years old.
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

f. Part of the Res Gestae

Requisites:
1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a
startling occurrence;
2) the statements were made before the declarant
had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
3) that the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances.
 RULE 130 – Rules of Admissibility

Tests in applying the res gestae rule:

a) the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event
that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself; and
b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation
or purpose to manufacture testimony.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Spontaneity may be determined by:
1)the time that has lapsed between the occurrence of
the act or transaction and the making of the
statement,
2)the place where the statement is made,
3)the condition of the declarant when the utterance is
given,
4)the presence or absence of intervening events
between the occurrence and the statement relative
thereto, and
5)the nature and the circumstances of the statement
itself. (Manulat v. People, G.R. No. 190892, 17 August 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
g. Entries in the Course of Business

The party offering must establish that:

1)the person who made those entries is dead,
outside the country, or unable to testify;
2)the entries were made at, or near the time of
the transaction to which they refer;
3)the entrant was in a position to know the
facts stated therein;
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
g. Entries in the Course of Business

4) the entries were made in the professional

capacity or in the course of duty of the entrant;
and,
5) the entries were made in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty. (Landbank v.
Oñate, G.R. No. 192371, 15 January 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
h. Entries in Official Records
Requisites:
a) that the entry was made by a public officer or
by another person specially enjoined by law to do
so;
b) that it was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties, or by such other person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law;
c) that the public officer or other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
which must have been acquired by him personally
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
h. Entries in Official Records
A Traffic Accident Investigation Report cannot
be given probative weight when the
investigating officer who prepared the same was
not presented in court to testify that he had
sufficient knowledge of the facts therein stated,
and that he acquired them personally or through
official information. (Standard Insurance Co., Inc. v.
Cuaresma, G.R. No. 200055, 10 September 2014)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

i. Commercial Lists and the like

Statement of matters contained in a periodical may be
admitted only "if that compilation is published
for use by persons engaged in that occupation
and is generally used and relied upon by them
therein.”

j. Learned Treatises.
History books and published findings of scientists
fall within this exception provided that an expert
on the subject testifies to the expertise of the
writer.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

k. Testimony or Deposition at a Former

Proceedings

For the admissibility of a former testimony or

deposition, the adverse party must have had an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness or
the deponent in the prior proceeding.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

k. Testimony or Deposition at a Former

Proceedings

The issues involved in both cases must, at

least, be substantially the same; otherwise,
there is no basis in saying that the former
statement was — or would have been —
sufficiently tested by cross-examination or by
an opportunity to do so. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 13 December 2011)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining
probable cause in preliminary investigations
because such investigation is merely preliminary,
and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations
of parties (PCGG v. Merceditas-Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194159, 21
October 2015, reiterating Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-
41, 21 January 2015)

Requisites for applicability:

a. The person making the hearsay statement is
credible,
b. There must be “substantial basis” for crediting the
hearsay (NOT to be confused with “substantial
evidence”)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
7. Opinion Rule

It is the difference between admissibility

of the opinion of an ordinary witness
and an expert witness.
RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility

1. Ordinary witness
a) the identity of a person about whom he
has adequate knowledge;
b) a handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity;
c) the mental sanity of a person with whom
he is sufficiently acquainted; and
d) may also testify on his impressions of
the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
2. Expert witness:

a) has the required professional knowledge,

learning and skill of the subject under
inquiry sufficient to qualify him to speak
with authority on the subject; and
b) is familiar with the standard required of a
professional in the field under similar
circumstances.
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
2. Expert witness:

The principle that the witness' familiarity, and

not the classification by title or specialty,
which should control issues regarding the
expert witness' qualifications. (Casumpang v.
Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, 11 March 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
2. Expert witness:

To establish medical negligence, xxx an expert

testimony is generally required to define the
standard of behavior [to] determine whether the
physician has properly performed the requisite
duty toward the patient.

Resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an

exception to the requirement of an expert
testimony in medical negligence cases may be
availed of if:
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
2. Expert witness:
1) the accident was of a kind that does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
2) the instrumentality or agency that caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of
the person charged; and
3) the injury suffered must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured. (Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital,
G.R. No. 210445, 7 December 2015)
 RULE 130 - Rules of Admissibility
Doctrine of Multiple Admissibility

It must be remembered that the purpose for which

evidence is offered must be specified because such
evidence may be admissible for several purposes under
the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be
admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise
the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection.
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be
considered for any other purpose.

(Uniwide v. Titan-Ikeda, G.R. No. 126619, 20 December

2006)
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and
Presumptions
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Burden of proof is the duty of a

party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount
of evidence required by law. (Section 1)
 RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

Duty of a party to present Duty of a party go forward

evidence on the facts in issue with the evidence to overthrow
necessary to establish his claim the prima facie evidence
or defense by the amount of against him
evidence required by law

Never shifts May shift from one party to

another
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Civil Cases

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must

establish his case by preponderance of evidence, or
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy
of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Thus, the party, whether the plaintiff or defendant, who
asserts the affirmative of an issue, has the onus to prove
his assertion in order to obtain a favorable judgment. (BPI
v. Spouses Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, 21 July 2008)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Civil Cases

For the plaintiff, the burden to prove its positive assertion

never parts. For the defendant, an affirmative defense is
that which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the
plaintiff’s cause of action, but one which, IF established,
will be a good defense, - an “avoidance” of the claim. (BPI
v. Spouses Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, 21 July 2008)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases

It is fundamental in our Constitution and basic in our

Rules of Court that the accused in a criminal case enjoys
the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Likewise, it is well-established in jurisprudence that the
prosecution bears the burden to overcome such
presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this
burden, the accused deserve a judgment of acquittal. On
the other hand, if the existence of proof beyon reasonable
doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets a
guilty verdict. (Dela Riva v. People, GR No. 212940, 16
September 2015)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove

beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission of the
crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of
proof, the identity of the person or persons responsible
therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense
but remains with the prosecution throughout the trial.
(Dela Cruz v. People GR No. 209387, 11 January 2016)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases

However, when the prosecution has succeeded in

discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence
sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the
allegations in the information or has established a prima
facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to
adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to
overthrow, that prima facie case. (Dela Cruz v. People GR No.
209387, 11 January 2016)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases:

In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the

respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the
complainant. The complainant must be able to show this
by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed.
(Adajar v. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-2056, 18 November 2005)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Kinds of Presumptions
1. Presumption of law or presumption juris
• An assumption which the law requires to be made from
a set of facts

2. Presumption of fact or presumption hominis

• When the assumption is made from the facts without
any direction or positive requirement of law
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Conclusive Presumptions (Section 2):

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or

omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to
believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,
act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his

landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of
landlord and tenant between them.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by
other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
“The presumption of innocence, is founded upon the first
principles of justice, and is not a mere form but a
substantial part of the law. It is not overcome by mere
suspicion or conjecture; a probability that the defendant
committed the crime; nor by the fact that he had the
opportunity to do so. Its purpose is to balance the scales in
what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the
lone individual pitted against the People and all the
resources at their command.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and
influence of the prosecution, the accused must be acquitted
and set free if his guilt cannot be proven beyond the
whisper of a doubt. This is in consonance with the rule that
conflicts in evidence must be resolved upon the theory of
innocence rather that upon a theory of guilt when it is
possible to do so.” (People of the Philippines v. Alvario, G.R.
Nos. 120437-41, 16 July 1997)
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful
intent
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
his voluntary act;
It is presumed that one does not sign a document without
first informing himself of its contents and consequences
(Isip v. People, G.R. No. 170298, 26 June 2007)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
if produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the
latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a
receipt for the later one is produced;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a
person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are
owned by him;
That the fact of possession alone, wholly unconnected
with any other circumstances, cannot be relied upon with
certitude to convict one with robbery (Mabunga v. People,
G.R. No. 142039, 27 May 2004.)
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself
for the payment of the money, or the delivery of
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
It has been settled that credence is given to prosecution
witnesses, who are police officers, for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless
there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on
the art of the police officers. The presumption stands
where the claim of ill motive was not substantiated by the
accused. (People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, 5
September 2012)
This presumption does not apply during in-custody
investigation (People v. Camat, G.R. No. 112262, 2 April
1996 citing People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 50103, 24
November 1986)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in
the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case
were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and
in like manner that all matters within an issue raised
in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before
the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p) That private transactions have been fair and
regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been
followed;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a

contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or
indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument
was made before the instrument was overdue and
at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was
received in the regular course of the mail;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being

unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is
considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
purpose of opening his succession till after an absence
of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of
seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is
considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of
five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may
be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in
armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for
four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive
years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage
if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a
danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an
absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose
of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case,
before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in
the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
Presumptions of Death
Absence of seven (7) years Considered dead for all purposes but not for
succession

Absence of ten (10) years Considered dead for purposes of succession

Before lapse of 10 years – not considered dead

Absence of five (5) years If absentee disappeared after the age of seventy
five (75)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
Presumptions of Death
Absence of four (4) years Deemed dead for all purposes if:
(a)On board a vessel that was lost during a sea
voyage or an aircraft which is missing, and has
not been heard of for four years since the loss of
vessel or aircraft
(b)Person is a member of the armed forces who
has taken part in armed hostilities
(c)Person has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been
known
(d)Person is married and has been absent for four
consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already dead
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent

spouse.

(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that

the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered
into a contract of copartneship;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as

husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman
who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have
acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry,
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

corresponding shares including joint deposits of money

and evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three hundred days
after such termination of the former marriage, these rules
shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered
to have been conceived during such marriage, even
though it be born within the three hundred days after
the termination of the former marriage.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following

the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to
have been conceived during such marriage, even though it
be born within the three hundred days after the termination
of the former marriage.

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as

is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so printed or
published;
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains correct
reports of such cases;
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has actually
conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to
perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle,
or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and
there are no particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from the
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the

sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed
to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have
survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is
deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different,
the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the
older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between
those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

The so-called “tender-age presumption” under Art. 213 of

the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling
evidence of the mother’s unfitness. The mother is
declared unsuitable to have custody of her children in one
or more of the following instances: neglect,
abandonement, unemployment, immorality, habitual
drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child,
insanity, affliction with a communicable disease. (Gamboa-
Hirsch, G.R. No. 174485, 11 July 2007)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions
Disputable Presumptions (Section 3):

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more

persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which
of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior
to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof,
they shall be considered to have died at the same time.
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions

There is no presumption of legitimacy of a child born

after three hundred days following the dissolution of the
marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must
prove his allegation. (Section 4)
RULE 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions

CONCLUSIVE DISPUTABLE
PRESUMPTION PRESUMPTION
Presumption juris et de jure Presumprion juris tantum
Non-rebuttable Satisfactory if
uncontradicted
One which no evidence May be contradicted and
however strong will be overcome by other evidence
permitted to overcome
Not a presumption but a
substantive rule of law
RULE 132
Authentication and Proof of
Documents
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Classes of documents:

1. Public Documents
•
Admissible without proof of due execution
and genuineness.
•
Composed of:
a) The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Classes of documents:

1. Public Documents
b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
public except last wills and testaments; and
c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Classes of documents:

2. Private Documents
-
Due execution and authenticity must be proved,
either:
-
a) By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or
-
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Authentication of a private document is excused
only in four instances, specifically:
a)when the document is an ancient one within the
context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules;
b)when the genuineness and authenticity of the
actionable document have not been specifically
denied under oath by the adverse party;
c)when the genuineness and authenticity of the
document have been admitted; or
d)when the document is not being offered as
genuine. (Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Philam, G.R. No.
181163, 24 July 2013)
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Documents categorized as private
documents:
a) private letters;
b) executive summary by a private entity;
c) credit and property examination;
d) statements made by certain individuals;
e) acknowledgment receipts/invoices issued
by private individuals;
f) checks and other bank/commercial
documents;
g) agreements. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 188881, 21 April 2014)
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
Offer and Objection
•
The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered
(Sec. 34) because judges are mandated
to rest their findings of facts and
judgment strictly and only upon the
evidence offered.
•
Instances when rule relaxed:
1) the evidence must have been duly
identified by testimony duly recorded; and
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
2) the same must have been incorporated in the
records of the case. (Heirs of Mabborang v.
Mabborang, G.R. No. 182805, 22 April 2015)

Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. –
(a) Upon the termination of the testimony of
his last witness, a party shall immediately make
an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or
object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or
purposes for which he offers the particular
exhibit.
RULE 132 – Authentication and Proof of Documents
b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party
shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its
admission, and the court shall immediately make its
ruling.

c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of

the judicial affidavits xxx, it is sufficient that such exhibits
are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the
objections, and the rulings, xxx.

When a party desires the court to reject the evidence

offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without
such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first
time on appeal. (People v. Diaz y Roxas, G.R. No. 197818, 25
February 2015)
RULE 133
Burden, Weight and
Sufficiency of Evidence
 RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Burden of Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 131)
•
It is the duty of a party to present evidence on
the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
•
The “burden of proof” remains throughout
the trial with the party upon whom it is
imposed. It is the “burden of evidence” that
shifts from party to party during trial. (Republic
v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892, 8 September 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence

Preponderance of Evidence (Sec.
1)

•
burden of proof in civil cases
•
is the weight, credit, and value of the
aggregate evidence on either side.
•
synonymous with the term "greater
weight of evidence" or "greater weight
of credible evidence.”
 RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Suffciency of
Evidence
It is presumed that a person is innocent of wrong;
that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
that private transactions have been fair and
regular; and that the ordinary course of business
has been followed. Based on these presumptions,
[it is presumed] that xxx NAIA III [was] built in
accordance with the specifications required The
burden of proof lies with the Government to
prove by preponderance of evidence that the
NAIA III suffered from structural defects.
(Republic v. Mupas, G.R. NO. 181892, 8 September 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Sec. 2)
•
burden of proof in criminal cases.
•
does not mean such a degree of proof,
excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty
•
moral certainty only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
•
still the standard for criminal prosecutions
under the Intellectual Property Code. (ABS-CBN
Corp. v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, 11 March 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence

Substantial Evidence (Sec. 5)
•
burden of proof in administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies.
•
means "that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.”
•
affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial
evidence (Punongbayan & Araullo v. Lepon, G.R. No.
174115, 9 November 2015)
 RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
•
Circumstantial Evidence
- established facts that form a chain of
circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or
impel a conscious process of reasoning
towards a conviction
- sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive
evidence
- indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact-finder draws from the
evidence established
- if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct
evidence.
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Requisites:
a) there is more than one (1) circumstance;
b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been proven; and
c) the combination of all these circumstances
results in a moral certainty that the accused,
to the exclusion of all others, is the one
who committed the crime. (People v. Nerio,
Jr., G.R. No. 200940, 22 July 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Although there was no eyewitness or direct
evidence xxx pointing to the petitioner as the one
who killed his wife, there was also no direct
evidence establishing that the victim took her
own life; circumstantial evidence may be
established or admitted. It is the quality of the
circumstances, rather than the quantity, xxx which
consist of an unbroken chain that will inescapably
lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty
without an iota of doubt. (Manulat, Jr. v. People, G.R.
No. 190892, 17 August 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-
SC)

"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to

telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.

Text messages as evidence may be given probative value.

It may be proven (authenticated) by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the communications, or
has personal knowledge thereof. (Bartolome v. Maranan,
A.M. NO. P-11-2979, 18 November 2014)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Audio, photographic and video evidence of
events, acts or transactions shall be admissible
provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed
to the court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.

VCD containing pictures taken during entrapment

is admissible as evidence. (Bartolome v. Maranan, A.M.
No. P-11-2979, 18 November 2014)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M.
No. 004-07-SC)
Every child is now presumed qualified to be a
witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of
proof lies on the party challenging the child's
competency. Only when substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a
party, conduct a competency examination of a child.
(People v. Esugon y Avila, G.R. No. 195244, 22 June
2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M.
No. 004-07-SC)
Under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rules on
Examination of a Child Witness, child witnesses
may testify in a narrative form and leading questions
may be allowed by the trial court in all stages of the
examination if the same will further the interest of
justice. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, 8 September
2006)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M.
No. 004-07-SC)
As a rule, leading questions are not allowed.
However, the rules provide for exceptions when the
witness is a child of tender years as it is usually
difficult for such child to state facts without
prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are
necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips.
(People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, 27 May 2004)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Latest Jurisprudence on DNA testing:

Appellants' claim that the spermatozoa found in

AAA's vagina should have been submitted for DNA
testing to know whether the sperm indeed came
from them or from AAA's boyfriend.

The DNA test is not essential, while there exists

other evidence pinning down appellants as the
perpetrators. xxx if the prosecution had not
conducted such DNA test, appellants should have
moved for such test during the trial to prove their
innocence. (People v. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, 21
October 2015)
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of Evidence

Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)

DNA evidence admissible as evidence of paternity

Probability of paternity: 99.9%+ = refutable

presumption viz. Factors in Peo. v. Vallejo

less than 99.9% = corroborative only

RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Latest Jurisprudence on JAR
Sec. 5 of the JAR contemplates a situation where there is
a:
a)government employee or official or
b)requested witness who is not the:
1) adverse party's witness nor
2) a hostile witness. If this person either:
a) unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or
b) refuses without just cause to make the
relevant documents available to the other
party and its presentation to court.
RULE 133 – Burden, Weight, and Sufficiency of
Evidence
Sec. 5 allows the requesting party to avail of
issuance of subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
adverse party witnesses and hostile witnesses
being excluded are not covered by Sec. 5.

Sec. 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its

application adverse party and hostile witnesses. For
the presentation of these types of witnesses, the
Rules of Evidence and all other correlative rules
including the modes of deposition and discovery
rules shall apply. (Tam v. ChinaBank, G.R. No. 214054,
5 August 2015)
THE RULES ON
ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE
 Republic Act No. 8792
Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) of 2000

An “electronic data message” or an

“electronic document” is the
functional equivalent of a written
document for evidentiary purposes.
(Sec. 7, ECA)
 Congress intended virtual or
paperless writings to be the
functional equivalent and to have
the same legal function as paper-
based documents.

(MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No.

170633, 17 October 2007)
The “functional equivalent” approach,
under the Model Law does not attempt to
define a computer-based equivalent to any
kind of paper document. [It] enables such
data messages to enjoy the same level of
legal recognition as corresponding paper
documents performing the same
function. (MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R.
No. 170633, 17 October 2007, Note 82)
ECA considers an electronic data
message or an electronic document as
the functional equivalent of a written
document only for evidentiary
purposes. In other words, the law
merely recognizes the admissibility in
evidence (for their being the original) of
electronic data messages and/or
electronic documents. It does not make
the internet a medium for publishing
laws, rules and regulations. (Garcillano v.
House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos.
170338 & 179275, 23 December 2008)
The Rules on Electronic
Evidence
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

cting on the PROPOSAL OF THE COMMITTEE on

the Revision of the Rules of Court to draft the Rules on
ECA, the Supreme Court approved the “The Rules on
Electronic Evidence” (TREE) on July 17, 2001,
effective August 1, 2001.
RULE 1
Coverage
 Rule 1. Coverage

Section 1. Scope
These Rules shall apply whenever
an “electronic data message” or
“electronic document”, as defined
in Rule 2, is offered or used in
evidence unless otherwise provided
in TREE.
 Rule 1. Coverage
Section 2. Cases Covered
oCivil
oQuasi-Judicial
oAdministrative
NOTE:

oCriminal (amendment on October 14, 2002 - A.M. No. 01-7-

01-SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence)
 Rustan Ang v. CA
G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010
The crime:

Violence against women, when a former

boyfriend sent to the girl a picture of a naked
woman with spread legs and with her face
superimposed on the figure.

Issue:

The obscene picture sent is a text message

which constitutes an electronic document,
thus, it should have been authenticated under
TREE.
 Rustan Ang v. CA
G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010

Held:
NO. “xxx [Ang] is raising this objection to the
admissibility of the obscene picture, xxx, for
the first time before this Court. The objection
is too late since he should have objected to the
admission of the picture on such ground at the
time it was offered in evidence.
Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to
the present criminal action. [TREE] applies
only to civil actions, quasi-judicial
proceedings, and administrative
proceedings.”
Is Ang v. CA an obiter dictum considering
procedural laws in favor of the accused are
given retroactive effect ?
NOTE:
Aug. 1, 2001 TREE took effect
Oct. 14, 2002 Amendment (which
included criminal
cases) took effect
Aug. 1, 2001 RTC ruling (guilty)

April 20, 2010 SC Decision was

promulgated
 Are text messages admissible
as evidence in criminal
cases?
“As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC
admitted them in conformity with the Court’s earlier
Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence to
criminal actions. Text messages are to be proved by
testimony of a person who was a party to the same or
has personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi,
posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages
with the other accused in order to identify and entrap
them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and
to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had
personal knowledge of such messages and was
competent to testify on them.
(People v. Enojas, et at., G.R. No. 204894, 10 March
2014)
 Rule 1. Coverage
Section 3. Application of other rules on evidence.
o Rules of Court
• Rules 128 to 132;
o Statutes containing rules on evidence:
• Anti-Wiretapping Act, R.A. No. 4200;
• Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, R.A. No.
1405; and
• Cybercrime Prevention Act, R.A. No. 10175
RULE 2
Definition of Terms and
Construction
Rule 2: Definition of Terms and Construction

"Electronic data message" refers

to information generated, sent,
received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means. [Sec. 1 (g);
Sec. 5(c) of ECA]
Rule 2: Definition of Terms and Construction

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. [Sec. 1(h); Sec. 5(f) of
ECA]
Rule 2: Definition of Terms and Construction

Under TREE, the terms "electronic

data message" and “electronic
document" may be used
interchangeably. [Sec. 1 (h)]
Rule 2: Definition of Terms and
Construction
"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which
is not recorded or retained. [ Section 1 (k)]
 Magtolis v. Salud
A.M. No. CA-05-20-P
Text messages have been classified as
ephemeral electronic communication under
Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, and shall be proven
by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal
knowledge thereof. 
Rule 2: Definition of Terms and Construction
Section 2.
Liberal construction
• to obtain a just, expeditious, and inexpensive
determination of cases.

Interpretation according to
international origin of ECA
• ECA originated from the United Nations Commission
on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model
Law on Electronic Commerce (1996)
(MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., G.R. No.
170633, 17 October 2007)
RULE 3
Electronic Documents
RULE 3 – ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

Section 1. Electronic documents as functional

equivalent of paper-based documents

Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term

writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing
such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document as defined in these Rules.
RULE 3 – ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

Section 2. An electronic document is

admissible in evidence if it:
o complies with the rules on
admissibility under the Rules of Court
and related laws; and
o authenticated in the manner
prescribed in Rule 5 of TREE
RULE 3 – ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

Section 3. Privileged Communication

The confidential character of a

privileged communication is not lost
solely on the ground that it is in the
form of an electronic document.
 Pacana, Jr. v. Pascual-Lopez
A.C. No. 8243, 24 July 2009

The e-mail and the text messages between

complainant and the respondent lawyer were
admitted as evidence of lawyer-client relationship
despite the absence of a written contract.

Respondent lawyer violated her duty to her client

when she allowed herself to represent conflicting
interests and failed to render a full accounting of
all the cash and properties entrusted to her.
RULE 4
Best Evidence Rule
Rule 4: Best Evidence Rule
Section 1.
An “electronic document” shall be
regarded as the equivalent of an
original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.
Definition of “electronic data message”
under:

ECA: refers to information generated, sent,

received or stored by electronic, optical
or similar means. [Sec. 5(c)]

ECA's IRR: refers to information

generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means, but
not limited to, electronic data
interchange (EDI), electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy. [Sec. 6(e)]
 The phrase “but not limited to, electronic
data interchange (EDI), electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy” in the IRR:
• IRR went beyond the parameters of the
law;
• Phrase was dropped or deleted by
Congress, as it would not apply "to
telexes or faxes, except computer-
generated faxes, unlike the United
Nations Model Law on electronic
commerce.”
 MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp.
G.R. No. 170633, 17 October 2007

Facsimile transmissions are not, in this sense,

"paperless," but verily are paper-based. In an ordinary
facsimile transmission, there exists an original paper-
based information or data that is scanned, sent through a
phone line, and re-printed at the receiving end. In a
virtual or paperless environment, technically, there is
no original copy to speak of, as all direct printouts of the
virtual reality are the same, in all respects, and are
considered as originals. Ineluctably, the law's definition of
"electronic data message," xxx could not have included
facsimile transmissions, xxx.
 Torres v. PAGCOR
G.R. No. 193531, 14 December 2011

A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at

best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original.
Without the original, there is no way of determining on its
face whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and
authentic and was originally signed by the party and his
counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading.
 Rule 4 – Best Evidence Rule

Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals

When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about

the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates
shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
 Rule 4 – Best Evidence Rule
Section 2. Copies as equivalent to the originals

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not

be admissible to the same extent as the original if:

(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the

original; or

(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to

admit the copy in lieu of the original.
 Maliksi v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 203302, 11 April 2013

The ballot images, which are digital, are

electronically generated and written in the CF
cards when the ballots are fed into the PCOS
machine. The official physical ballots and the
ballot images in the CF cards are both original
documents. The ballot images in the CF cards
have the same evidentiary weight as the official
physical ballots.
 Copies as equivalent of the originals
(Sec. 2, Rule 4)

In Maliksi and Vinzons-Chato, the two documents -

the official ballot and its picture image - are
considered "original documents" simply means that
both of them are given equal probative weight.

In short, when either is presented as evidence, one

is not considered as weightier than the other.
Are printouts of scanned documents
considered as “original documents” or
merely used as secondary evidence?

How about printouts of Microsoft

Office files converted to pdf files and
then printed, are they also considered
as “original documents”?
 Are photocopies considered a
“duplicate originals” under
TREE?
NO. “By no stretch of the imagination can a
person's signature affixed manually be considered
as information electronically received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced. xxx Having thus declared that the
offered photocopies are not tantamount to
electronic documents, it is consequential that the
same may not be considered as the functional
equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.”
(NAPOCOR v. Codilla, Jr., G.R. No. 170491, 3 April 2007)
RULE 5
Authentication of
Electronic Documents
 Rule 5: Authentication of Electronic
Documents
Modes of Authentication: (Sec. 2, Rule 5)

1. digitally signed by the person purported to have signed

the same;

2. appropriate security procedures or devices as may be

authorized by the Supreme Court or by law; or

3. evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the

satisfaction of the Judge.
 Rule 5: Authentication of Electronic
Documents
Modes of Authentication (Sec. 2, Rule 5):
1. Digitally Signed
"Digital Signature" refers to an electronic signature
consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or
an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public
cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
untransformed electronic document and the signer's public
key can accurately determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private
key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and,
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered
after the transformation was made.[Sec 1(e)]
 Rule 5: Authentication of Electronic
Documents

Modes of Authentication (Sec. 2, Rule 5):

2. Appropriate security procedures or devices as may
be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law.
E.g. : Iris or Retina Scan
Note:
No other security procedures or devices have yet
been authorized by the Supreme Court.
Modes of Authentication (Sec. 2, Rule 5):
3. Evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the Judge.
E.g. Rule 132, Sec. 20 of Rules of Court:
Proof of private document – Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authentication must be proved by either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written

(b) By evidence of the genuiness of the signature or handwriting of

the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that whish it

is claimed to be.
 Aznar v. Citibank, N.A.,
G.R. No. 164273, 28 March 2007
Aznar's testimony that the person from Ingtan Agency
merely handed him the computer print-out and that he
thereafter asked said person to sign the same cannot be
considered as sufficient to show said print-out's
integrity and reliability. xxx Exh. "G" does not show
on its face that it was issued by Ingtan Agency xxx;
Aznar also failed to show the specific business address
of the source of the computer print-out because while
the name of Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its
business address was not reflected in the print-out.
Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information
reflected on the print-out was generated and how the
said information could be relied upon as true.
 Proof of electronically
notarized document
(Sec. 3, Rule 5)

A document electronically notarized in

accordance with the rules promulgated by
the Supreme Court shall be considered as a
public document and proved as a notarial
document under the Rules of Court.

No rules have been adopted yet by the

Supreme Court on the use of electronic
notarization system.
RULE 6
Electronic Signatures
 Disputable Presumption relating to digital
signatures
(Sec. 4, Rule 6)
Upon authentication it shall be presumed, in addition to Sec. 3, Rule
6 of TREE, that:

(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;

(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of
a certificate;

(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable

(d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been
altered from the time it was signed, and,

(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority

indicated therein
"Certificate" means an electronic document issued to
support a digital signature which purports to confirm
the identity or other significant characteristics of the
person who holds a particular key pair. (Sec. 1(c), Rule
2)
 Rule 6: Electronic Signatures
"Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the
identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and
executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or
electronic document. (Sec. 1 (j), Rule 2; Sec. 5(e) of ECA)

Under TREE, an “electronic signature” includes “digital

signatures.”
 An electronic signature may come in two
(2) forms:

1. a distinctive mark, characteristic or sound in

electronic form; or
2. a method or procedure employed by a person with
the intention of approving or authenticating an
electronic document. (Capalla v. COMELEC, G.R.
Nos. 201112, 201121, 201127, & 201413, 13 June 2012)
 Examples of electronic signature:
o A typed name at the end of an email;
o A typed name on an electronic form or document;
o A personal identification number (PIN) entered into a
bank ATM;
o Clicking “agree” or “disagree” on an electronic
“terms and agreements” contract; and
o A handwritten but digitally
captured signature made
on a touch device.
 Rule 6: Electronic Signatures
Modes of Authentication of Signatures
(Sec. 2, Rule 6):

oBy evidence that a method or process was utilized

to establish a digital signature and verify the same;
oBy any other means provided by law; or
oBy any other means satisfactory to the judge as
establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature.
 Rule 6: Electronic Signatures
Upon authentication, it shall be presumed (disputable) that (Sec. 3,
Rule 6):
o The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it
correlates;
o The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the
intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document
to which it is related or to indicate such person's consent to the
transaction embodied therein; and
o The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic
signature operated without error or fault.
RULE 7
Evidentiary Weight of
Electronic Evidence
Rule 7: Evidentiary Weight of Electronic
Documents
Section 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight

(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it

was generated, stored or communicated, including
but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and
reliability of the electronic data message or
document, in the light of all the circumstances as
well as any relevant agreement;
(b)The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified;
Rule 7: Evidentiary Weight of Electronic
Documents
Section 1. Factors for assessing
evidentiary weight

(c) The integrity of the information and communication

system in which it is recorded or stored, including but
not limited to the hardware and computer programs
or software used as well as programming errors;

(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who

made the entry with the communication and
information system;
Rule 7: Evidentiary Weight of Electronic
Documents
Section 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary
weight

(e) The nature and quality of the information which went

into the communication and information system upon
which the electronic data message or electronic
document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting
the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or
electronic data message.
Rule 7: Evidentiary Weight of Electronic
Documents
"Information and Communication
System" refers to a system for generating,
sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or
electronic documents and includes the
computer system or other similar devices
by or in which data are recorded or stored
and any procedure related to the recording
or storage of electronic data messages or
electronic documents. (Sec. 1(L), Rule 2)
 Integrity of an “information and
communication system”
(Sec. 2, Rule 7)
Factors in determining integrity, if under dispute:

(a) Whether the information and communication system or

other similar device was operated in a manner that did not affect
the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no other
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and
communication system;

(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by

a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the
party using it; or

(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in

the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not
a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control
of the party using it.
RULE 8
Business Records as Exception to
the Hearsay Rule
Rule 8: Business Records as Exception to the
Hearsay Rule

"Business records " include records of any

business, institution, association, profession,
occupation, and calling of every kind, whether
or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or
illegitimate purposes. (Sec 1(b), Rule 2)
 Rule 8: Business Records as Exception to the
Hearsay Rule

Sec. 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the

time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know
the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
 Rule 8: Business Records as Exception to the
Hearsay Rule

A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,

conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other
similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular
course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted
from the rule on hearsay evidence. (Sec. 1, Rule 8)
 Rule 8: Business Records as Exception to the
Hearsay Rule

Overcoming the presumption:

Presumption may be overcome by evidence of

the untrustworthiness of the source of
information or the method or circumstances of
the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
(Sec. 2, Rule 8)
RULE 9
Method of Proof
 Rule 9: Method of Proof

Section 1: Affidavit Evidence

All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary

weight of an electronic document may be established by an
affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must
affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on
the matters contained therein.”

“Judicial Affidavit Rule” or A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.

 Rule 9: Method of Proof

In a case for murder, the circumstance that the victim sent a

text message to his is inadmissible in evidence because her
affidavit was not sworn to before a competent officer. There
was also no evidence of the alleged text message pursuant to
the law on admissibility of electronic evidence.

(Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, 20 March 2013)

 Rule 9: Method of Proof

In a complaint for disbarment, the transcript of the alleged

exchange of text messages between the complainant and the
respondent were not admitted in evidence since the same was
not authenticated in accordance with A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC,
pertaining to the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Without proper
authentication, the text messages presented by the complainant
have no evidentiary value.

(Francia v. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, 23 July 2014)

RULE 10
Examination of Witnesses
 Rule 10: Examination of
Witnesses

Section 1. Electronic testimony

• remote witness testimony

• left to the discretion of the judge;

• judge shall determine the necessity under the circumstances

• E.g.: Witness suffering from contagious disease
(distance?)
 Rule 10: Examination of
Witnesses

Section 2 – Transcript of electronic testimony

When examination of a witness is done electronically,

the entire proceedings, xxx, shall be transcribed by a
stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder authorized for
the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript
done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact that
the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
 Rule 10: Examination of
Witnesses

Section 3. Storage of electronic evidence

The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the

stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case.

Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie

evidence of such proceedings.
RULE 11
Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence

Audio, photo, video and similar evidence is

admissible (Sec. 1, Rule 11):
• if shown, presented or displayed to the
court; and
• if identified, explained or authenticated by
the:
• person who made the recording;
• by some other person competent to testify
on the accuracy thereof
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence
Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communication

"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers

to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is NOT
recorded or retained.
(Sec. 1 (k), Rule 2; Bartolome v. Maranan, A.M. No. P-112979, 18 November
2014)
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence
Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communication

"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers

to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is NOT
recorded or retained.
(Sec. 1 (k), Rule 2; Bartolome v. Maranan, A.M. No. P-112979, 18 November
2014)
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video,
and Ephemeral Evidence
Sec. 2 – Ephemeral electronic communication
Since Ephemeral Electronic Communication is NOT recorded or
retained, it shall be proven by the testimony of:

o person who was a party to the same; or

o person who has personal knowledge thereof.

o absence or unavailability of such witness,

other competent evidence may be admitted.
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence

Sec. 2 – Ephemeral electronic communication

(a) If Ephemeral Electronic Communication is recorded or

retained, it shall be proven by:
• showing, presenting or displaying it to the court; and
• identified, explained or authenticated by the:
• person who made the recording; or
• by some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof.
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence

Sec. 2 – Ephemeral electronic communication

(b) If Ephemeral Electronic Communication is recorded

or embodied in an electronic document, the provisions
of Rule 5 (Authentication of Electronic documents)
shall apply.
 Bartolome v. Maranan
A.M. No. P-11-2979, 18 November 2014

A court stenographer asked money, through text

messages, from the complainant to facilitate the filing of
her case for annulment of marriage without the need of
court appearances during the proceedings of the case.

The complainant, who was the recipient of the text

messages and who therefore has personal knowledge of
these text messages, identified the respondent as the
sender through cellphone number 0917*******.
 Bartolome v. Maranan
A.M. No. P-11-2979, 18 November 2014

The stenographer herself admitted that her conversations

with the complainant had been thru SMS messaging and
that the cellphone number reflected in the complainant's
cellphone from which the text messages originated was
hers. She confirmed that it was her cellphone number
during the entrapment operation.

The VCD containing pictures and video taken during the

entrapment conducted were viewed by the court.
 People v. Enojas
G.R. No. 204894, 10 March 2014

The court admitted the text messages which were

proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the same or has personal knowledge of them. PO3
Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text
messages with the other accused in order to identify
and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages
sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession,
PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such
messages and was competent to testify on them.
 Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud
A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, 9 September 2005

Question as to the admissibility of the text messages is moot

and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his counsel,
already admitted that he was the sender of the first three
messages.

Nuez v. Cruz-Apao
A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, 12 April 2005

Respondent found guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct,

considered text messages addressed to the complainant asking
for a million pesos in exchange for a favorable decision in a
case pending before the CA.
Rule 11: Audio, Photographic, Video, and
Ephemeral Evidence
A screenshot or screen grab of a Facebook post before
it was taken down or deleted, how is it proven?

A screenshot or screen grab is saved as an image file.

Thus, it should be proven as a photo.
 Developments
Data Privacy Act of 2012, R.A. No. 10173
An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information in Information
and Communications Systems in the Government and the Private
Sector, Creating for this Purpose a National Privacy Commission,
and for other Purposes.
IRR promulgated only on August 24, 2016

BSP Circular No. 924, September 7, 2016

RE: Clearing of Checks via Electronic Presentment
Only the digital images of checks and their electronic payment
information are to be transmitted to the paying bank
Starts in January 2017
DATA PRIVACY ACT
of 2012
An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information in
Information and Communications Systems in the
Government and the Private Sector, Creating for this
Purpose a National Privacy Commission, and for other
Purposes
 Definition of Terms
(Section 3, Data Privacy Act of 2012)

“personal data” – refers to all types of personal

information

“personal data breach” – refers to a breach of security

leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss,
alteration, unauthorized disclosure of, or access to,
personal data transmitted, stored, or otherwise processed
 Scope of Application

Applies to the processing of personal data

by any natural and juridical person in the
government or private sector
 Extraterritorial Application
Applies to an act done or practice engaged
in and outside of the Philippines by an
entity if:

(a) The act, practice or processing relates to

personal information about a Philippine
citizen or a resident;
 Extraterritorial Application
(b) The entity has a link with the
Philippines, and the entity is processing
personal information in the Philippines or
even if the processing is outside the
Philippines as long as it is about Philippine
citizens or residents; and

(c) The entity has other links in the

Philippines.
 NATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION
(NPC)

An independent body mandated to administer and

implement the Act and to monitor and ensure compliance
of the country with international standards set for
personal data protection.

(Section 8)
 NATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION
(NPC)

An independent body mandated to administer and

implement the Act and to monitor and ensure compliance
of the country with international standards set for
personal data protection.

(Section 8)
 Protection afforded to Journalists and
their source

Journalists are not compelled to reveal the source of any

news report or information appearing in said publication
if it was related in any confidence to such publisher,
editor, or reporter.
 Privileged Communication
Section 23. Extension of Privileged Communication

Personal information controllers may invoke the

principle of privileged communication over privileged
information that they lawfully control or process.
Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence
gathered from privileged information is inadmissible.