EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

 NOVEMBER 23 That it did so in a manner different from that of the CTA did not
necessarily imply a reversal of factual findings. The distinction
General Concepts [Rule 128, Rules of Court] between a question of law and a question of fact is clear-cut. It
has been held that "there is a question of law in a given case
Evidence - is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (sec. 1)
certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt
or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. "
Question of law | Question of fact
In the present case, the CA did not doubt, much less change, the
facts narrated by the CTA. It merely applied the law to the facts.
 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the
That its interpretation or conclusion is different from that of the
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of
CTA is not irregular or abnormal.
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must 2. Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 90 (1998) GR
not involve an examination of the probative value of the 127997
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law Principle: Jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law
that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact
question posed is one of fact. are deemed conclusive. As such, this Court is not duty-bound to
analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 298 in the proceedings below. The rule, however, admits of the
SCRA 83 (1998) G.R. 124043 following exceptions: (1) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse
Principle: it is a basic rule in taxation that the factual findings of of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on
the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will be speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of
disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the said court the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5)
committed gross error in the appreciation of facts. In the present when the findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals,
case, this Court finds that the February 16, 1994 Decision of the in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
CA did not deviate from this rule. The latter merely applied the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
law to the facts as found by the CTA and ruled on the issue raised appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are
by the CIR: "Whether or not the collection or earnings of rental contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact
income from the lease of certain premises and income earned are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
from parking fees shall fall under the last paragraph of Section 27 they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended." overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and
Clearly, the CA did not alter any fact or evidence. It merely which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
resolved the aforementioned issue, as indeed it was expected to. and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the Principle: The test to determine whether the causes of action are
evidence on record. After a review of the case at bar, we consider identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain
petitioner to have failed to raise issues which would constitute both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential
sufficient ground to warrant the reversal of the findings of the to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or
trial and appellate courts. evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the
same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent
action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or
adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the
operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action
3. Cruz v. People, 303 SCRA 533 (1999) GR121422 shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their
privies. Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining
Principle: The extraordinary writ of certiorari is not available to whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action
challenge interlocutory orders of the trial court. However, such is
are: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain
subject to certain exceptions: when the assailed interlocutory
orders are patently erroneous or issued with grave abuse of both the first and second causes of action; and (2) whether the
discretion, the remedy of certiorari lies. defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint
in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether
Concept of Proof the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the
filing of the first complaint. // A judgment in Civil Case No. 10-
FACTUM PROBANDUM - (what you are supposed to prove, i.e., the 323 will not necessarily result in res judicata in Civil Case No. 543-
elements of the cause of action); refers to the fact to be proven, or M-2010. Being principally a subrogation case which is an action
the fact/proposition to be established; in other words, it refers to the in personam,38 a judgment in Civil Case No. 10-323 will not bind
Cause of Action (COA)—the matters to be proved. (EG: collection for any non-parties to it, such as the corporation plaintiffs and the
sum of money: prove the debt, its maturity, demand, non payment); other defendants (aside from EBC) in Civil Case No. 543-M-2010
the fact/proposition TO BE ESTABLISHED or the fact TO BE PROVED. that represent interests separate and distinct from the parties in
Civil Case No. 10-323.39 At the most, a judgment in Civil Case No.
FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. It is the 10-323 may only constitute the factum probans (or evidentiary
fact by which the factum probandum is established. Admissibility or facts) by which the factum probandum (or the ultimate fact)
inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law sought to be proven by petitioners in Civil Case No. 543-M-2010,
in force at the time the evidence is presented. Therefore, there is no i.e., EBC's non-compliance with the foreclosure provisions of the
vested right of evidence. Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the MTI, could be established.
law at the time the action accrued, may be received in evidence
provided that it is admissible under the law in force during the trial. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal
rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on
1. Grace Park International vs. Eastwest, G.R. No. 210606. July the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to,
27, 201 or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to
compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam  The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some
 The facts must establishes such a certainty of guilt as to convince
responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the
the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the
defendant
one who committed the offense
Direct and Circumstantial
2. Positive vs. Negative Evidence
a. direct- that which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the
aid of any inference or presumption. It is evidence to the precise a. positive-evidence that affirms the occurrence of an event or
point. existence of a fact, as when a witness declares that there was no fight
which took place.
Example: The eye witness account; the scar to show the wound b. negative when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or
existence of a fact, as when the accused presents witnesses who
b. circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or testify that the accused was at their party when the crime was
collectively, the existence of the particular fact in issue maybe committed. Denials and alibi are negative evidences.
inferred or presumed as a necessary or probable consequence.
d. The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative
c. Important considerations on circumstantial evidence evidence, or that a positive assertion is given more weight over a
i. This applies only in criminal cases and is governed under Rule 133(4) plain denial.
which for purposes of supporting a finding of guilt, requires:
 that there be more than one circumstance
 that the facts from which the inference are derived are proven 3. Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence
 the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a a. primary- that which the law regards as affording the greatest
conviction beyond reasonable doubt certainty of the fact in question. E.g.: the original of a contract is the
ii. Per the Supreme Court: it is essential that the circumstantial best evidence as to its contents; the marriage contract as to the fact
evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads of marriage; a receipt as to the fact of payment; the birth certificate
one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the as to filiation.
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. b. secondary- that which is necessarily inferior and shows on its face
iii. Guidelines in the appreciation of the probative value of that a better evidence exists. E.g.: Xerox copies of documents;
circumstantial evidence narration of witnesses as to a written contract.

 It should be acted upon with caution

 All essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt 4. Conclusive vs. Prima facie

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

a. conclusive – may either be (i) that which the law does not allow to 7. Sources of Evidence
be contradicted as in judicial admissions or (b) that the effect of
which overwhelms any evidence to the contrary as the DNA profile of a. The Principal Source: Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of
a person as the natural father over a denial Court

b. prima facie- that which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is  Origin: The rules are patterned and based on the rules of
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. In the eyes of the law evidence as developed, applied and interpreted in the English and
it is sufficient to establish a fact until it has been disproved, rebutted American Courts. Thus the rules on the disqualification of witnesses
or contradicted or overcome by contrary proof. are pattered from the rules applied in the State of California. Our
rules concerning confessions are patterned after American rules

 Decisions of the English and American Courts, as well as opinions

5. Cumulative vs. Corroborative
and works of English and American jurists, such as Wigmore, Clark,
a. cumulative- additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the Jones, and others, are given great weight
same point. E.g.: testimonies of several eyewitnesses to the same
incident b. The Philippine constitution particularly, its provisions on the Bill of
Rights and the Article on the Supreme Court
b. corroborative-additional evidence of a different kind or character
but tending to prove the same point. It is evidence which confirms or c. Special Laws passed by Congress which either create, amend or
supports. Thus: (i) the medico legal certificate describing the injuries supplement existing rules of evidence. The most recent include; (i)
to have been caused by a sharp pointed instrument corroborates the The Electronic Evidence Act and the (ii) The Child Witness Law.
statement that the accused used a knife to stab the victim (ii) the
d. Decisions of the Supreme Court
positive results of a paraffin test corroborates the allegation that the
person fired a gun and (iii) the ballistics examination on the gun of e. Circulars issued by the Supreme Court
the suspect corroborates the statement that he fired his gun at the
victim
II. What need not to be proven (Rule 129)
a. Judicial Notice - is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact
6. As to form:
to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so
a. documentary- notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it
cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the
b. object- those consisting of evidence which are addressed to the
party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials
senses of the court
admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally
c. Testimonial- evidence consisting the narration made under oath by introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are
a witness even admitted if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary.

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

b. Judicial Admissions (Rule 129, Sec. 4) - an admission is verbal or I. Burden of proof and evidence - The burden of proof determines which
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by they must provide in order to prevail on their claim. In most cases, the
showing that it was made through palpable mistake of that no such
plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof
admission was made.

 De Leon vs. BPI, G.R. No. 184565. November 20, 2013

II. Concept of presumptions

a. presumptions of fact - presumption established from another fact

or group of facts. For instance, the possessor of recently stolen
goods is considered the thief by presumption of fact. It is a type of
rebuttable presumption. It is also called as factual presumption.

b. presumptions of law - is a conclusion based upon a particular set

of facts, combined with established laws, logic or reasoning. It is a
rule of law which allowing a court to assume a fact is true until it is
rebutted by the greater weiht (preponderance) of the evidence
against it.

i. conclusive presumptions - or absolute presumption or

irrebuttable presumption of law refers to presumption which
cannot be overcome or changed by any additional evidence or
argument. It refers to rules of law and are usually mere
fictions. Modern courts repudiate conclusive presumptions
when they are not fictions

ii. disputable presumptions - All other presumptions are

"disputable presumptions" and may be controverted by other
evidence. The following are of that kind: (1) A person is
DECEMBER 7 innocent of crime or wrong. (2) An unlawful act was done with
an unlawful intent

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

III. Admissibility immaterial to any of the issues in the case, which may
turn entirely on whether one or both parties breached
a. Basic rules of admissibility - The basic prerequisites of the contract. The issues in the case are determined by
admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. the pleadings, any formal stipulations or admissions,
and the applicable law. For example, if, in a case of
i. Relevance breach of contract, the defendant has conceded that the
plaintiff performed all his covenants, proof of that
Evidence is relevant, material, and competent, and performance would no longer be material unless it were
is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. relevant to some other issue. Under both the California
Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency in reason and federal rules, the concept of materiality is included
to make the fact that it is offered to prove or disprove in the concept of relevance.
either more or less probable. To be relevant, a particular
item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is Evidence is competent if the proof that is being
offered certain, or even more probable than not. All that offered meets certain traditional requirements of
is required is that it have some tendency to increase the reliability. The preliminary showing that the evidence
likelihood of the fact for which it is offered. Weighing meets those tests, and any other prerequisites of
the evidence is for the finder of fact, and although a admissibility, is called the foundational evidence. Evid.
particular piece of evidence, standing by itself, may be Code § 402, 403. When an objection is made that an
weak, it will be admitted unless it is otherwise answer to a question, a document, or a thing lacks a
incompetent or it runs afoul of an exclusionary rule. For proper foundation, what the objector is really saying is
example, if the fact to be proved is that the defendant bit that a showing of competence, or of another prerequisite
off the plaintiff's nose in a fight, testimony by an of admissibility, has not yet been made. The modern
eyewitness to the act would clearly be relevant, but so trend in the law is to diminish the importance of the
would testimony by a witness who heard the plaintiff rules of competence by turning them into considerations
and the defendant exchange angry words on the day of weight. The question of competence will be
before the fight, or even testimony by a witness who considered below for each category of evidence. In
sold the defendant a disinfectant mouthwash shortly general, if competent evidence is offered to prove a
afterwards. relevant and material fact, it is admissible even if it
would have been improper to receive it for another
Evidence is material if it is offered to prove a fact purpose. For example, while evidence of prior bad acts
that is at issue in the case. For example, if I offer the is generally not admissible to show that a person acted
testimony of an eyewitness to prove that it was raining similarly in the present case, it may be admissible to
on the day of the signing of a contract, that evidence show motive, plan, intent, lack of mistake or, in federal
may be relevant to prove the fact for which it is offered, court, to impeach a witness's credibility. When evidence
yet the fact that it was or was not raining may be is received for a limited purpose, the party who thinks a
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

jury may make improper use of that evidence is entitled, 3. Privileges

upon his request, to a limiting instruction.
4. admissions and confessions
ii. not prohibited by the law
5. res inter alios acta rule
b. Concept of relevance and conditional admissibility
6. hearsay rule and its exceptions
 Prats and Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 52 Phil.
807 (1929) 7. opinion rule
 People v. Abalos, 30 SCRA 599
8. character evidence rule
c. Not prohibited by the rules, general presentation
9. presentation
i. object evidence
d. Some Considerations for Presentation of Evidence
1. Concept
2. demonstrative evidence i. authentication (need for sponsor)

3. presentation ii. chain of custody

ii. documentary evidence iii. laying the basis

1. best evidence rule

2. parole evidence rule

3. private and public

4. presentation 

iii. testimonial evidence

  January 11

1. Qualifications
2. Disqualifications
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

Object Evidence [Rule 130 section 1] iii. Those which consists of the results of experiments, tests or
Rule on DNA Evidence, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 2007 demonstrations, which may be scientific tests/experiments, or
Rule on Electronic Evidence, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, July 17, 2001 
practical tests/demonstrations provided the conduct of
experiments/tests is subject to the discretion of the court.
Object as evidence - are those addressed to the senses of the court. When
an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined 1. Forensics or Microanalysis: the application of scientific principles to
or viewed by the court. answer questions of interest in the legal system. Applied most often in
the examination of Trace Evidence to solve crimes based on the
b. COVERAGE: The definition covers any material that may be seen, Principle of Contact
heard, smelled, felt, or touched. They are the “sensual evidence” and
are grouped into: a). Trace Evidence- evidence found at a crime scene in small but
measurable amounts such as hairs, fibers, soils, botanical materials,
i. Those exhibited to the Court or observed by it during the trial explosive residue
1. The weapons used, the articles recovered or seized as subjects of an b) Principle of Contact: every person who is physically involved in a
offense, the effects of the crime, clothing apparels crime leaves some minute trace of his/her presence in the crime
scene or in the victim and often takes something away from the crime
2. The wound or scars in the body in physical injury cases scene and/or victim
3. Inspection of the body of the accused and his personal appearance
to determine his body built, physique, height, racial characteristics,
and similarities with another, in paternity suits iv. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY
4. Observations as to the demeanor of witnesses A. Inherent Requirements: Proof of 1. Relevancy and 2. Competency
5. Re-enactment or demonstrations of actions B. Procedural Requirement: Proof of Authentication
1. The process of proving that the object being presented in court is
the very object involved in the event
ii. Those which consists of the results of inspections of things or places
conducted by the court ( ocular inspections) outside the court 2. The purpose is two fold: (a) to /ensure preserve the Identity of the
Object which is to prevent the introduction of a different object and
1. The observations made by the parties are duly recorded, pictures (b) to ensure/preserve the Integrity of the Object which is to ensure
and other representations may be made such as sketches and that there are no significant changes or alterations in the condition of
measurements the object or that the object has not been contaminated
2. Examples: inspection of the crime scene; disputed boundaries; 3. Important component elements of the process of Authentication:
objects which cannot be brought to court
a. Proof of Identity: Through the testimony of a witness as to objects
which are readily identifiable by sight provided there is a basis for the
identification by the witness which may either be:

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

(i) the markings placed by the witness upon the object, such as his (ii) any one who is familiar with the persons, things, places shown
initials, his pictures in the digital camera, or therein
(ii) by the peculiar characteristics of the object i.e. by certain physical b. As to X-rays and cardiograms, motion pictures: same requirement
features which sets it apart from others of the same kind or class by as to tape recordings
which it is readily identified. Examples: a hole caused by burning in a
sweater; the broken hilt of a knife
b. Proof of Identity and Integrity: By proving that there was no break
in the Chain-of-Custody in the event the object passed into the
possession of different persons. This means proving the chronological 1. People v Tacipit, 242 SCRA 250 (1995)
sequence through which the object was handled only by persons who,
by reason of their function or office, can reasonably be expected to - although there was absence of external injuries on the body of
have the right or duty to possess or handle the object. This is done by the complainant, the clothes worn by her at the time of the offense
calling each of these persons to explain how and why he came into speak well of the use of force and struggle. Her t-shirt was torn
the possession of the object and what he did with the object. which corroborates her testimony that it was forcibly removed. Her
shorts, like her underwear, had blood stains , it was also detached
(i) When the object passed into the possession of a stranger, then from her shorts, her bra was also torn; denoting that it was as
there is doubt as to the integrity, if not identity of the object. well forcibly removed. The accused’s reliance on the defense that
he and the complainant were lovers is unfounded. But even if it
c. Proof of Integrity: By proving the Proper Preservation of the object were true, such relationship would not give the accuse the license
which consist of showing that the object was kept in a secure place as to deflower the complainant against her will. And will not
to make contamination or alteration difficult, and it has not been exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape.
brought out until its presentment in court.
2. Villaflor v Summers, 42 Phil. 62
4. Effect if there was improper authentication: The object maybe
excluded upon proper objection, or that it may not be given any - court ordered villaflor to submit her body to the examination of
evidentiary value. Thus in a criminal case, reliance thereon may be a one or two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or
ground for acquittal. Example: there was conflicting testimony by the not. “The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be
a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or
policemen as to the description of the bag allegedly containing the moral compulsion or extort communications from him, not an
drug. The conviction was reversed. examination of his body as an evidence when it may be material.”
The constitutional guaranty that no person shall be compelled in
5. Authentication as applied to certain evidences:
any criminal case to be a witness against himself is limited only to
a. As to pictures and photographs, maps, diagrams, the authenticity a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination . On
refers to proving the accuracy of the things, persons, things or places proper showing and order of the trial court , an ocular inspection
of the body of the accused is permissible.
depicted in the photographs which may through the testimony of :
(i) the photographer; or 3. People v Jara, 144 SCRA 516

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

- Miranda Rights: While the admissions or confessions of the the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all the
prisoners, when voluntarily made, have always ranked high on the witnesses put together.
scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused be asked to explain
his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease 6. Sison v People, 250 SCRA 58 (1995)
with which the questions put to him, may assume an inquisitorial
character. The temptation to press the witness unduly, to - Photographs, when presented as evidence, must be identified by
browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant to push him into a corner the photographer as to its production , and testified as to the
and to entrap him in fatal contradictions which is so painfully circumstances under which they were produced. // The value of
evident.... Made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand this kind of evidence lies on its correct representation or
for its total abolition. // As to the re-enactment, the extra-judicial reproduction of the original. Its admissibility is determined by its
confessions served as script for what was to follow. Pictures re- accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. // The
enacting the crime which are based on an inadmissible photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify
confession , are themselves inadmissible. // Inadmissible the pictures he has taken - they can also be identified by any
confession s implicating a third party are also inadmissible to other competent witness who can testify to their exactness and
prove the guilt of the latter. // Object Evidence, per expert accuracy. // Even if the person who took the photos ws not
testimony splattering of blood on the trousers of appellant, Jara presented to identify them, the use of said photos by some of the
could be caused by a blunt instrument like a hammer and shape accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an
thereof - circular patterns - could only occur at the time of impact admission of the exactness and accuracy of the photos thereof. //
of the instrument and not if the victim had been dead for hours. Even if the photos did not record the two accused hitting the
Jara’s claim that the blood stains on his trousers were imprinted victim, they were unequivocally identified by the witnesses, their
when he embraced his deceased wife and that smudges came denials and alibis cannot overcome their identification.
from chickens he was then slaughtering, are cover ups as the
blood were proven to be human blood.
7. People v Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (2002)
4. People v Ruiz, 110 SCRA 155
-DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which
contain his/ her generic code. // Except for identical twins, each
- The presence of nitrates thereon would prove and there being person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.
no nitrate found on his left hand, when he was subjected to
paraffin test that day, following the shooting incident. If there was
really a struggle for the possession of the gun, under such theory , Demonstrative Evidence - Demonstrative evidence is just what
the left hand of appellant would have been positive for nitrate, as the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a
well as the right hand at least. But as conducted, it was shown witness. It will be admissible when, with accuracy sufficient for
that both hands of the deceased were negative for nitrates. the task at hand, it fairly and accurately reflects that testimony
and is otherwise unobjectionable. Typical examples of
5. People v Bardaje, 99 SCRA 388 (1980)
demonstrative evidence are maps, diagrams of the scene of an
-Physical evidence is of the highest order. The medical findings occurrence, animations, and the like. Because its purpose is to
showed no evidence of external injuries, disproving what the illustrate testimony, demonstrative evidence is authenticated by
complainant had testified that she was dragged from the house. the witness whose testimony is being illustrated. That witness
Thus, rendering her credibility in doubt. // Physical evidence is of will usually identify salient features of the exhibit and testify that
it fairly and accurately reflects what he saw or heard on a
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

particular occasion, such as the location of people or things on a

diagram.

1. People v Amestuzo, G.R. No. 104383 (July 12, 2001)

-There is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper

identification. // Here, it was alleged that the identification was
irregular as the accused was not placed in a police lin-up and
instead, made to stand before the complainants alone. // The fact
that he was brought out of the detention cell alone and was made
to stand in front of the complainant , unaccompanied by any other
suspects, does not detract from the validity of the identification
process.

2. People v Berame alias Doming, G.R. No. L-27606 (July 30,

1976)

- For the factual finding of the trial court in a criminal case to be

overturned, there must be showing that it overlooked a material
fact or misinterpret its significance. // The fact that rubber shoe left
by someone leaving in a hurry near the scene of the crime, fitted
the foot of the accused, is a demonstrative evidence of the most
persuasive kind.

3. People v Bulawin, G.R. No. L-30069 (Sept. 30, 1969)

4. People v Delmendo, G.R. No. L-32146 (Nov.23, 1981)

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

i. Application of the Best Evidence Rule

As this rule does not require a party to put his best evidence forward
in every instance, it is necessary to determine whether – and how –
the rule applies. If the rule applies, then determine whether the
original is required, or if there is an exception.
In the application of the best evidence rule, it is generally held that a
duplicate of an original document, writing, photo, or recording is
admissible, just the same as the original. This is not true if the
January 18 duplicated evidence is unfair to admit – there being a conflict over
whether the duplicate is correct; nor is it true if there is a dispute as to
Documentary Evidence [Rule 130, section 2] the authenticity of the original. When such disputes arise, the original
Best Evidence Rule [Rule 130, section 3] evidence must be presented at court – if that is possible.

I. Documentary Evidence There are exceptions to this requirement, however. If the original has
been lost or destroyed, or if it cannot be obtained due to some
reasonable obstacle, the court may accept the copied evidence, or it
- Documentary evidence is often a kind of real evidence, as for
may require some other form of evidence or testimony. Other
example where a contract is offered to prove its terms. When a
circumstances in which the original may not be required is if a party
document is used this way it is authenticated the same way as any
claims it is in the possession of his opponent, or if it is an unimportant
other real evidence--by a witness who identifies it or, less commonly,
piece of evidence.
by witnesses who establish a chain of custody for it. However,
because they contain human language, and because of the historical
development of the common law, documents present special
problems not presented by other forms of real evidence, such as 1. Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano, G.R. 156132, October 16, 2006,
when they contain hearsay. 504, SCRA

 Rule 130, section 2 - Documentary evidence; promissory notes; by the admission of

the genuineness and due execution of an instrument is meant that
the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that
 a. Best Evidence Rule - a rule of evidence that requires an it was signed by another for him, with his authority. // The effect of
original document, photograph, or other piece of evidence be an admission is such that in case of a promissory note a prima
introduced to the court to prove the contents of that same item. facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with necessity
As an example of the best evidence rule’s purpose, consider a of evidence on his part and entitles him to a judgment on the
pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as
plaintiff arguing that a specific provision to a contract didn’t payment, is interposed by the defendant. Here, Citubank did not
exist. The parties must produce the original contract, rather than deny the existence nor questioned the authenticity of PNs it is
a photocopy. issued in favor of respondent. In fact, it admitted the genuineness

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

and due execution of said PNs but qualified that they were no -Primary evidence of marriage is the authentic copy of the
longer outstanding. // In general, the best evidence rule requires marriage contract. The certification of the solemnizing officer is a
that the highest available degree of proof must be produced. And secondary evidence.
for documentary evidence, the contents of a document are best
proved by the production of the document itself., to the execution 5. Air France v Carrascoso, G.R. L-21438, September 28, 1966,
of any secondary or substitutionary evidence. // Best evidence 18 SCRA155
rule applies only when the content of such document is the 6. People v Tanjutco, G.R. L-23924, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 361
subject of the inquiry. // When a document is assailed as the basis
of forgery, the best evidence rule applies; without the original 7. Interpacific Transit Inc v Aviles, G.R. 86062, June 6, 1990, 186
document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot SCRA 385
make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A
comparison bases on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the
document under controversy cannot produce reliable results. / -Upon rejecting the photocopies of the airway bills, the lower
courts disregarded the rule that “Objection to documentary
evidence must be made at the time it was formally offered as an
exhibit and not before, otherwise, objection is premature and is
considered void” // identification of the documentary evidence
2. National Power Corporation v Godilla, G.R. 170491, April 3, - done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the
2007,520 SCRA 412  marking of the evidence as an exhibit; mere identification and
marking of the document does not mean it has been formally
- offered as evidence. // Formal offer as an exhibit - done only
when the party rests its case and not before // What matters is
3. Home Insurance Corporation v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. the objection done at the time of the formal offer and not at the
109293, August 18, 1993, 225 SCRA 411 time of identification and marking of evidence. // Evidence not
objected is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by
the court.
-Art. 1735, CC - If the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently unless they proved that they observed the 8. Compania Maritima v Limson, G.R. L-27134, Feb 28, 1986,
extraordinary diligence required of them by the law. // This 141 SCRA 407
presumption , however, is only applicable when /if the shipper or
consignee has a right of action against the carrier to begin with. - - Where the original bill of lading has been lost or destroyed,
that is not the case here. // The contract of insurance serves as evidence of freightage due may be taken from a carbon copy
the best evidence, but such was not presented, a subrogation thereof and the ship’s cargo manifest.
receipt is not sufficient to prove relationship . // Section 3, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court requires for the production of the 9. Fiscal of Pampanga v Reyes, G.R. 35366, Aug 5, 1931, 55 Phil
original document in order for such to be admissible as evidence. 905

4. Lim Tanhu v Ramolete, G.R. L-40098, August 29, 1975, 66 -In cases of libel/ slander, the evidence must be relevant in order
SCRA 425 for it to be admitted. // The rule of procedure which requires the
production of the best evidence rule is applied in this case. The
copies of the weekly / newspaper where the libelous article was
published, and its translation, constitute the best evidence of the
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

committed libel. // The refusal pf the judge to admit the evidence Writing; recording; or photograph - when all originals are lost
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. // The SC has jurisdiction to or destroyed in good faith; no original can be obtained by judicial
entertain an application for a writ of mandamus to compel a Court
of First Instance to permit the attorney of the litigant to examine
process/procedure; or when the party’s opponent has the
the entire written communication, when part of the same has been possession of the original and does not produce it.
introduced as evidence by the other party.
 Rule 130, section 5, 6, 7
10. People v Tan, G.R. L-14257, Jul 31, 1959, 105 Phil. 1242  Rule 132, section 24 and 25
-IT IS WRONG to contend that triplicates formed by the use of
carbon papers are not admissible in evidence without first
accounting for the loss of the originals. Carbon copies, when 1. People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002
made at the same time and on the same machine as the original, 2. Lazatin v Campos, G.R. L-43955, Jul 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 250
are DUPLICATE ORIGINALS and these have been held to be as
much as primary evidence as the originals.
3. Ong Ching Po v Court of Appeals, G.R. L-113472-73,
December 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 341
11. Mahilum et al v Court of Appeals, G.R. L-17970, June 30,
1966, 17 SCRA 482

-The evidence is a signed carbon copy or duplicate which was

executed at the same time as the original. This may be introduced 4. Michael and Co v Enriquez, G.R. 10824, Dec 24, 1915, 33 Phil.
in evidence without accounting to the loss or nonproduction of the 871
other copies.
-Section 321, CC - Original writing must be produced and proved,
Secondary Evidence [Rule 130, section 5, 6, 7] except when lost and proven lost. Execution and delivery must
[Rule 132, section 24 and 25] also be proven by: (1) the one who executed and delivered it; (2)
person whom its execution is acknowledged; (3) person who was
present and saw it executed and delivered; (4) person who saw it
b. Secondary Evidence - evidences that has been reproduced and recognized the signatures; (5) person knowing the fact; Oral
from an original document or substituted for an original item. evidence may be given. // The mere fact that the counsel for
appellant characterized or described the instrument as one of
Ex. Photocopy of a document; Photograph; or an exact replica of transfer, was not sufficient to cut him off from proving the
execution and delivery of the document. // Proper questions
an evidence like an engine part of a vehicle. tending to the production of a very material and competent
evidence were put up by the plaintiff’s counsel but it does not cure
i. When a secondary evidence is allowable/admissible: the error in the case at bar - Execution and delivery must be
proven.
Duplicate - in the absence of any raised question regarding its
authenticity; and when it is not unfair to admit such duplicate. 5. People v Lava, G.R. L-4974-8, May 16, 1969, 28 SCRA 72

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

6. Villa Rey Transit v Ferrer, G.R. L-23893, Oct 29, 1968, 25

SCRA 845

-Requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the

original is in custody of the adverse party; (1) opponent’s
possession of the original; (2) reasonable notice to opponent to
produce the original; (3) satisfactory proof of its existence; (4)
failure or refusal of the opponent to produce the original in court. //
Regarding the first element, it is not necessary for a party seeking
to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the
actual possession of his adversary.

7. Compania Maritima v Allied Free Workers Union, G.R. L-

28999, May 24, 1977, 77 SCRA 24

- Original writing must be produced except when original consists

of numerous accounts or documents which cannot be examined
in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established them is only the general result of the whole;
voluminous character of the accounts or documents should be
established; accounts or documents should be made accessible
to adverse party. // An audit made by, or the testimony of a private
auditor, is admissible in evidence as proof the original records,
books of accounts, reports and the like. // It would not be proper to
allow the accountants’ estimates as recoverable damages. The
pertinent records of the company should have been produced in
court. The rule is that auditors summary should not conclude his
inclusions or references. His opinion is NOT EVIDENCE.

Effect of calling for a document, Rule 130, section 8

- Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who
calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence.

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

now be allowed to dispute the same. If the contract is plain and

unequivocal in its terms he is ordinarily bound thereby. It is the
duty of every contracting party to learn and know its contents
before he signs and delivers it. There is nothing in the document
of repurchase to show that Paciente Cordero had signed the
same merely to indicate that he had no objection to petitioner's
right of repurchase. Besides, he would have had no personality to
object. To uphold his oral testimony on that point, would be a
departure from the parol evidence rule 5 and would defeat the
purpose for which the doctrine is intended. The purpose of the
rule is to give stability to written agreements, and to remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if
parol evidence was admissible. In sum, although the contending
parties were legally wanting in their respective actuations, the
repurchase by petitioner is supported by the admissions at the
January 25 pre-trial that petitioner has been in possession since the year
1945, the date of the deed of repurchase, and has been paying
I. Parol Evidence Rule - Rule 130, section 9 - Governs what kinds land taxes thereon since then. The imperatives of substantial
of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to justice, and the equitable principle of laches brought about by
determine the specific terms of a contract. The rule also prevents private respondents' inaction and neglect for 24 years, loom in
parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document petitioner's favor.
from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral
Accordingly, from the execution of the repurchase document in
discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a
1945, possession, has been in the hands of petitioner as
different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that
stipulated therein. Land taxes have also been paid for by
"extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The
petitioner yearly from 1947 to 1969 inclusive. However, petitioner
term "parol" derives from parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" had done nothing to formalize her repurchase, by the same
or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court token, neither have the vendees-a-retro done anything to clear
case. their title of the encumbrance therein regarding petitioner's right
to repurchase. No new agreement was entered into by the
1. CONDE vs. CA
parties as stipulated in the deed of pacto de retro, as to any
- Cordero must be held bound by the clear terms of the failure to exercise the right of redemption. Petitioner exerted no
Memorandum of Repurchase that he had signed wherein he effort to procure the signature of Pio after he had recovered from
acknowledged the receipt of P165.00 and assumed the obligation his illness, neither did the Alteras repudiate the deed that their
to maintain the repurchasers in peaceful possession. It was son-in-law had signed. An implied agency must be held to have
executed in the Visayan dialect which he understood. He cannot been created from their silence or lack of action, or their failure
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

to repudiate the agency. (1) The Alteras must be deemed to have (3) the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would
incurred in laches. (2) Ramon and Catalina Conde, cannot be said vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument.
to be purchasers in good faith. OCT No. 534 in the name of the The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to the terms of a
Alteras specifically contained the condition that it was subject to written instrument. Although parol evidence is admissible to
the right of repurchase within 10 years from 1938. Although the explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
ten-year period had lapsed in 1965 and there was no annotation incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
of any repurchase by petitioner, neither had the title been cleared conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless
of that encumbrance. The purchasers were put on notice that there has been fraud or mistake. No such fraud or mistake exists
some other person could have a right to or interest in the in this case.
property. And they also admitted by them at the pre-trial, that
the right to repurchase and possession had been with petitioner (4) The court disagrees on the argument that their parol evidence
since 1945 is admissible under the exceptions provided by the Rules,
specifically, the alleged failure of the agreement to express the
2. ORTANEZ vs CA true intent of the parties. Such exception obtains only in the
following instance: (a) where the written contract is so
(1) Private respondents’ oral testimony on the alleged conditions, ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of
coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject
as written or documentary evidence. Spoken words could be matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each
notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them
uniform language. Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of when they entered into the contract may be received to enable
Rule 130 10 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument. In
agreement were reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any ambiguity,
to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the
terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. terms thereof.
Considering that the written deeds of sale were the only
repository of the truth, whatever is not found in said instruments (5) Record shows that private respondents did not expressly
must have been waived and abandoned by the parties. plead that the deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not
reflect the intention of the buyer and the seller. Such issue must
(2) private respondents rely on the rule that a condition be "squarely presented. Private respondents merely alleged that
precedent to a contract may be established by parol evidence. the sale was subject to conditions which they tried to prove
However, the material facts of this are different. Here, the deeds during trial by parol evidence. Obviously, this cannot be done,
of sale made no reference to any pre-conditions or other because they did not plead any of the exceptions mentioned in
agreement. In fact, the sale is denominated as absolute in its own the parol evidence rule. Their case is covered by the general rule
terms. that the contents of the writing are the only repository of the
terms of the agreement.

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

(6) Assuming that the parol evidence is admissible, it should agreement was the inducing and moving cause of the written
nonetheless be disbelieved as no other evidence appears from contract, it may be shown by parol evidence. However, fraud
the record to sustain the existence of the alleged conditions. Not must be established by clear and convincing evidence, mere
even the other seller, Asuncion Inocentes, was presented to preponderance of evidence, not even being adequate.
testify on such conditions. Petitioner's attempt to prove fraud failed as it was evidenced
only by his own uncorroborated and, expectedly, self-serving
testimony.
3. INCIONG vs CA
- There is no merit in petitioner's assertion that since the
4. LUCIO CRUZ vs CA
promissory note is not a public deed with the formalities
prescribed by law but a mere commercial paper which does not - A distinction should be made between a statement of fact
bear the signature of the attesting witnesses, parol evidence expressed in the instrument and the terms of the contractual
may "overcome" the contents of the promissory note. When the act. The former may be varied by parol evidence but not the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is latter. Section 9 of Rule 130 clearly refers to the terms of an
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon, and there agreement and provides that "there can be, between the parties
can be no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the
written agreement between the parties and their successors in agreement other than the contents of the writing. The statement
interest. Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written in the petitioner's receipt of the P28,000.00 is just a statement of
agreement be a public document. fact. It is a mere acknowledgment of the distinct act of payment
made by the private respondent. Its reference to the amount of
What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is
P28,000.00 as consideration of the "pakyaw" contract does not
in fact founded on "long experience that written evidence is so
make it part of the terms of their agreement. Parol evidence may
much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting
therefore be introduced to explain such, with respect to the
memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties have
petitioner's receipt of the amount of P28,000.00 and of the date
expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker
when the said amount was received.
evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the
parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the Even if it were assumed that said receipts are covered by the
writing signed by them. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to parol evidence rule, its application by the Court of Appeals was
apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or improper. The record shows that no objection was made by the
be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, notes and other private respondent when the petitioner introduced evidence to
instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or explain the circumstances behind the execution and issuance of
contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence. By alleging fraud in the said instruments. The rule is that objections to evidence must
his answer, petitioner was actually in the right direction towards be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably
proving that he and his co-makers agreed to a loan of P5,000.00 apparent. 6 In the case of testimonial evidence, the objection
only considering that, where a parol contemporaneous must be made when the objectionable question is asked or after
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

the answer is given if the objectionable features become instrument in question and does not base a claim on the
apparent only by reason of such answer. For failure of the private instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the
respondent to object to the evidence introduced by the relation established thereby. As between parties to a written
petitioner, he is deemed to have waived the benefit of the parol agreement, or their privies, parol evidence cannot be received to
evidence rule. It has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of contradict or vary its terms. Strangers to a contract are, of
evidence that a protest or objection against the admission of any course, not bound by it, and the rule excluding extrinsic evidence
evidence must be made at the proper time, and that if not so in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases; and it
made it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time is relaxed where either one of the parties between whom the
to make a protest or objection is when, from the question question arises is a stranger to the written agreement, and does
addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from not claim under or through one who is party to it. In such case
the presentation of proof, the inadmissibility of evidence is, or the rule is binding upon neither. The petitioner's reliance on the
may be inferred. Salonga shall therefore, pay Cruz the sum of parol evidence rule is misplaced. The rule is not applicable where
P3,084.00 instead of P3,054.00, plus costs. the controversy is between one of the parties to the document
and third persons. The deed of sale was executed by Leoncia
Lasangue in favor of Victoria Lechugas. The dispute over what
5. LECHUGAS vs CA was actually sold is between petitioner and the private
respondents. In the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia
-In her first assignment of error, the petitioner contends that the Lasangue, it was shown that what she really intended to sell and
respondent Court had no legal justification when it subjected the to be the subject of Exhibit A was Lot No. 5522 but not being able
true intent and agreement to parol evidence over the objection to read and write and fully relying on the good faith of her first
of petitioner and that to impugn a written agreement, the cousin, the petitioner, she just placed her thumbmark on a piece
evidence must be conclusive. Petitioner maintains, moreover, of paper which petitioner told her was the document evidencing
that the respondent Court relied so much on the testimony of the sale of land. there can be no other conclusion but that
the vendor who did not even file a case for the reformation of Lasangue did not intend to sell as she could not have sold, a piece
the deed of sale. The contentions are without merit. The of land already sold by her father to the predecessor-in-interest
appellate court acted correctly in upholding the trial court's of the respondents.
action in admitting the testimony of Leoncia. The Victoria claims
that Leoncia was the vendor of the disputed land. She denies that 6. REMOLANTE vs TIBE
Leoncia sold the lot referred to, to her. She alleges that this lot
- Petitioner cannot invoke the parol evidence rule (which
was sold to her by one Leonora Lasangue, who, however, was
petitioner erroneously referred to as the "best evidence rule") to
never presented as witness in any of the proceedings below by
argue that the affidavits of transfer (Exhibits I-3, K and M)
herein petitioner. However, as explained by a leading
constitute conclusive evidence that petitioner is the absolute
commentator on our Rules of Court, the parol evidence rule
owner of the three parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration
does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party
Nos. 20323, 20324 and 20325 and that the fact that Silvino
to the litigation against the other, where at least one of the
Alminario testified that he did not sell said parcels of land to
parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

petitioner will not vary the terms of said affidavits. As stated in collateral agreement which constituted an inducement to the
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court: Sec. 7. Evidence of making of the sale, or part of the consideration therefor. There is
written agreements.— When the terms of an agreement have no rule of evidence of wider application than that which declares
been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all extrinsic evidence inadmissible either to contradict or vary the
such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties terms of a written contract. The execution of a contract in writing
and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the is deemed to supersede all oral negotiations or stipulations
agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the concerning its terms and the subject-matter which preceded the
following cases: (a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the execution of the instrument, in the absence of accident, fraud or
writing, of its failure to express the true intent and agreement of mistake of fact. But it is recognized that this rule is to be taken
the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue of the with proper qualifications; and all the authorities are agreed that
pleadings; (b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. proof is admissible of any collateral, parol agreement that is not
The term "agreement" includes wills. (Italics supplied.). inconsistent with the terms of the written contract, though it
may relate to the same subject-matter. As expressed in a
In the case at bar, the parol evidence rule finds no application standard legal encyclopedia, the doctrine here referred to is as
because, precisely, the validity of the affidavits of transfer follows: "The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a
(Exhibits I-3, K and M) is the very fact in dispute, the action writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of
instituted in the court below being one for the annulment of the extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral
documents of transfer. To adopt petitioner’s theory would parol agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be
render nugatory the remedy founded on the basic rule in the law received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement
on contracts that "a contract where consent is given through contains any reference to such collateral agreement, and
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is whether the action is at law or in equity." It has accordingly been
voidable" (Art. 1330, Civil Code). held that, in case of a written contract of lease, the lessee may
prove an independent verbal agreement on the part of the
landlord to put the leased premises in a safe condition; and a
7. ROBLES vs LIZARRAGA HERMANOS vendor of realty may show by parol evidence that crops growing
on the land were reserved, though no such reservation was made
-The Supreme Court ruled that, it is insisted that the written in the deed of conveyance. In the case before us the deed of
contract must be taken as expressing all of the pacts, agreements conveyance purports to transfer to the defendant only such
and stipulations entered into between the parties with respect to interests in certain properties as had come to the conveyors by
the acquisition of the hacienda. In this connection stress is placed inheritance. Nothing is said concerning the rights in the hacienda
upon the fact that there is no allegation in the complaint that the which the plaintiff had acquired by lease or concerning the things
written contract fails to express the agreement of the parties. that he had placed thereon by way of improvement or had
This criticism is not well directed. The case is not one for the acquired by purchase. The verbal contract which the plaintiff has
reformation of a document on the ground of mistake or fraud in established in this case is therefore clearly independent of the
its execution, as is permitted under section 285 of the Code of main contract of conveyance, and evidence of such verbal
Civil Procedure. The purpose is to enforce an independent or contract is admissible under the doctrine above stated. The rule
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral agreement is not and intention of the parties. The fact that interpretation or
admissible to vary a written contract appears to have more construction of a contract presents a question of law and that
particular reference to the obligation expressed in the written therefore the mistake was one of law is not a bar to granting
agreement, and the rule had never been interpreted as being relief. Also, it is settled that relief by way of reformation will not
applicable to matters of consideration or inducement. In the case be granted, unless the proof of mutual mistake be of the clearest
before us the written contract is complete in itself; the oral and most satisfactory character. The case we are considering is
agreement is also complete in itself, and it is a collateral to the much stronger than any of the foregoing. It is not a question of
written contract, notwithstanding the fact that it deals with mutual mistake, but of a clearly established promise on the part
related matters. of the defendant to give a counter contract expressing the
plaintiffs’ right to redeem, and that this promise was part of the
consideration, inducing the plaintiffs to execute Exhibit 4, which
is an absolute sale of the property to defendant. The defendant
8. YACAPIN vs NERI
was guilty of a fraud in procuring the absolute deed to the
-Parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms property, and he should be compelled to perform the full terms
of a written contract. A reservation of exception cannot be of his contract. The time within which plaintiffs could redeem the
introduced into a written conveyance of real estate by parol property was not fixed. In the absence of such agreement the
evidence. In Lain v. McKee (13 Mich., 124; 87 Am. Dec., 738), trial court should have fixed the time in accordance with article
Justice Cooley said:j "It is objected on the part of defendant that 1128 of the Civil Code. All such subsequent orders and decrees of
the agreement of his part was a parol contract in relation to the trial court are set aside and annulled, and the original
lands, and therefore void under the statute of frauds, and that decision is modified, and the defendant herein is ordered to
there has been no such part performance of it as will entitle immediately execute an agreement setting out plaintiff’s right to
complainant to have it specifically performed. We do not think redeem the property with all its improvements at any time within
this case is to be put on the ground of specific performance twelve months from the date of this judgment, and upon the
solely. The facts charged an established show that complainant, previous payment to defendant of the sum of nineteen thousand
relying upon the promise of defendant to assign, neglected to pesos.
exercise his legal right to redeem, and defendant was thereby
enabled to obtain a deed of the lands. It sufficiently appears that
complainant would have made the redemption but for the 9. DE LA RAMA vs LEDESMA
assurances thus made to him, and a fraud has thus been
perpetrated upon him, against which he is entitled to relief. It is a -There is merit in appellee's contention that the alleged oral
matter of no moment whether the fraud was perpetrated by reservation and the sale of the shares of stock were made
means of a promise upon which he relied, and which the simultaneously and contemporaneously, so that to allow De la
defendant did not intend to keep, or by untrue statements as to Rama to prove the same would run counter to the Parol Evidence
existing facts.” It is well settled that courts of equity will reform a Rule. It is a well accepted principle of law that evidence of a prior
written contract, where owing to mutual mistake, the language or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
used therein did not fully or accurately express the agreement admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

instrument. While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of did not reflect the intention of the donor and the donee. The
ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve plaintiffs merely alleged that the donation was subject to five
the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional conditions. Then, they prayed that the donation should be
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in annulled or rescinded for noncompliance with those conditions.
the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. Indeed, the At the trial they tried to prove those conditions by parol
exceptions to the rule do not apply in the instant case, there evidence. Obviously, they could not introduce parol evidence to
being no intrinsic ambiguity or fraud, mistake, or failure to vary the terms of the agreement because they did not plead any
express the true agreement of the parties. If indeed the alleged of the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. Their
reservation had been intended, businessmen like the parties case is covered by the general rule that the contents of the
would have placed in writing such an important reservation. The writing constitute the sole repository of the terms of the
court ruled, “The alleged reservation not being admissible under agreement between the parties. Where there is no allegation in
the Parol Evidence Rule, WE do not find it necessary to discuss the complaint that there was any mistake or imperfection in the
the applicability or non-applicability to the present case of the written agreement or that it failed to express the true intent of
Statute of Frauds. For the same reason We see no reason for the parties, parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of
resolving whether the war damage award in favor of the the agreement. On the other hand, if the defendant set up the
corporation should be regarded as capital stock or profit. affirmative defense that the contract mentioned in the complaint
Whether the award be part of one or the other the fact is that does not express the true agreement of the parties, then parol
appellant is not entitled to share in the same, having already evidence is admissible to prove the true agreement of the
disposed of his equity in favor of the appellee.” parties. Costs against the private respondents.

Electronic Evidence - see Rules of Court codal, pp. 776

10. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs. CFI
- Any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that
-Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides: SEC. 9. Evidence a party to a court case may use at trial.
of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all
such terms and. therefore, there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms The
agreement other than the contents of the writing, except in the
following case: (a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the
writing, or it failure to express The true intent and agreement of
the parties, or the of the agreement is put in issue by the
pleadings; (b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing,
the term 'agreement' includes wills. In the instant case, the
plaintiffs did not expressly plead that the deed of donation was
incomplete or that its execution was vitiated by mistake or that it
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

 Carandag v Cabatuando, G.R. No. L-25384, October 26,

1973, 53 SCRA 383 

 Addenbrook v People, G.R. L-22995, June 29, 1967, 20

SCRA 494
February 8
b. Disqualifications
I. Testimonial Evidence
i. Mental incapacity and immaturity - Rule 130, section 21
- Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind
 Rule on Examination of Child Witness, SC A.M. No.
that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite
for its admissibility. It consists of what is said in the court at the proceeding
00-4-07-SC. November 21, 2000.
in question by a competent witness.  People v Esponola, G.R. No. 119308, April 18, 1997,
272 SCRA 689
In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:
 People v Hayag, G.R. L-38635, November 17, 1980,
1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. 101 SCRA 67
2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his
 People v Sueta, G.R. 94549, August 9, 1993, 225 SCRA
testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived
something with his senses that is relevant to the case.
219 

3. He must remember what he perceived.  People v Pedrosa, G.R. 56457, January 27, 1989, 169
SCRA 545
4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived.
 People v Mendoza, G.r. No. 113791, February 22, 1996,
There are other rules of competence that relate to special circumstances,
254 SCRA 18
such as the rule that a juror is generally incompetent to impeach his own
verdict or that, at least in federal court, a judge is not competent to testify
in a trial over which he is presiding, but these and other rules like them c. Marital disqualification - Rule 130, section 22
rarely come up in practice. (differentiate from relative incompetencies)

a. Qualification and Competency - Rule 130 Section 20  US v Concepcion, G.R. 10396, July 29, 1915, 31 Phil. 182
 Lezama v Rodriguez, G.R. L-25643, June 27, 1968,  23
 Icutanim v Hernandez and Vinson, G.R. No. L-1709, June 8, SCRA 1166
1948, 81 Phil. 161
PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla
 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

 People v Castaneda, G.R. L-46306, February 27, 1979, 88  Neri v Senate, G.R. No. 180643. March 25, 2008, 549
SCRA 562 SCRA 77

d. Relative Incompetencies - Rule 130, section 23  Banco Filipino v Monetary Board, G.R. L-70054, July 8,
1986, 142 SCRA 523
 i. Dead man’s statute - provides that if one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other  People v Capulong, G.R. L-65674, April 15, 1988, 160
mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue SCRA 533
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account
of the transaction  Rep. Act Nos. 53 and 1477

 Guerrero v St. Claires Realty, G.R. L-58164, Sept 2,

1983, 124 SCRA 553
 Goni v Court of Appeals, G.R. L-27434, Sept 23, 1986,  Article 215 Civil Code
144 SCRA 222
Art. 215. Each spouse shall proportionately bear the family
 Razon v IAC, G.R. 74306, March 16, 1992, 207 SCRA expenses.
234
 Articles 229 and 230, Revised Penal Code
e. Privilege Communications - Rule 130, section 24
Revelation of Secrets
 U.S. v Antipolo, G.R. 13109, March 6, 1918, 37 Phil. 726
ARTICLE 229. Revelation of Secrets by an Officer. — Any public
 Krohn v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, June 14, 1994,
officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his
233 SCRA 146 official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and which should not be
 Regala v Sandiganbayan, G.R. 105938, Sept 20, 1996, 262 published, shall suffer the penalties of prisión correccional in its
SCRA 124 medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification
and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such
 People v Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious
1997, 275 SCRA 505 damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prisión
correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
 Lim v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, Sept. 25, 1992, disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
214 SCRA 273 imposed.

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla

 EVIDENCE | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

ARTICLE 230. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private

Individual. — Any public officer to whom the secrets of any
private individual shall become known by reason of his office
who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

PI Notes by: Luriza Q. Samayla