EVIDENCE | Atty.

Jelyne Guadalupe

or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in

STUDY GUIDE NO. 2 imminent or actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of
self-defense is negated by the physical
Rule 130 Rules of Admission evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets
that penetrated the victim’s body. Indeed,
1. Object (Real) Evidence physical evidence is a mute but eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks higher in our
Section 1. Objects as evidence are those hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal
addressed to the senses of the court. When as cases such as murder/homicide or rape, in
object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be which the accused stand to lose their liberty if
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions,
relied principally upon physical evidence in
1. PO1 Ocampo v. People G.R. No. 194129, ascertaining the truth. Where the physical
June 15, 2015 evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the
FACTS: physical evidence must be upheld. Ineluctably,
PO1 Ocampo was charged with the crime of the victim in this case cannot be considered as
homicide. The accused pleaded not guilty to the the aggressor. For one, an eyewitness attested
crime charged. For his part, accused-appellant that accused-appellant shot the victim without
admitted to having shot the victim to death, but any provocation. Also, as correctly noted by the
claimed to have done so in self-defense. In trial court, there was failure to impute ill motive
support of this claim, defense witness Marita on the part of the eyewitness who had implicated
averred that the shooting incident was accused-appellant in the fatal shooting of the
precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife victim. Jurisprudence holds that when there is no
attack upon accused-appellant. The latter was evidence to show any improper motive on the
allegedly left with no other recourse but to use part of the witness to testify falsely against the
his service firearm to neutralize the aggressor. In accused or to pervert the truth, the logical
support of this claim, defense witness Marita conclusion is that no such motive exists, and
averred that the shooting incident was that the former’s testimony is worthy of full faith
precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife and credit.
attack upon accused-appellant. The latter was
allegedly left with no other recourse but to use
his service firearm to neutralize the aggressor. 2. In the hierarchy of evidence as held in
Ocampo v People, physical evidence ranks
The RTC convicted the accused which the CA higher. The Court has relied principally upon
affirmed. Hence, this petition. physical evidence in ascertaining the truth in
criminal cases. The primacy of the physical
ISSUE: Was the prosecution able to prove the evidence must be upheld where the physical
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonies of witnesses.
RULING:
Yes. The prosecution was able to prove 3. People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2003

Settled is the rule that for self-defense to FACTS: Rullepa was charged with Rape before
prosper, the following requisites must be met: the RTC. From the testimonies of its witnesses,
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; namely Cyra May, her mother Gloria Francisco
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and SPO4
to prevent or repel the attack; and Catherine Borda, the prosecution established
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the following facts:
the person engaged in self-defense.
On November 20, 1995, as Gloria was about to
In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by set the table for dinner at her house in Quezon
clear and convincing evidence the first element City, Cyra May, then only three and a half years
of self-defense. There was no showing of attack old, told her, “Mama, si Kuya Ronnie lagay niya

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 1

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

titi niya at sinaksak sa puwit at sa bibig consent to intercourse), is usually regarded as

ko.” Gloria asked Cyra May how many times relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly
accused-appellant did those things to her, to observe the person brought before it.
which she answered many times. Pursuing, Experience teaches that corporal appearances
Gloria asked Cyra May what else he did to her, are approximately an index of the age of their
and Cyra May indicated the room where bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of
accused-appellant slept and pointed at his old age and youth. In every case such evidence
pillow. She added that accused-appellant did should be accepted and weighed for what it may
these to her twice in his bedroom. be in each case worth. In particular, the outward
physical appearance of an alleged minor may be
Dr. Preyra examined Cyra May and came up considered in judging his age; a contrary rule
with a report that the abrasions, on the labia would for such an inference be pedantically
minora could have been caused by friction with over-cautious. Consequently, the jury or the
an object, perhaps an erect penis. court trying an issue of fact may be allowed to
judge the age of persons in court by observation
The RTC found Rullepa guilty beyond of such persons. The formal offer of the person
reasonable doubt and was sentenced to death. as evidence is not necessary. The examination
Hence, automatic review. and cross-examination of a party before the jury
are equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury
ISSUE: Can the person’s appearance be and an offer of such person as an exhibit is
admissible as object evidence? properly refused.

RULING: There can be no question, therefore, as to the

Yes. A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissibility of a person’s appearance in
admissible as object evidence, the same being determining his or her age. As to the weight to
addressed to the senses of the court. Section 1, accord such appearance, especially in rape
Rule 130 provides: SECTION 1. Object as cases, Pruna laid down guideline No. 3, which is
evidence.—Objects as evidence are those again reproduced hereunder: 3. If the certificate
addressed to the senses of the court. When an of live birth or authentic document is shown to
object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible,
“To be sure,” one author writes, “this practice of of the victim’s mother or a member of the family
inspection by the court of objects, things or either by affinity or consanguinity who is
persons relevant to the fact in dispute, has its qualified to testify on matters respecting
roots in ancient judicial procedure.” The author pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
proceeds to quote from another authority: of the offended party pursuant to Section 40,
“Nothing is older or commoner in the Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be
administration of law in all countries than the sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If
submission to the senses of the tribunal itself, the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age
whether judge or jury, of objects which furnish and what is sought to be proved is that she is
evidence. The view of the land by the jury, in less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to
real actions, of a wound by the judge where be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
mayhem was alleged, and of the person of one be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c.
alleged to be an infant, in order to fix his age, the If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of
inspection and comparison of seals, the age and what is sought to be proved is that she
examination of writings, to determine whether is less than 18 years old. Under the above
they are (‘)blemished,(‘) the implements with guideline, the testimony of a relative with respect
which a crime was committed or of a person to the age of the victim is sufficient to constitute
alleged, in a bastardy proceeding, to be the child proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases (a), (b)
of another, are few illustrations of what may be and (c) above. In such cases, the disparity
found abundantly in our own legal records and between the allegation and the proof of age is so
textbooks for seven centuries past.” great that the court can easily determine from
the appearance of the victim the veracity of the
A person’s appearance, as evidence of age (for testimony. The appearance corroborates the
example, of infancy, or of being under the age of relative’s testimony.

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 2

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165

4. Yes, a person’s appearance is admissible as and its implementing rules. We observe that
object evidence, provided it is relevant, the same while there was testimony with respect to the
being addressed to the senses of the court. marking of the seized items at the police station,
no mention whatsoever was made on whether
5. People v. Royol, GR No. 224297 February the marking had been done in the presence of
13, 2019. Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise
no mention that any representative from the
FACTS: During a buy-bust operation, Royol was media and the Department of Justice, or any
caught for having allegedly sold marijuana. elected official had been present during this
Royol was brought to the police station where inventory, or that any of these people had been
the brick of marijuana was supposedly marked. required to sign the copies of the inventory.
He was charged wih illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5 of the Comprehensive 6. No. Although object evidence is considered as
Dangerous Drugs Act. The RTC convicted him the best and highest proof, there are certain
to which the CA affirmed. limitations and constraints that an object
evidence may not be allowed to be presented in
ISSUE: (1) Is it required to have absolute court.
certainty in order to establish proof beyond
reasonable doubt? 7. a. People vs Taguba 342 SCRA 199
(2) Will the mere marking of seized items, October 6, 2000
instead of a proper physical inventory and
photographing done in the presence of the FACTS: Taguba and Tolibas were convicted for
persons specified under Section 21 of RA 9165 illegal possession of firearms and the crime of
justify a conviction? homicide with the use of unlicensed firearm.
Appellant claims that his conviction cannot stand
RULING: since the firearm allegedly confiscated from him
(1) No. While not requiring absolute certainty, was never presented during trial.
proof beyond reasonable doubt demands moral
certainty. Compliance with this standard is a ISSUE: Is the existence of the firearm be
matter of compliance with a constitutional established by testimony, even without the
imperative: This rule places upon the presentation of the said firearm?
prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of
an accused, relying on the strength of its own RULING: In cases involving illegal possession of
evidence, and not banking on the weakness of firearms, the prosecution has the burden of
the defense of an accused. Requiring proof proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the
beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact
the due process clause of the Constitution, but that the accused who owned or possessed it
similarly, in the right of an accused to be does not have the corresponding license or
“presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” permit to possess the same. As to the first
“Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption requisite, the existence of the subject firearm
of innocence that lays such burden upon the can be best established by the presentation of
prosecution.” Should the prosecution fail to the firearm owned or possessed by the accused.
discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of However, there is no requirement that the actual
course, that an accused must be acquitted. firearm itself must be presented in court. In
People v. Orehuela, the Court held that the
(2) No, the mere marking of seized items, existence of the firearm can be established by
instead of a proper physical inventory and testimony, even without the presentation of the
photographing done in the presence of the said firearm. Thus, the non-presentation of the
persons specified under Section 21, will not subject firearm is not fatal to the prosecution of
justify a conviction: Thus, other than the an illegal possession case.
markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police
investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), b. People v Taan 506 SCRA 219 October 30,
no physical inventory was ever made, and no 2006
photograph of the seized items was taken under

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 3

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

FACTS: Accused-appellant Eduardo Gimenez before the Sandiganbayan. During

Taan was found guilty of murder aggravated by trial, the Republic presented documentary
the use of an unlicensed firearm and sentenced evidence attesting to the positions held,
to death. Sometime in July 1999, Ochinang, a business interests, income, and pertinent
barangay kagawad and relative of the victm was transactions of the Gimenez Spouses. The
at Domaaoal’s house having a drinking spree Republic presented the testimonies of Atty.
with Mariano and several persons, including Tereso Javier, Head of the Sequestered Assets
Taan. Department of PCGG, and of Danilo R.V. Daniel,
Director of the Research and Development
Subsequently, Taan invited the group to Department of PCGG. Witnesses testified on the
continue their drinking session at his house. bank accounts and businesses owned or
Ochichang, Marquez, Tacadena, and Ruar controlled by the Gimenez Spouses. The
accepted the invitation. On their way to Taan’s Republic then manifested that it was no longer
house, they met Ladaga. They took him and presenting further evidence. The Sandiganbayan
forced him to confess to the crime of stealing. then granted their motion to extend period within
They tied his hands and legs and killed him by which to file its formal offer of evidence.
poking a gun in his mouth. Ochinang saw Taan
bury Ladaga in the canal and reported the In the first assailed Resolution, the
matter to the CIDG. The PNP also presented, Sandiganbayan noted that the Republic failed to
stating that Taan is not a licensed firearm holder. file its Formal Offer of Evidence despite
On the other hand, Taan, interposed a denial repeated extensions. Thus, it declared that the
alleging that Ochinang falsely accused him Republic waived the filing of its Formal Offer of
because he had previously imputed against the Evidence.
latter the stealing of 3 of his uncle’s goats and
refused to help Ochinang in his bid for the Ignacio Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on
position of barangay kagawad. Demurrer to Evidence. He argued that the
Republic showed no right to relief as there was
RTC found him guilty of murder to which the CA no evidence to support its cause of action. Fe
affirmed. Roa Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of failure to prosecute. Through her own
ISSUE: Is the non-presentation of firearm fatal to Motion to Dismiss, she joined Ignacio Gimenez’s
the case? demurrer to evidence.

RULING: No. With respect to the non- On June 15, 2006, the Republic filed a Motion
presentation of the subject firearm, such is not for Reconsideration [of the first assailed
fatal to the prosecution of an illegal possession Resolution] and to Admit Attached Formal Offer
case as long as the existence thereof can be of Evidence. The pertinent portions of the
established by testimony. In this case, Ochinang Republic’s offer of documentary exhibits
testified that he saw Taan in possession of a attached to the Motion.
“.38 caliber revolver” which the latter used to
shoot Ladaga. Significantly, this was In the second assailed Resolution dated
corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Rebugio, September 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan denied
who conducted the post-mortem examination on the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration and
Ladaga. He reported that Ladaga sustained a granted the Gimenez Spouses’ Motion to
gunshot wound the entry of which is a hole 1.3 Dismiss. According to the Sandiganbayan, while
cm. in diameter located in the mid-posterior it is true that litigation is not a game of
aspect of the hard palate while the exit thereof is technicalities and that the higher ends of
another hole 1.3 cm. in diameter in the upper substantial justice militate against dismissal of
third of the occipital area. cases purely on technical grounds, the
circumstances of this case show that the ends of
8. Republic v. Gimenez, et. Al., G.R. No. justice will not be served if this Court allows the
174673, January 11, 2016 wanton disregard of the Rules of Court and of
the Court’s orders. Rules of procedure are
FACTS: The Republic, through the PCGG, designed for the proper and prompt disposition
instituted a complaint against the Spouses of cases.

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 4

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

under the control of adverse party, he must have

The court also noted that the documentary reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
evidence presented by the Republic consisted notice and after satisfactory proof of its
mostly of certified true copies. However, the existence, he fails to produce the document,
persons who certified the documents as copies secondary evidence may be presented as in the
of the original were not presented. Hence, the case of its loss. (5a) SEC. 7. Evidence
evidence lacked probative value. admissible when original document is a public
record.—When the original of a document is in
ISSUE: Is it necessary to present the original the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
document when the subject of the inquiry is the public office, its contents may be proved by a
contents of the document? certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof.
RULING: Yes. The evidence presented by
petitioner before the Sandiganbayan deserves 9. As provided in Section 35 of Rule 132 of the
better treatment. For instance, the nature and Rules of Court, the offer of documentary and
classification of the documents should have object evidence shall be made after the
been ruled upon. Save for certain cases, the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
original document must be presented during trial
when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of Section 2. Documents as evidence consist of
the document. This is the Best Evidence Rule writings, recordings, photographs or any
provided under Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules material containing letters, words, sounds,
of Court: SEC. 3. Original document must be numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent,
produced; exceptions.—When the subject of or other modes of written expression offered as
inquiry is the contents of a document, no proof of their contents. Photographs include still
evidence shall be admissible other than the pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films,
original document itself, except in the following motion pictures or videos.
cases: (a) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, 10. Section 2 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) expanded the definition of documentary
When the original is in the custody or under the evidence which now includes “recordings and
control of the party against whom the evidence photographs,” as well as “sounds,” or their
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after “equivalent.”
reasonable notice; (c) When the original consists
of numerous accounts or other documents which 11. a. Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83,
cannot be examined in court without great loss 16 November 1995;
of time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; FACTS: A rally was held by Marcos loyalists at
and (d) When the original is a public record in Luneta. Since they have no permit, they were
the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a dispersed. Later in the afternoon, a small group
public office. of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden,
Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie
In case of unavailability of the original document, Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of
secondary evidence may be presented as President Marcos, jogging around the fountain.
provided for under Sections 5 to 7 of the same Ferrer angrily ordered the loyalists “Gulpihin
Rule: SEC. 5. When original document is ninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she
unavailable.—When the original document has continued jogging around the fountain chanting
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga
existence and the cause of its unavailability nakadilaw". As a result, Salcedo (who was only
without bad faith on his part, may prove its attacked because he was wearing a yellow shirt
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents DILAWAN!!!!!!) died due to the mauling given to
in some authentic document, or by the testimony him by the loyalists.
of witnesses in the order stated. SEC. 6. When
original document is in adverse party’s custody Thus, several informations were filed in court
or control.—If the document is in the custody or against eleven persons identified as Marcos

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 5

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

loyalists charging them with the murder competent witness who can testify to its
of Salcedo. exactness and accuracy.

The cases were consolidated and raffled to the This court notes that when the prosecution
RTC Manila. All of the accused pleaded not offered the photographs as part of its evidence,
guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo Lazaro,
The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, Jr. objected to their admissibility for lack of
including two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang proper identification. However, when the
and Renato Banculo, and the police officers who accused presented their evidence, Atty. Winlove
were at the Luneta at the time of the incident. In Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo
support of their testimonies, the prosecution and Gerry Neri used the photographs to prove
likewise presented documentary evidence that his clients were not in any of the pictures
consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and therefore could not have participated in the
and various photographs taken during the mauling of the victim.
mauling.
The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility
The RTC rendered a decision finding Romeo of the photographs is anchored on the fact that
Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los the person who took the same was not
Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals presented to identify them. We rule that the use
in the crime of murder qualified by treachery. of these photographs by some of the accused to
show their alleged non-participation in the crime
On appeal, the CA modified the decision of the is an admission of the exactness and accuracy
RTC by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing thereof. That the photographs are faithful
the penalty of the rest of the accused, except for representations of the mauling incident was
Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The CA affirmed when appellants Richard de los Santos,
found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves
superior strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo therein and gave reasons for their presence
of homicide because the information against him thereat.
did not allege the said qualifying circumstance.
An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the
Hence, this petition. accused's testimonies reveal that only three of
the appellants, namely, Richard de los Santos,
ISSUE: Did the CA err in admitting the Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily seen
photographs which were not properly identified? in various belligerent poses lunging or hovering
behind or over the victim. Appellant Romeo
RULING: No. The rule in this jurisdiction is that Sison appears only once and he, although
photographs, when presented in evidence, must afflicted with hernia is shown merely running
be identified by the photographer as to its after the victim.
production and testified as to the circumstances
under which they were produced. The value of Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in
this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct any of the pictures. The absence of the two
representation or reproduction of the original, appellants in the photographs does not
and its admissibility is determined by its exculpate them. The photographs did not
accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of capture the entire sequence of the killing of
the crime. The photographer, however, is not the Salcedo but only segments thereof. While the
only witness who can identify the pictures he has pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting
taken. The correctness of the photograph as a Salcedo, they were unequivocally identified by
faithful representation of the object portrayed Sumilang
can be proved prima facie, either by the and Banculo.
testimony of the person who made it or by other
competent witnesses, after which the court can b. College Assurance Plan v. Belfrant
admit it subject to impeachment as to its Development, G.R. No. 155604, 22
accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be November2007;
identified by the photographer or by any other

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 6

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

FACTS: Belfrant Development is the

owner of Belfrant Building. It leased to FACTS: The RTC charged Angelo Zeta and his
petitioners College Assurance Plan Philippines wife Petronilla for the murder of Ramon. It
or CAPP the second and third floors. On happened when Aleine invited appellant and
October 8, 1994, fire destroyed portions of the Petronilla inside the house but the two replied
building including the third floor. It was found out that they would just wait for Ramon outside.
that the origin of the fire was in the store room Aleine proceeded to the second floor of the
occupied by CAP and the cause of it is house and knocked at the door of Ramon’s
accidental which is the overheated coffee room. Ramon woke up. Subsequently, Aleine
percolator. went downstairs and proceeded to the dining
table. While Ramon was walking down the
The RTC found the appellants negligent which stairs, appellant suddenly entered the house and
was affirmed by the CA. Appellants impugn the shot Ramon several times on different parts of
findings and argued that the testimony of the body with a caliber .45 Llama pistol. Upon
Fireman Sitchon are flawed. seeing appellant shooting Ramon, Aleine hid
inside the restroom. When the gunshots ceased,
ISSUE: May the expert testimony be dispensed Aleine went out of the restroom and saw Ramon
with to sustain an allegation of negligence? sprawled and bloodied on the ground floor.

RULING: Yes. Even without the testimony of ISSUE: Is the testimony of a single witness
Fireman Sitchon and the documents he sufficient to support a conviction in the charge of
prepared, the finding of the RTC and CA on the murder?
negligence of petitioners cannot be overturned
by petitioners’ bare denial. The CA correctly RULING: Yes. It should be emphasized that the
applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur under testimony of a single witness, if positive and
which expert testimony may be dispensed with credible, as in the case of Aleine, is sufficient to
to sustain an allegation of negligence if the support a conviction even in the charge of
following requisites obtain: a) the accident is of a murder. Appellant’s argument that Aleine’s
kind which does not ordinarily occur unless testimony identifying him as the one who shot
someone is negligent; b) the cause of the injury Ramon is not morally certain because she saw
was under the exclusive control of the person in only the side portion of his face and the color of
charge and c) the injury suffered must not have the shirt he wore during the incident, deserves
been due to any voluntary action or contribution scant consideration. A person can still be
on the part of the person injured. The fire that properly identified and recognized even by
damaged Belfranlt Building was not a merely looking at the side portion of his face. To
spontaneous natural occurrence but the be sure, Aleine recognized and identified
outcome of a human act or omission. It appellant in the police line-up and during trial as
originated in the store room which petitioners the one who shot Ramon. Experience dictates
had possession and control of. Respondent had that precisely because of the unusual acts of
no hand in the incident. Hence, the convergence violence committed right before their eyes,
of these facts and circumstances speaks for witnesses can remember with a high degree of
itself: petitioners alone having knowledge of the reliability the identity of criminals at any given
cause of the fire or the best opportunity to time. A startling or frightful experience creates
ascertain it, and respondent having no means to an indelible impression in the mind that can be
find out for itself, it is sufficient for the latter to recalled vividly. It bears stressing that Aleine
merely allege that the cause of the fire was the was less than one meter away from appellant
negligence of the former and to rely on the when the latter shot Ramon. The crime scene
occurrence of the fire as proof of such was also well-lighted during the incident
negligence. It was all up to petitioners to dispel because there was a fluorescent bulb inside the
such inference of negligence, but their bare house.
denial only left the matter unanswered.
The testimonies of Aleine and of the other
prosecution witnesses are in harmony with the
c. People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 May documentary and object evidence submitted by
2008 the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 7

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

Appeals found their testimonies to be MARTINEZ, G.R. No. 207786, January 30,
credible and trustworthy. The rule is that the 2017
findings of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment FACTS: The parties herein are relatives by
of the probative weight thereof, as well as its affinity. Petitioner Alice Tapayan is the sister of
conclusions anchored on said findings are Clark Martinez's (Clark) wife. Clark is
accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is Respondent's son.
more true if such findings were affirmed by the
appellate court. When the trial court’s findings Respondent is the registered owner of a parcel
have been affirmed by the appellate court, said of land. Based on the records, it appears that
findings are generally binding upon this Court. two (2) mortgages were constituted over this
property - the first in favor of Philippine National
Section 3. Original document must be produced; Bank (PNB Mortgage ), and the second in favor
exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the of Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP
contents of a document, writing, recording, Mortgage).
photograph or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document The records further show that respondent
itself, except in the following cases: agreed to constitute the DBP Mortgage upon
Clark's request, and that, in order to release the
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or Pingol Property from the PNB Mortgage, the
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith Petitioners and Respondent agreed to utilize a
on the part of the offeror; portion of the proceeds of the DBP Loan to settle
the remaining balance of Respondent's PNB
(b) When the original is in the custody or under Loan, then amounting to Sixty-Five Thousand
the control of the party against whom the Three Hundred Twenty Pesos and 55/100
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to (₱65,320.55).
produce it after reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by judicial processes or Subsequently, the parties herein executed a
procedure; Deed of Undertaking in reference to the DBP
Mortgage, however, the DBP Loan was not paid
(c) When the original consists of numerous when it fell due.
accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and Respondent filed a complaint for Specific
the fact sought to be established from them is Performance with Damages (Complaint) against
only the general result of the whole; and Petitioners before the RTC. Respondent averred
that Petitioners used the proceeds of the DBP
(d) When the original is a public record in the Loan exclusively for their own purposes, and
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a that since Petitioners failed to pay the DBP
public office. Loan, she and her children were constrained to
pay DBP the sum of One Million One Hundred
(e) When the original is not closely- related to a Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Pesos and
controlling issue. 10/100 (₱1,180,200.10) to save the Pingol
Property from foreclosure. After trial, the RTC
12. The phrase “if the subject of inquiry is the rendered a decision dated September 28, 2009
contents of the document” refers to the original in favor of Respondent. CA rendered the
documents that could prove the allegations. assailed Decision denying the Petitioners'
appeal.
13. Yes. The objection against admission of
secondary copies of document before the Court ISSUE: Is the objection be considered waived
waivable when a party failed to interpose a when it was not raised at the proper time?
timely objection to evidence at the time they
were offered in evidence. RULING: Yes. The best evidence rule requires
that the original document be produced
SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN and whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry,
ALICE TAPAYAN, vs.PONCEDA M. except in certain limited cases laid down in

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 8

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

Section 3 of Rule 130. However, to set readable by sight or other means, shown to
this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection reflect the data accurately is
is necessary. The Court’s ruling in Lorenzana v. an “original.”
Lelina, 800 SCRA 570 (2016), is instructive: The
best evidence rule requires that when the (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by
subject of inquiry is (sic) the contents of a the same impression as
document, no evidence is admissible other than the original, or from the same matrix, or by
the original document itself except in the means of photography, including enlargements
instances mentioned in Section 3, Ru1e 130 of and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic
the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by
photocopies of documents are inadmissible other equivalent techniques which accurately
pursuant to the best evidence rule. reproduce the original.
Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is
deemed admitted and may be validly considered (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent
by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts as an original unless
are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere (1) a genuine question is raised as to the
photocopy of a document when no objection was authenticity of the original, or
raised when it was formally offered. In order to (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or
exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility inequitable to admit the
of evidence must be made at the proper time, duplicate in lieu of the original.
and the grounds specified.
14. The ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
Objection to evidence must be made at the time inapplicable to proof of facts collateral to the
it is formally offered. In case of documentary issues such as the nature, appearance or
evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of condition of physical objects or to evidence
the party making the offer have testified, relating to a matter which does not come from
specifying the purpose for which the evidence is the foundation of the cause of action or defense;
being offered. It is only at this time, and not at or when a party uses a document to prove the
any other, that objection to the documentary existence of an independent fact, as to which the
evidence may be made. And when a party failed writing is merely collated or incidental.
to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the
time they were offered in evidence, such Section 3(a) of Rule 130 enumerates the
objection shall be considered as waived. This is circumstances when the original document rule
true even if by its nature the evidence is does not apply:
inadmissible and would have surely been (1) Loss;
rejected if it had been challenged at the proper (2) Destruction; and
time. Moreover, grounds for objection must be (3) Unavailability without bad faith on the party of
specified in any case. Grounds for objections not the offeror.
raised at the proper time shall be considered
waived, even if the evidence was objected to on 15. Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R.
some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the No. 205879, April 23, 2014
appellate court may not consider any other
ground of objection, except those that were FACTS: The Sylianteng brothers, claims
raised at the proper time. ownership of two parcels of land situated at
Pujalte Subdivision, Greenhills, San Juan City.
Section 4. Original of Document – Their claims are based on the Deed of Absolute
Sale executed in favor of their mother. They
(a) An “original” of a document is the document allege that the said lots were acquired by their
itself or any counterpart mother from Luis Pujalte, the previous owner of
intended to have the same effect by a person the property in dispute, as reflected and
executing or issuing it. An annotated in the TCT which was sold to them.
“original” of a photograph includes the negative
or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a Petitioners, herein, claim that Romeo Pujalte
computer or similar device, any printout or other was declared by the RTC of Pasig City as the
output sole heir of Luis Pujalte, which eventually

KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON 9

EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

caused the reconstitution of the Mother Court provides that “[w]hen a document is in two
Title resulting to its cancellation and the or more copies executed at or about the same
issuance of another TCT in his favor. Romeo time, with identical contents, all such copies are
Pujalte then sold the said properties to herein equally regarded as originals.”
petitioners.
Evidence of the authenticity and due execution
Respondents now contend that they have a of the subject deed is the fact that it was
better right to the lots in question because the notarized. The notarization of a private
transactions conveying the same to them document converts it into a public document.
preceded those claimed by Skunac as source of Moreover, a notarized instrument is admissible
the latter’s titles. Respondents further assert that in evidence without further proof of its due
Skunac could not be considered as innocent execution, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of
purchasers in good faith and for value because its contents, and has in its favor the presumption
they had prior notice of the previous transactions of regularity. This presumption is affirmed if it is
as stated in the memorandum of encumbrances beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.
annotated on the titles covering the subject lots. To assail the authenticity and due execution of a
Skunac, for their part, maintain that the notarized document, the evidence must be clear,
Syliantengs acquired the lots under questionable convincing and more than merely preponderant.
circumstances it appearing that there was no
copy of the Deed of Sale, between Emerenciana
and Luis Pujalte, on file with the Office of the 16. Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. v. Traveler
Register of Deeds. Kids, Inc., G.R. No. 200065, Sept. 14, 2014

FACTS: Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd., (CSFL) and

ISSUE: Is the best evidence rule applicable in Traveller Kids, Inc. (TKI) entered into an
this case? agreement, wherein they agreed that TKI would
import the shoes and sandals made by CSFL
RULING: No. The best evidence rule is from its China factory. After TKI placed
inapplicable to the present case. The said rule numerous purchase orders, CSFL began
applies only when the content of such document manufacturing the goods pursuant to the special
is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is designs and specifications of TKI. CSFL then
only as to whether such document was actually shipped the goods to TKI.
executed, or exists, or on the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best It was their arrangement that TKI would pay
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial thirty (30%) percent of the purchase price of the
evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary goods by way of letters of credit, and the
evidence is likewise admissible without need to balance of seventy (70%) percent by way of
account for the original. In the instant case, what telegraphic transfer, thirty (30) days from the
is being questioned is the authenticity and due date of delivery of the goods.
execution of the subject deed of sale. There is
no real issue as to its contents. For the first three years, TKI was able to pay its
purchase orders and the shipments made by
In any case, going to the matter of authenticity CSFL. In 2004, however, TKI started to default
and due execution of the assailed document, in its payments. Both verbal and written demand
petitioners do not dispute that the copy of the letters were made by CSFL to TKI for the
deed of sale that respondents submitted as part payment of its unpaid accounts, but to no avail.
of their evidence is a duplicate of the original To protect its interest, CSFL filed a complaint for
deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled collection of sum of money and damages
that a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a against TKI before the RTC.
document executed at the same time as the
original is known as a duplicate original and After the presentation of its last witness, CSFL
maybe introduced in evidence without filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits5 seeking the
accounting for the non-production of the original. admission of, among others, the sales invoices
Moreover, Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of and order slips earlier objected to by TKI. The

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
0
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

latter objected to the admission of the promissory notes.” The pronouncement of

documents offered, contending that several of respondent court is manifestly groundless. It is
the sales invoices and order slips should not be undisputed that the documents presented were
admitted because they were merely duplicate originals and are therefore admissible
photocopies. TKI also objected to the admission as evidence. Further, it must be noted that
of documents by which CSFL sought to prove its respondent bank itself did not bother to
claim for attorney’s fees. challenge the authenticity of the duplicate copies
submitted by petitioner. In People v. Tan, 105
The RTC issued the order denying TKI’s motion Phil. 1242 (1959), it was ruled that when carbon
for reconsideration, ruling that the sales invoices sheets are inserted between two or more sheets
and order slips could be admitted because the of writing paper so that the writing of a contract
duplicate originals of the invoices were already upon the outside sheet, including the signature
sufficiently established by the testimony of of the party to be charged thereby, produces a
CSFL’s officer and principal witness, Ms. Susan facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such
Chiu. signature being thus reproduced by the same
stroke of pen which made the surface or
Instead of presenting evidence, TKI opted to file exposed impression, all of the sheets so written
a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO on are regarded as duplicate originals and either
before the CA. Thereafter, the CA rendered a of them may be introduced in evidence as such
decision partially granting TKI’s evidence by without accounting for the non-production of the
CSFL. Applying Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules others.
of Court, the CA explained that while it was true
that the original copies of the sales invoices
were the best evidence to prove TKI’s obligation, Records reveal that Chiu, CSFL’s principal
CSFL merely presented photocopies of the witness, was able to satisfactorily explain that
questioned exhibits. It stated that Chiu’s Exhibits “D” to “GG-1” and “HH” to “KK-1” were
testimony merely established the existence or duplicate originals of invoices and order slips,
due execution of the original invoices. CSFL, and not mere photocopies. The transcripts of
however, did not present the original invoices, stenographic notes (TSNs) clearly show that
only the photocopies, contrary to Section 5, Rule Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL usually
130 of the Rules of Court. prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a
particular transaction, giving one copy to a client
The CA agreed with RTC’s admission. CSFL and retaining the other copy. The Court combed
filed a motion for partial reconsideration but was through her testimony and found nothing that
denied. Hence, this petition. would indicate that the documents offered were
mere photocopies. She remained firm and
ISSUE: Are the sales invoices and order slips, consistent with her statement that the subject
offered as evidence by CSFL duplicate originals invoices were duplicate originals as they were
and thus admissible? prepared at the same time. The Court sees no
reason why Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules
RULING: Yes. In Trans-Pacific Industrial of Court should not apply. At any rate, those
Supplies v. The Court of Appeals and exhibits can be admitted as part of the testimony
Associated Bank, 235 SCRA 494 (1994), it was of Chiu.
stressed that duplicate originals were admissible
as evidence. Pertinent portions of the said The Court went over the RTC records and the
decision read: Respondent court is of the view TSNs and found that, contrary to the assertion of
that the above provision must be construed to TKI, the duplicate originals were produced in
mean the original copy of the document court and compared with their photocopies
evidencing the credit and not its duplicate, thus: during the hearing before the trial court. The
“. . . When the law speaks of the delivery of the transcripts bare all of these but were missed by
private document evidencing a credit, it must be the appellate court, which believed the assertion
construed as referring to the original. In this of TKI that what were produced in court and
case, appellees (Trans-Pacific) presented, not offered in evidence were mere photocopies. The
the originals but the duplicates of the three TSNs further reveal that after the comparison,

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
1
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

the photocopies were the ones retained and that diligent efforts to recover the copy
in the records. proved futile. Instead, Peregrino presented a
photocopy of the Contract which he personally
had on file. MCMP objected to the presentation
Section 5. When original of document is of secondary evidence to prove the contents of
unavailable - When the original document has the Contract arguing that there were no diligent
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in efforts to search for the original copy. Notably,
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or MCMP did not present its copy of the Contract
existence and the cause of its unavailability notwithstanding the directive of the trial court to
without bad faith on his or her part, may prove produce the same.
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the The RTC issued a Decision in favor of the
testimony of witnesses in the order plaintiff, ordering MCMP to pay 1,282,481.83, as
stated. well as the 25% of the amount and the costs of
suit.
17. MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark
Equipment Corp., G.R. No. 201001, ISSUE: Should the presentation of secondary
November 10, 2014 evidence be disallowed to prove the existence of
the contract, following the Best Evidence Rule?
FACTS: Monark Equipment Corp. (respondent
Monark) leased 5 pieces of heavy equipment to RULING: No. The Best Evidence Rule, a basic
MCMP Construction Corporation (petitioner postulate requiring the production of the original
MCMP) covered by a Rental Equipment document whenever its contents are the subject
Contract. of inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court. Relative thereto, Sections
In the invoice, it states that the customer agrees 5 and 6 of Rule 130 provide the relevant rules on
to the following: a) that the credit sales are the presentation of secondary evidence to prove
payable within 30 days from the date of invoice, the contents of a lost document.
b) to pay interest at 24% p.a. on all amounts, c) In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v.
to the collection fee of 1% compounded monthly Lagman,11 the Court set down the requirements
and 2% per month penalty charge for late before a party may present secondary evidence
payment on amounts overdue d) to pay a sum to prove the contents of the original document
equal to 25% of any amount due as attorney’s whenever the original copy has been lost:
fees in case of suit, and expressly submit to the
jurisdiction of the courts of Quezon City, Makati, Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
Pasig or Manila, Metro Manila, for any legal evidence to prove the contents of the original,
action arising from, this transactions. the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
existence or due execution of the original; (2) the
MCMP however failed to pay all the rental fees. loss and destruction of the original or the reason
Upon demands by Monark, MCMP was only for its non-production in court; and (3) on the
able to pay P100,000.00 on April 15, 2001 and part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to
PhP100,000.00 on August 15, 2001. Further which the unavailability of the original can be
demands went unheeded. As of April 30, 2002, attributed. The correct order of proof is as
MCMP owed Monark the amount of follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
PhP1,282,481.83.
In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that
On June 18, 2002, Monark filed a suit for a Sum the above requisites are present. Both the CA
of Money. During trial, Monark presented asone and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of
of its witnesses, Reynaldo Peregrino Peregrino that the original Contract in the
(Peregrino), its Senior Account Manager. possession of Monark has been lost and that
Peregrino testified that there were two (2) diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but
original copies ofthe Contract, one retained by to no avail. Such testimony has remained
Monark, while the other was given to MCMP. He uncontroverted. As has been repeatedly held by
further testified that Monark’s copy had been lost this Court, "findings offacts and assessment

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
2
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

ofcredibility of witnesses are matters while the victim’s father asked for money in
best left to the trial court.” Hence, the Court will exchange for his release, which he refused.
respect the evaluation of the trial court on the
credibility of Peregrino. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. It found the
18. The failure of the opposing party to object to victim’s testimony consistent with the medical
the admissibility of secondary copies constitutes findings of the doctors from the PNP Crime
waiver and shall be admissible to the evidence. Laboratory and CPU, UP-PGH. Moreover, it
applied the rule that an unsubstantiated defense
19. People v. Cayabyab, August 3, 2005 of denial and alibi cannot prevail over a positive
and categorical testimony of a minor victim.
FACTS: Cayabyab was sentenced to death by Finally, it appreciated the qualifying
the RTC for rape committed against six-year-old circumstance of minority and imposed the
Alpha Jane Bertiz. Alpha Jane was born on penalty of death.
November 26, 1994, and the eldest among the
six children of Conrado and Metchie Bertiz. She ISSUE: Is the presentation of the photocopy of
was six years and nine months old when the the birth certificate of Alpha Jane admissible as
rape was committed on August 7, 2001. competent evidence?

On that day, at around 6:00 p.m., Alpha Jane RULING: Yes. Without doubt, a certificate of live
was at home in Manlunas St., Lagoon Area, birth is a public record in the custody of the local
Villamor Airbase, Pasay City, taking care of her civil registrar who is a public officer. Clearly,
younger siblings. Her mother went to buy therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of
kerosene, while her father was out. On the guise the birth certificate of Alpha Jane is admissible
of teaching arithmetic, appellant went to the as secondary evidence to prove its contents.
victim’s house and asked her to lie down on her Production of the original may be dispensed
father’s bed. When she refused, appellant with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever in
removed her clothes and his own clothes, then the case at hand the opponent does not bona
forced her to lie down on the bed and laid on top fide dispute the contents of the document and no
of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. other useful purpose will be served by requiring
Alpha Jane shouted in pain which startled the production. In the case at bar, the defense did
appellant who sprayed her with tear gas and left. not dispute the contents of the photocopied birth
certificate; in fact it admitted the same. Having
Her mother, Metchie arrived shortly thereafter failed to raise a valid and timely objection
and Alpha Jane told her what had happened. against the presentation of this secondary
She immediately reported the incident to the evidence the same became a primary evidence,
barangay officials and brought Alpha Jane to the and deemed admitted and the other party is
Philippine Air Force General Hospital for medical bound thereby.
examination. Hymenal abrasions and lacerations
were found on the victim’s genitalia.
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi.
He testified that on August 7, 2001, he was Section 6. When original document is in adverse
plying his normal route inside the Villamor party’s custody or control - If the document is in
Airbase as a tricycle driver from 6:00 a.m. until the custody or under the control of the adverse
7:00 p.m.10 After returning the tricycle to its party, he or she must have reasonable notice to
owner Roberto Gabo at the corner of 14th and produce it. If after such notice and after
15th Sts., Villamor Airbase, he reached home at satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails
around 7:30 p.m. and went to sleep after eating to produce the document, secondary evidence
dinner.11 At around 9:30 p.m., he woke up to may be presented as in the case of its loss.
urinate at the back of their house when three (3)
policemen arrested and mauled him. At the 20. EDSA Shangri-la Hotel and Resort v. BF
headquarters, he was forced to admit the rape Corp., G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
3
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

FACTS: The SC consolidated the instance, however, certain explanations must be

petitions assailing the decision of the CA. given before a party can resort to secondary
evidence.
Both stemmed from a construction contract
between Edsa Shangri-la Hotel and BF The circumstances obtaining in this case fall
Corporation. Among other things, the contract under the exception under Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130.
stipulated for the payment of the contract price The stenographic notes of the following
on the basis of the work accomplished as exchanges between Atty. Andres and Atty.
described in the monthly progress billings. Under Autea, counsel for BF and ESHRI, respectively,
this arrangement, BF shall submit a monthly reveal that BF had complied with the
progress billing to ESHRI which would then re- requirements. In other words, the conditions sine
measure the work accomplished and prepare a qua non for the presentation and reception of the
Progress Payment Certificate for that month’s photocopies of the original document as
progress billing. BF submitted a total of 19 secondary evidence have been met. These are:
progress billings following the procedure agreed (1) there is proof of the original document’s
upon. Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 13 were paid by execution or existence; (2) there is proof of the
the Hotel. However, despite demands, BF was cause of the original document’s unavailability;
not able to collect for Progress Billings Nos. 14 and (3) the offeror is in good faith.
to 19. BF filed a suit for a sum of money and
damages before the RTC.
NEW PROVISION!
As part of BF’s claims, it submitted photocopies
of Progress Billings Nos. 14 to 19. Edsa Section 7. Summaries - When the contents of
Shangri-la argued that BF Corporation ought to documents, records, photographs, or numerous
have laid the basis for the presentation of the accounts are voluminous and cannot be
photocopies as secondary evidence before the examined in court without great loss of time, and
court admitted the evidence. the fact sought to be established is only the
general result of the whole, the contents of such
BF claims that it had complied with the laying- evidence may be presented in the form of a
the-basis requirement. BF explained that it could chart, summary or calculation. The originals
not present the original of the documents since shall be available for examination or copying, or
they were in the possession of ESHRI which both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time
refused to hand them over to BF despite and place. The court may order that they be
requests. produced in court.

ISSUE: Did the BF comply with the laying-the- RENUMBERED PROVISIONS!

basis requirement for the admission of the
photocopies as secondary evidence? SECTION 8. Evidence admissible when original
document is a public record. – When the original
RULING: Yes. SEC. 6. When original document of a document is in the custody of a public
is in adverse party’s custody or control.—If the officer or is recorded in a public office, its
document is in the custody or under control of contents may be proved by a certified copy
the adverse party, he must have reasonable issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
notice to produce it. If after such notice and after
satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to 21. The documents covered under Section 8 are
produce the document, secondary evidence may provided under Section 19 of Rule 132. These
be presented as in the case of loss. Secondary are as follows:
evidence of the contents of a written instrument
or document refers to evidence other than the (a) The written official acts, or records of the
original instrument or document itself. A party official acts of the sovereign authority, official
may present secondary evidence of the contents bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
of a writing not only when the original is lost or whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or country;
under the control of the adverse party. In either

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
4
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

(b) Documents acknowledge before a aggregates to contractors and haulers in Cebu.

notary public except last wills and testaments; A contract denominated as “Agreement for
and Supply of Aggregates” was entered into between
Lucia and Kimwa, where 40,000 cubic meters of
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of aggregates at Lucia’s permitted area in Toledo
private documents required by law to the City at Php 240.00 per truckload. Pursuant to the
entered therein. agreement, Kimwa hauled 10,000 cubic meters
of aggregates. However, after Kimwa stopped
22. Section 8 of Rule 130 is the fourth exception hauling aggregates and allegedly transferred to
to the Original Document Rule, when the original the concession area of a certain Mrs. Remedios
document is in the custody of public officer or dela Torre in violation of their Agreement.
recorded in a public office.
Subsequently, Sps. Paras sent demand letters
SECTION 9. Party who calls for document not to Kimwa but went unheeded. This prompted the
bound to offer it. – A party who calls for the Sps. Paras to file a complaint for breach of
production of a document and inspects the contract with damages against Kimwa. In its
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. answer, Kimwa alleged that it never committed
to obtain 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates. It
3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE argued that the 40,000 cubic meters represented
is only the maximum quantity that it could haul.
Section 10. Evidence of written agreements - Kimwa asserted that the May 15, 1995, which
When the terms of an agreement have been was the expiration of the Special Permit of Lucia
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing was never set as a deadline. Invoking the Parol
all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as Evidence Rule, it insisted that Sps. Paras were
between the parties barred from introducing evidence which would
and their successors in interest, no evidence of show that the parties has agreed differently.
such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement. However, a party may present The RTC rendered the Decision in favor of Sps.
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms Paras. On appeal, CA reversed the RTC’s
of the written agreement if he or she puts in decision. Hence, this petition.
issue in a verified pleading:
ISSUE: Did the RTC err for basing its finding on
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or the basis of evidence presented in violation of
imperfection in the written agreement; the parol evidence rule?

(b) The failure of the written agreement to RULING: No. Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised
express the true intent and agreement of the Rules on Evidence provides for the Parol
parties thereto; Evidence Rule, the rule on admissibility of
documentary evidence when the terms of an
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or agreement have been reduced into writing:
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements.—
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by When the terms of an agreement have been
the parties or their successors in interest after reduced to writing, it is considered as containing
the execution of the written agreement. all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors-in-
The term “agreement” includes wills. interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement. However,
23. Spouses Paras v. Kimwa Construction a party may present evidence to modify, explain
and Development Corporation, G.R. No. or add to the terms of written agreement if he
171601, April 8, 2015 puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic
ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
FACTS: Lucia Paras was a concessionaire of a agreement; (b) The failure of the written
sand and gravel permit in Toledo City. Kimwa is agreement to express the true intent and
a construction firm that sells concrete agreement of the parties thereto; (c) The validity

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
5
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

of the written agreement; or (d) The Spouses Paras adduced, respondent Kimwa’s
existence of other terms agreed to by the parties awareness of the conditions under which
or their successors-in-interest after the execution petitioner Lucia Paras was bound, and the
of the written agreement. The term “agreement” Agreement’s own text specifying exclusive
includes wills. Per this rule, reduction to written allotment for respondent Kimwa, supports
form, regardless of the formalities observed, petitioners Spouses Paras’ position that
“forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the respondent Kimwa was obliged to haul 40,000
terms of a written agreement by testimony or cubic meters of aggregates on or before May 15,
other evidence purporting to show that different 1995. As it admittedly hauled only 10,000 cubic
terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying meters, respondent Kimwa is liable for breach of
the purport of the written contract.” contract in respect of the remaining 30,000 cubic
meters.
Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading
any of the four (4) items enumerated in the
second paragraph of Rule 130, Section 9, “a 24. Mancol v. DBP, G.R. No. 204289,
party may present evidence to modify, explain or November 22, 2017
add to the terms of the agreement[.]” Raising
any of these items as an issue in a pleading FACTS: This is a 2017 case. The facts are not
such that it falls under the exception is not discussed because the facts are more on the
limited to the party initiating an action. In admissibility of parol evidence, as an exception
Philippine National Railways v. Court of First to the general rule. Here, the parole evidence
Instance of Albay, 83 SCRA 569 (1978), this was admissible but there was an issue regarding
court noted that “if the defendant set up the the admissibility of evidence.
affirmative defense that the contract mentioned
in the complaint does not express the true
agreement of the parties, then parol evidence is ISSUE: If an evidence is admissible, does that
admissible to prove the true agreement of the mean it has weight?
parties[.]” Moreover, as with all possible
objections to the admission of evidence, a RULING: No. Admissibility of evidence should
party’s failure to timely object is deemed a not be confounded with its probative value.
waiver, and parol evidence may then be
entertained. Apart from pleading these Admissibility of Weight of Evidence
exceptions, it is equally imperative that the parol Evidence
evidence sought to be introduced points to the Depends on its Pertains to evidence
conclusion proposed by the party presenting it. relevance and already admitted
That is, it must be relevant, tending to “induce competence and its tendency to
belief in [the] existence” of the flaw, true intent, convince and
or subsequent extraneous terms averred by the persuade
party seeking to introduce parol evidence. In
sum, two (2) things must be established for parol The admissibility of a particular item of evidence
evidence to be admitted: first, that the existence has to do with whether it meets various tests by
of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in which its reliability is to be determined, so as to
issue in a party’s pleading or has not been be considered with other evidence admitted in
objected to by the adverse party; and second, the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth.
that the parol evidence sought to be presented
serves to form the basis of the conclusion The weight of evidence is not determined
proposed by the presenting party. mathematically by the numerical superiority of
the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but
Our evidentiary rules impel us to proceed from depends upon its practical effect in inducing
the position (unless convincingly shown belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
otherwise) that individuals act as rational human
beings, i.e., “[t]hat a person takes ordinary care Admissibility Probative Value
of his concerns[.]” This basic evidentiary stance, Refers to the question Refers to the
taken with the supporting evidence petitioners of whether certain question of whether

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
6
EVIDENCE | Atty. Jelyne Guadalupe

pieces of evidence are the admitted

to be considered at all. evidence proves an
issue.

A particular item of evidence may be admissible,

but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
rules of evidence.

1
KIRSTEN ROSE CONCON
7