Notes on 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence

(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

Atty. Gabriel P. dela Pena, LL.M.

Effectivity
Resolution approving the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence dated October
8, 2019 took effect on May 1, 2020. 1

RULE 128

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these [R]ules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)

Section 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these [R]ules. (2)

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not
excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a)

Notes:

Relevant Evidence

OCA v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-07- 2076, October 18, 2010

The information in Criminal Case No. 06-179 clearly accuses Cuason of falsely pretending that he can return
the investment of complainant by paying cash and two (2) condominium units when in fact these units do not
exist or have not yet been constructed. The issue therefore boils down to whether or not the condominium
units exist, and the incontrovertible proof of this are the condominium units themselves. The logical thing to
do would have been to order the conduct of an ocular inspection. Instead of an ocular inspection, respondent
relied on the certificate of registration, the development permit, the license to sell, the building permit, and
the Condominium Certificate of Title ― on the basis of which the judge ordered the dismissal of the case. It
may be that an ocular inspection was premature at the time the respondent dismissed the case because at that
time the case was not yet set for the presentation of evidence of the parties. Nevertheless, it now appears that
the pieces of evidence relied upon by the respondent do not fully support his conclusion.

Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence." "Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the rules
of logic and human experience…Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has ‘rational probative
value’ to the issue in controversy."36 Logic and human experience teach us that the documents relied upon
by respondent do not constitute the best evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of the condominium
units. To repeat, the best evidence would have been adduced by an ocular inspection of the units themselves.

1 https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12763/
FERNANDO MANCOL, JR., Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 204289, November 22, 2017

This notwithstanding, we stress that the admissibility of the testimonial evidence as an exception to the parol
evidence rule does not necessarily mean that it has weight. Admissibility of evidence should not be
confounded with its probative value.

"The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence
pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade." The admissibility of a
particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be
determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the
truth. The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses
testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge
trying the case. "Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered
at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue." "Thus,
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."

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
(4)

RULE 129

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction
of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure
of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

Notes:

The phrase “national government of the Philippines” clarifies that the official acts referred to in the
provision are those of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the national government of the
Philippines. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, G.R. No. 205966,

March 02, 2016

In connection therewith, the RTC, therefore, committed no error in taking judicial notice of the assessed
value of the subject property. A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case,
of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of another
case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public records on file in
the same court.14 Since a copy of the tax declaration, which is a public record, was attached to the
complaint, the same document is already considered as on file with the court, thus, the court can now take
judicial notice of such.
 Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are
of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. (2)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice
of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
(3a)

Notes:

• Inclusion of the word “pre-trial” – The court may properly indicate to the parties its intention, or
the parties may request the court, to take judicial notice of a particular matter during pre-trial.
• Use of the word “motion” – The word “motion” is more apt or accurate than “request.”
• Use of the phrase “on the propriety of taking” – The phrase was added to provide clarification on
the purpose of the hearing, i.e., whether the matter involved is a proper subject of a discretionary
judicial notice.
•
(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH )

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

Notes:

• Use of the word “oral” – The term “verbal,” as used in the old provision, refers to the use of words,
which can either be oral or written. Thus, the word “oral” is the more apt term to be used together
with the word “written.”
• Use of the phrase “the imputed…was not, in fact, made” – From the Sub- Committee’s version
“that the imputed admission was not made or intended,” the Rules Committee opted to be more
objective, noting that “intended” is a condition of the mind.

(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH)
RULE 130

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When
an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1)

Notes:
G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015 - PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO Y SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

Indeed, physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks higher in our hierarchy
of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused stand to
lose their liberty if found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions, relied principally upon physical
evidence in ascertaining the truth.26 Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies
of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs

or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures,
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (2a)

Notes:

• Expanded definition of documentary evidence

• Taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and Rule 1001 of the Uniform Rules of
Evidence (URE)
• The purpose of expanding the definition is to embrace in the broadest possible terms every
memorial that preserves written and spoken language, including recorded sounds
• The inclusion of “photographs include still pictures, stored images, x-ray films, videotapes,
and motion pictures” should be construed as merely exemplary, and NOT exclusive
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995])
• Photographs as documentary evidence
• In Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 November 1995; College Assurance Plan v.
Belfrant Development, G.R. No. 155604, 22 November 2007; People v. Zeta, G.R. No.
178541, 27 May 2008, the Supreme Court allowed the use of photographs as documentary
evidence because they are relevant to the issue and are verified. The verification need not be
made by the photographer himself; it can be made by any other competent witness who can
testify as to its exactness and accuracy.
• Use of the word “videos” instead of “videotapes” – “Videos” is the more modern term
• Use of the word “drawings” – In Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd. (808 F.2d 1316 [9th Cir. 1987]),
the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “drawings” were “writings” within
the meaning of the best evidence rule, specifically, Rule 1001, FRE.

(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH)

1. Original Document Rule

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other
than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
 (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole;

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office; and

(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (3a)

Notes:

The “Best Evidence Rule” (BER) is a misnomer because it misleadingly suggests that the doctrine applies
to all types of evidence. BER only applies to documents or writings. As such, there is no requirement that
parties introduce the best available evidence bearing on other matters that they seek to prove in court.
The doctrine simply requires that the original be produced when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document and excludes secondary evidence except where the original is shown to be unavailable or
secondary evidence is otherwise allowed by the rule or statute.
The “Original Document Rule” is thus the more accurate or apt label for the doctrine.

• The additional exception “or the original cannot be obtained by

judicial process or procedure” -

In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil. 1002, unreported), the Supreme
Court ruled that when the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country,
secondary evidence is admissible. See also Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China v. Tuliarmo, 51
O.G.5211.

• The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-

relatedto a controlling issue” –

Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment is intended to prevent an overly
rigid or technical application of the original document rule. It allows for trial efficiency where the original
is so tangential that its production would add little or nothing to the reliability of the fact-finding process.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995])

(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH)

Section 4. Original of document. –

(a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the
same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout
or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
“original.”

(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by
 mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as
to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)

Notes:

• The amendment in Section 4 (a) does not modify the meaning of the existing rule that “[t]he
original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.”
• Even as amended, the term “original” does not necessarily mean the first writing, recording or
photograph that was made, but rather refers to the writing, recording, or photograph that is in issue
in the litigation.
• The inclusion of any output from a computer adopts Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence (REE)
• The definition of “duplicate” follows Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE, which was adopted from the
FRE.
• The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate best evidence objections to copies made in
clearly reliable ways, except where the objecting party can offer a good reason to support
the production of the original as indicated by the new Section 4 (c).
• The new Section 4 (c) is based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE.

(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH)

2. Secondary Evidence

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
(5a)

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. – If the document is in the
custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (6a)

Section 7. Summaries. – When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts
are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be
established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the
form of a chart, summary, or calculation.

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. (n)
 Section 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. – When the original of a
document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved
by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (7)

Section 9. 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. (8)
Notes:

• This new provision is substantially taken from Rule 1006 of the FRE, although the requirement that
the records must be voluminous under Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on n Evidence
was retained.
• As early as 1977, the Supreme Court, in Compaña Maritima v. Allied Free Workers’ Union, 167
Phil. 381, already held that the originals must be made available to the adverse party.
(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence by HON.
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH)
3. Parol Evidence Rule

Section 10. Evidence of written agreements. – When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.

The term “agreement” includes wills. (9a)

4. Interpretation of Documents

Section 11. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. – The language of a writing is to
be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties
intended otherwise. (10)
Section 12. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. – In the construction of an
instrument[,] where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all. (11)

Section 13. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. – In the
construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a
particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (12)

Section 14. Interpretation according to circumstances. – For the proper construction of an instrument,
the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the
parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he
or she is to interpret. (13a)

Section 15. Peculiar signification of terms. – The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in
their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local,
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance,
in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (14)

Section 16. Written words control printed. – When an instrument consists partly of written words and
partly of a printed form, and the two [(2)] are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (15)

Section 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. – When the characters in
which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the
court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. (16)

Section 18. Of two constructions, which preferred. – When the terms of an agreement have been intended
in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he
or she supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision
was made. (17a)

Section 19. Construction in favor of natural right. – When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
[(2)] interpretations, one [(1)] in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
(18)

Section 20. Interpretation according to usage. – An instrument may be construed according to usage, in
order to determine its true character. (19)
 C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1. Qualification of Witnesses

Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known their perception to others, may be witnesses. (20a)

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime, unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. (20)

[Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – (Deleted)]

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. – A witness can testify only to those facts which
he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own
perception. (36a)

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, the husband or the wife
cannot testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. (22a)

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication[s]. – The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice
of law cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made
by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view
to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other
persons assisting the attorney be examined without the consent of the client and his or her
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity,
except in the following cases:

(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or
obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or
reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
 (ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a communication relevant to an issue
between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the
claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
(iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an issue of
breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an issue
concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
(v) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between
two [(2)] or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer
retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients,
unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.

(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to

practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment
of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to
persons, including members of the patient’s family, who have participated in the diagnosis or
treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist.

A “psychotherapist” is:

(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a

mental or emotional condition, or
(b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.

(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the
affected person, be examined as to any communication or confession made to or any advice
given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to communications
made to him or her in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure.
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have
obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable
precaution to protect its confidentiality. (24a)

Notes:

Crime or fraud (“future crime-fraud exception”)

The rationale for this exception is that clients are not entitled to use lawyers to help them in pursuing unlawful or
fraudulent objectives. If the privilege were to cloak such activity, the result would be loss of public confidence and
corruption of the profession. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.22 [1995])
The policy of the privilege is that of promoting the administration of justice and it would be a perversion of the
privilege to extend it to the client who seeks advice to aid him in carrying out an illegal fraudulent scheme. This
would be tantamount to participating in a conspiracy. (McCormick on Evidence, 3rd ed., p. 229 [1984])
Claimants through a deceased client
While the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client, there is no privilege in a will contest or other case
between parties who both claim through that very client. This is because his communications may be essential to an
accurate resolution of competing claims of succession, and the testator would presumably favor disclosure in order
to dispose of his estate accordingly. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.24 [1995])

Breach of duty by lawyer or client (“self-defense exception”)

If the lawyer and client become involved in a dispute between themselves concerning the services provided by the
lawyer, the privilege does not apply to their dispute. Thus, where a client alleges a breach of duty on the part of the
lawyer, i.e. professional malpractice, incompetence, or ethical violations – or where the lawyer sues a client for his
fee, either the lawyer or the client may testify as to communications between them.
In theory, the client has impliedly “waived” the privilege by making allegations of breach of duty against lawyer.
(Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.23 [1995])

Lawyer as attesting witness

The privilege does not apply to “a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the
lawyer is an attesting witness.” This should not really be an exception because the privilege never arises, as a lawyer
who acts as an attesting witness is not providing professional legal services. When an attorney serves as an attesting
witness, he is not acting as a lawyer and the client’s obvious intent is to have him available to testify to the matter
attested. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 5.25 [1995]; Lempert, R. & Saltzburg, S., A Modern
Approach to Evidence, 3rd ed., pp. 269-370 [1982])

Psychotherapist – Patient Privilege

The rationale to include this privilege is that the psychotherapist has a special need to maintain confidentiality. His or
her capacity to help his or her patients is completely dependent upon their willingness and ability to talk freely.
Confidentiality is a condition sine qua non for a successful psychiatric treatment. (Lempert, R. & Saltzburg, S., A
Modern Approach to Evidence, 2nd ed., pp. 712-713 [1982], citing Report No. 45, Group for the Advancement of
Psychiatry 92 [1960]), quoted in the Advisory Committee’s note o PFRE 504, the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
• Qualification
For one to be considered a “psychotherapist,” a medical doctor need only be “licensed” to practice medicine and need
not be a psychiatrist, whereas a psychologist must be “licensed” by the government.
Priest – Penitent Privilege
The old provision limited the privilege to “penitential communications” made to a minister or priest in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which the priest or minister belongs. As worded, it is unduly preferential to the
Roman Catholic Church. The amendment expands the privilege to embrace any confidential communication by a
person to a minister or priest in his professional character as a spiritual advisor.
(SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, by HON. MARIA
FILOMENA D. SINGH)

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL and CRISPIN I. OBEN,

vs.CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., G.R. No. 204700, November 24, 2014
Privileged communications under the rules of evidence is premised on an accepted need to protect a trust relationship.
It has not been shown that the parties to the deed of assignment fall under any of the foregoing categories.
This court has previously cited other privileged matters such as the following: "(a) editors may not be compelled to
disclose the source of published news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade
secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; . . . (d) bank deposits"62 (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits Act); (e) national security matters and intelligence information;63 and (f) criminal matters.64 Nonetheless, the
LSPA does not fall within any of these classes of information. Moreover, the privilegeis not absolute, and the court may
compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice.
 2. Testimonial Privilege

Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. – No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants, except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other. (25a)

Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade
secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is
directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and
of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require. (n)

3. Admissions and Confessions

Section 27. Admission of a party. – The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him or her. (26a)
Section 28. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of
conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise
discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a
contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is
not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. Neither is any statement made
in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty or which
results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.

An offer to pay[,] or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury[,]
is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a)

Section 29. Admission by third party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. (28)

Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. – The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by
the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or her authority[,] and during
the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership
or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party. (29a)
 Section 31. Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the
conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (30a)

Section 32. Admission by privies. – Where one derives title to property from another, the latter’s act,
declaration, or omission, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former [if done] while the
latter was holding the title. (31a)

Section 33. Admission by silence. – An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call
for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given in
evidence against him or her. (32a)

Section 34. Confession. – The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charged,
or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him or her. (33a)

4. Previous Conduct [a]s Evidence

Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom
or usage, and the like. (34a)
Section 36. Unaccepted offer. – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a
written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the
actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (35)

[Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. (Transposed to
Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge.)]

5. Hearsay

Section 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at
a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral or
written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s
testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
(c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
 6. Exceptions [t]o [t]he Hearsay Rule

Section 38. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in any case wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. (37a)

Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. – In an action against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind,
where a party or assignor of a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter
of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of unsound mind,
any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be received in evidence if the
statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of unsound mind at a
time when the matter had been recently perceived by him or her and while his or her recollection was
clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness. (23a)

Section 40. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to the declarant’s own interest that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have made
the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or herself
or his or her successors in interest and against third persons. A statement tending to expose the declarant to
criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances
clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. (38a)

Section 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. – The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to
testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him or her by birth[,] adoption, or marriage or,
in the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have
accurate information concerning his or her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two [(2)] persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (39a)

Section 42. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. – The reputation or tradition existing in
a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity[,] affinity, or adoption. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving
on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (40a)

Section 43. Common reputation. – Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries
of or customs affecting lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history important to the
community, or respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation. (41a)
 Section 44. Part of the res gestae. – Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto[,] under the stress of excitement caused by the
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (42a)

Section 45. Records of regularly conducted business activity. – A memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such
was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. (43a)

Section 46. Entries in official records. – Entries in official records made in the performance of his or her
duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (44a)

Section 47. Commercial lists and the like. – Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged
in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (45)

Section 48. Learned treatises. – A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law,
science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject. (46a)

Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. – The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable
or otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving
the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him or her. (47a)
Section 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions,
having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that

(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative on the
point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable
efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these [R]ules and the interests of justice will be best served by
admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this
exception unless the proponent makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing,
or by the pre-trial stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of
it, including the name and address of the declarant. (n)

7. Opinion Rule
Section 51. General rule. – The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the
following sections. (48)

Section 52. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education, which he or she is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. (49a)

Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis is given,
may be received in evidence regarding –

(a) [T]he identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate knowledge;

(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted.

The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (50a)

8. Character Evidence

Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. – Evidence of a person’s character
or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a
particular occasion, except:

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character[,] pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not prove his or her bad
moral character unless on rebuttal.
(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent
to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases:

Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached.

In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is

admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the
form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific
instances of conduct.

In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a

charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.
(51a; 14, Rule 132)