RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

DEFINTION OF EVIDENCE The word truth there should not be literally taken to mean an
actual truth. Why? The judge has no power to look into the
Evidence is not an end in itself, but the means; a means that innermost recesses of our anguished hearts. No power to look
is authorized or sanctioned by court. into the innermost parts of our brains. The truth referred to
there in definition is the truth offered and admitted in
The concept of evidence in the Rules of Court (ROC) applies evidence- meaning the legal truth.
primarily to a judicial proceeding. The rules cannot be insisted
upon in an administrative proceeding. It cannot be insisted Drug cases:
upon by a litigant in a quasi-judicial proceeding. You cannot
insist on the technicalities of the ROC in a court martial Caught possessing illegal drugs but dismissed. WHY?
proceeding. They can only be used if the administrative body Evidence was deemed inadmissible because Section 21 of the
or the quasi-judicial body adapts the ROC by analogy or in a Drug Law on the chain of custody was not followed. So,
suppletory manner or character. sayang ang katotohanan because the rules were not followed.

Definition of Evidence in Rule 128 is directly related to Section Situation: "Mere Suspicion"
4, Rule 1 – In what cases the ROC is not applicable:
Si Piolo nag lalakad with backpack. As a police officer, alam
1. Election cases na alam ko na merong marijuana and shabu sa bag niya at
2. Land registration nahuli ko na siya nang tatlong beses. Dumaan siya sa harap
3. Cadastral ko. Kung ating susundin ang batas pwede ko ba siyang
4. Naturalization harangin at sasabihin ko sa kanya na buksan niya ang
5. Insolvency proceedings kanyang bag. Pagbukas, merong ngang marijuana at shabu.

In this case, Piolo will not be imprisoned. He may file motion

Coca-Cola Bottlers Case:
to suppress evidence. There was no justification for the
search. There is no such thing in the law or in the rules of
Workers shouted illegal dismissal and so went to the Labor court or in the constitution that you can search on mere
Arbiter who said there was illegal dismissal. NLRC also ruled suspicion.
illegal dismissal. Coca-Cola went to CA and argued that the
workers only submitted affidavits and were not even Under the circumstances, the search must be an incident to a
subjected cross-examined. According to Coca-Cola, NLRC valid arrest. Piolo was not committing a crime here. So if you
committed grave abuse of discretion by deciding the case on are a law enforcement officer, do not testify in court that you
the basis only of affidavits and position papers. Therefore, the arrested him by mere suspicion even if you will say that there
evidence is hearsay. But Coca-Cola forgot that proceedings were indeed drugs. In here, it may be the truth but still the
before the NLRC are not judicial proceedings. NLRC did not accused will not be imprisoned. Kaya kung police officer ka
adapt the ROC, so you cannot insist on it. Petition denied. sabihin mo na ang backpack any nahulog, sumabog, at nakita
mo yung crystalline susbstance at saka mu siya hinuli. So ang
Ong Chia v Republic Case: papasok sa korte ay hindi yung katotohanan pero kulong
parin ang suspect.
Case for naturalization. RTC said Mr. Ong Chia is qualified to
be a Filipino citizen and that he has none of the Kaya sa evidence, it depends upon the real truth or the legal
disqualifications. There was a 15-day period to appeal. truth.
Government through the Solicitor General appealed to the CA.
OSG brought documents not used in the lower court to prove Situation: "Mere Suspicion"
that Ong Chia is a person of bad moral character. CA reversed
the RTC decision. A guy named Lauren was suspected having drugs on his
BMW. Such suspicion was based on a tip information. When
Ong Chia went to SC and raised a question of law on the Lauren came down from his apartment, the officers followed
rules. Ong Chia asked can the CA, in a naturalization case, him. Then they arrested him and seized his car keys. When
consider documents which have never been presented in the they open the trunk of the car, there were indeed drugs.
court below and which were not formally offered. Ong Chia
said under the ROC, the court shall consider no evidence Sa katotohanan, meron talaga siyang ginawang illegal pero
which has not been formally offered. The formal offer of accquited si Lauren because when he was searched and
evidence is done in a formal offer of exhibits in the trial court. arrested, he was not committing a crime. Going down from
There is no such thing as a formal offer of exhibits in an the apartment and going near his car is not a crime. There
appellate court. He invoked Section 34, Rule 132 (Offer of was no legal justification for arrest and search.
Evidence). But Ong Chia forgot that this is a naturalization
case and that the Rules of Court do not technically apply People vs. Amminudin:
unless the CA adapted the ROC by analogy. But you cannot "To the gangplank with the bayong"
compel the CA to do so.
There was a tip information that Amminudin will disembark
Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth of a fact
from a ship that came from Iloilo. Such tip was given 3 days
before the arrival of the ship. So the police waited for the ship
You do not present evidence about a local law. Foreign law, to arrive. And Amminundin went down to the gang plank
yes because a foreign law is considered a fact, but not official bringing the bayong. The informer said, "sir 'yan po si
acts of the legislative department of the government. This is Aminudin may dalang bayong at may laman yan". The officers
because with respect to our laws there is a mandatory judicial apprehended him and took the bayong. It was found out that
notice. Courts are supposed to know our statutes. the inside of the bayong was marijuana.

Did Amminudin violate the law? Yes.

Page 1 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Was he acquitted? Yes because there was no basis for his For instance, is evidence of negligence of a carrier
arrest. He was not committing a crime in their presence relevant in an action for breach of contract by a
because by looking at him he was not doing any direct overt passenger against the carrier?
act of a crime. He was merely walking down the gangplank
and holding a bayong. Hence, there was no inflagrante No, since negligence is not relevant for an action of breach of
delicto. contract. Fault or negligence is only relevant or an element of
the action is based on culpa aquiliana.
Moreover, mere reliable information does not exempt a police
officer to secure a warrant especially in this case were the Situation:
information was positive and they have three days to procure
the warrant. “May boyfriend kana ba, Christina?”

Always remember that "The legal truth is based on the ”Opo.”

admissibility of the evidence". So kahit totoo yan pero hindi
admissible hindi pwedeng ituring yan na evidence. “Pogi ba?”

People vs. Mengote: “Sobrang bait, sir!”

"Darting eyes"
The issue was whether Christina's bf is handsome and not his
There were 3 persons standing in a corner of Tondo. Sabi kindness. So Christina's answer has no relevance to the issue.
nang maybahay, "Police! Police! Punta kayo rito dahil may
tatlong tao na suspicious looking". Pagdating nang mga patrol 2. Competency
men, nakita nila si Mengote na nakahawak sa tiyan at
palingalinga. Nilapitan nila at inaresto agad. Upon arrest, they An evidence might be relevant but if a law excludes that
bodily searched them and there they found a gun. evidence then that becomes incompetent hence inadmissible.

In this case, they were acquitted. There is no crime for mere What is competence?
looking around. So when he was arrested and the gun was
discovered, such gun is a result of a fruit of a poisonous tree Competence is a matter of rule. It might be relevant, but if
because the arrest was illegal. Therefore, the seizure was also the law excludes that evidence, you could object to it for
illegal. being incompetent.

If you are a police, do not testify that you arrested him Example:
because while he was looking around, a gun fell down from
his waist. Is there a crime? Not yet. There was no illegal Let us suppose I am enjoying a beautiful television show at
possession when the police saw the gun. In this case, there around 11 o’clock in the evening on April 1. While I was
was still a possession but not yet illegal. It is only upon the laughing because the characters in the TV show were also
moment that a police officer, upon seeing the gun, ask the laughing, I was engaged in what we call as audience
accused for the license of the gun and the accused cannot participation. Suddenly, the door to my living room flew wide
present the same, then that is the time that the police can open with such an impact that the wind is so strong. It hit me
apprehend the accused for illegal possession of firearms. and I fell from my chair. Emerging from the door were five
police officers. They tied me to my chair, searched my house
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE without search warrant, and found five kilos of high-grade
shabu. I was sued for illegal possession of prohibited drugs. I
saw that the evidence of the prosecution is the shabu itself,
Not every matter that tells us the truth is an evidence under
certified to be illegal.
the rules. It must be admissible first.
Is this shabu relevant to the issue of illegal
Two characteristics must concur for an evidence to
possession?
become admissible (or the axioms of admissibility
according to Wigmore):
Of course, yes.
1. Relevancy
Can I object to the evidence?
It is a simple logical relationship between the evidence and
Yes, it is a fruit of the poisonous tree, obtained in violation of
the issue of the case.
my constitutional rights. It is relevant, yet not competent.
Therefore, it is not admissible.
If the matter is related to the issue then the evidence is
relevant.
Note: Not every relevant evidence is admissible because it
may be excluded by a rule.
How do you know that an evidence is relevant?
Example 1:
By Common sense or a rule of logic between the evidence and
the issue of the case.
Testimony of the witness: “Sir, sinabi sakin ni Jose na si
Pedro ang bumaril kay Juan.”
But this rule of logic has been sometimes transformed into a
rule of law.
Is the testimony relevant to the issue of who killed
Juan?

Page 2 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Yes, it is but you can object to its admissibility because such Because on that particular date and time, my son and I were
testimony is excluded by the rule for being hearsay. So even actually summiting Mt. Everest. And look on the physical
though relevant, it is inadmissible. impossibility of being in M. Claro Recto while were summiting
there in Mt. Everest.
Because of technicalities, accused can be freed from the
charges against him. This is so because we are a country Is my father a competent witness? Meaning, can he be
which follows the rule of law, not the rule of men. This is what allowed to testify?
distinguished us from a Communist form government.
The answer is YES. Because relationship or interest in a case
Example 2: is not a disqualification. The only qualification that you have is
you must be able to perceive and in perceiving, you must be
If I sue you for a quasi-delict, is evidence of your able to communicate your perception to another.
negligence evidence that is relevant?
Can my father perceive?
Yes, because it is an element of quasi-delict.
Of course. He is not mute or deaf.
Is evidence of the damages I sustained relevant?
Can my father relate his perception?
Yes.
Yes.
But is testimony of the person who has no personal
knowledge of how you injured me admissible? Can he communicate?

No, even if it is relevant because everything that he will say is Yes.

hearsay.
Can he remember his perception?
Important: So for an evidence to be admissible, relevance
and competence must both go together. Yes.

However, in actual practice, you do not stand up by saying He is a competent witness. But the issue of credibility is a
“objection! Incompetent!” Incompetent is a very general different story. You know what will be in the mind of the
term. You must specify the incompetence “objection, judge? “Duda ako sa sinasabi ng Tatay nito kasi tatay ito eh.
hearsay!”, “objection, best evidence!”, “objection, leading!” Posibleng gawa-gawa lang niya ito dahil siyempre tatay ito
ayaw makulong ang anak ng murder.”
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS WAIVABLE
So may duda. So ang apektado ay ang kanyang credibility,
Technically speaking, an evidence may be inadmissible hindi ang kanyang competence. Competence refers to the
because it is not relevant or it is relevant but incompetent or fact that a witness is qualified and not disqualified.
it is not relevant and competent. But the court may admit it if Credibility refers to the capacity of his being believed.
you will not object. Magkaiba iyon. They’re 2 different animals. One has wings,
the other does not have. That’s a beautiful, simple, very
Objection is a very personal matter on the part of every elementary, kindergarten, nursery question. But that’s a very
litigant. The court will not say “I object for you.” In my important question, it’s beautiful.
personal experience as a young lawyer, I would know if the
court wants me to object because the judge will look at me. Now, I was saying to you that competence is a matter of
Then the court would sustain it. rule, it’s a matter of law. Relevance is a matter of logic, it’s
a matter of common sense, it’s a matter of mental and
ADMISSIBILITY VS. CREDIBILITY intellectual relationship. But sometimes, what is relevant is
already placed in the law or in the rule. And if so there are
Admissibility and competence of evidence has nothing to do evidences which are irrelevant because of the rule, and
with its credibility. It is only admitted because it is not because of common sense at the same time.
excluded by the law and the rules. But believing the evidence
is a different story. Let’s have examples.

In 2004 bar exams, there was a question of competence vs What crime do you want me to commit? Sawa na ako sa rape,
credibility. murder na lang. Kasi the last time I lectured to my class, they
said rape. Never mind, huwag na. You know that rape, I don’t
Situation: like it’s being changed into a crime against persons. It should
remain as a crime against chastity. Well, that’s alright. That’s
I am accused of murder. My defense counsel called my father why because of that new law even if there is no real thing
as a witness. My father testified that it was impossible for my there could be rape. That’s too bad. We’ll take that up in
son to commit the crime of murder because at that point in criminal law.
time, me and my son are summiting the Mt. Everest.
Example: “Murder”
Is my father a competent witness?
I am accused of murder. My victim was an old man. During
Yes, relationship or interest in the case is not a the presentation of evidence chief by the prosecution, the
disqualification. prosecution called a Police Superintendent to testify about my
previous involvement in murder cases personally known to
him because he was the arresting officer and the main
Page 3 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

witness in the other cases and those other cases are also patunayan ang kanyang tendency, propensity to commit
pending in court. There were 4 murder cases previously filed those acts. Ipasok mo for a different purpose.
against me. Obviously the reason why the prosecution was
presenting my previous acts of murder is to show my Anong purpose? Look at the rule. To show a specific intent, to
propensity to commit murder. So the similar acts I performed show knowledge, to show identity, to show plan, to show
before are now presented in court. system, to show scheme, to show habit, to show custom,
usage and the like. Baguhin natin ang words: to show modus
If you were the defense counsel that I hired and I am paying operandi or to show the way that they were committed were
you 25,000php/hour, would you object? the same.

I have heard lawyers not objecting. Now, you are a lawyer Look at this. Napatunayan sa hukuman na yung aking pinatay
you have to object. ay nilagyan ko ng tatak dito na cruz (cross) at saka merong
nakalagay sa dibdib ‘salot’ at yung 4 na napatay ko/na-
What is the basis of your objection? Simply to say irrelevant involved ako ay meron din cruz, meron din ‘salot’. Pwedeng
is not enough. It’s so general in that sense. Because there is ipasok yun to show the similarity, the scheme, the system by
a specific provision in the rule. So specify the rule. If there is which they were committed. But not to show directly na dahil
no specific provision of the rule then you simply say pumatay ako nuon, ako rin ang pumatay ngayon. Ibahin mo
“irrelevant”, that’s okay. ang purpose.

But, if there is a specific provision of the rule, you mention Another example: “Bank Robbery”
the rule in summary form – give the title to it. “Objection,
Your Honor. Evidence of similar acts, evidence of similar Bank robbery. Sangkot ako sa 5 bank robberies before.
conduct.” The court will say “Sustained.” Because it is Ngayon bank robbery uli. Pwede ba ipakita yung nakaraan?
irrelevant. Hindi, kung ang purpose mo ay “to show that because you
committed bank robberies before, you will also commit bank
The fact that I committed murder before does not mean that I robbery now.” Mali yun. Because evidence of similar acts is
will also commit the present murder for which I am charged. not admissible to prove propensity.
Or the fact that I did not do something before does not mean
I will not do something now. That’s common sense, pure and Eh, pakitaan mo na pareho ang pagka-commit. Consistent
simple logic. ang lahat ng bank robberies na kinasangkotan ko, na ako ay
pumasok sa bangko nan aka-white duck ang suot. Ano ang
Look at this: “Itong batang ito nasa harap, ‘yung ayaw white duck? Puti ang pang-itaas, puti ang pantalon, puti ang
tumingin sa akin at sulat nang sulat. Oh, kunyari tingin ka sa sapatos, nakakulay pati buhok, sombrero puti.
‘kin at huwag kang mahiyang tumingin sa ‘kin. Gusto mo
munang bumati? Hindi na. Okay, ayaw niya. Okay, look. Sabi Pare-pareho ang nangyari: pumasok ako sa bangko; sabi ko
ko sa kanya, “You know I woke up from the right side of the sa guard, at exactly 9:50 (dahil may time lock kaya 9:50 ako
bed this morning only to realize that I am so in love with you. pumasok) “Good morning, guard.” Sabay sampal sa guard at
Pwede ba kitang girlfriend?” natulig ang guard. Singkidlat na binunot ang kanyang .38
Special Revolver made in Marikina Armscor. Gaya ng nangyari
Huwag kang pikon ha, example lang ‘to. Sagot sa akin ay sa lahat ng robberies, pinusasan ko siya sa pinto, nandun
ganito “Alam mo, ayaw ko sa ‘yo dahil si Dulce naging lang siya at binusalan ko ng consistent na kulay na puting
girlfriend mo. 2 weeks lang binreak (break up) mo nang bimpo o maliit na towalya. Then, lakad sa teller at sinabi ko
walang dahilan. Si Alicia, naka-1 week lang eh, umiiyak “Good morning, teller.” Sabay hapit sa ulo, sabay halik at
binreak mo after 1 week. Mabuti pa nga si Justina, 1 month saka kinuha ang mga pera. Nung bago ako umalis ay sabi ko
hmmm. Si Anita, 2 days. Alam mo, ganyan din mangyayari sa sa mga customers, “Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me
buhay ko sayo. Bibi-break mo rin ako.” your ears. I came to rob this bank not for my sake but for the
people of my community. See you later. Goodbye. Sayonara.”
Sagot ko “Iba ka naman eh.” *Laughs.
Kung napatunayan na nangyari yun sa lahat, ipakita mo yun.
That is a rule of evidence. Meaning, the fallacy of non To show the system, the scheme, the identity, the way they
sequitur – it does not follow. Section 34 Rule 130. I’m using committed but not to prove propensity – it cannot be done,
this as an example only. Look at it, you read it carefully. It you have to object. “Objection, Your Honor. Evidence of
does not follow. similar acts.” Or kung medyo technical ka, “Objection, Your
Honor. Second branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule.” Sabi
Dahil ba siya ay nakapatay nuong unang panahon ng 5 ng Judge, “Bakit, may first branch ba?” “Meron po. Mamaya
tao, siya rin ang pumatay ngayon? na, sa break.” Actually, that’s the 2nd branch of this res inter
alios acta rule.
It does not follow.
Another Example:
Dahil ba hindi siya nagnakaw nuon ay hindi siya
magnanakaw ngayon? Something that is irrelevant and is already placed in the rule
so it’s now irrelevant and incompetent. Do we follow each
It does not follow. other? Yes, I know you’re tired but let me finish my piece
because I have my own modular approach. May module
Remember Section 34 has never been asked in the Bar pagkatapos ko niyan, tigil. Eh, matagal pa eh.
exams. Look at this, “Papano Sir natin maipasok sa
ebidensiya yung pagpatay niya sa 4 na tao before?” Ipasok In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution now in its evidence
mo, not for the purpose of showing that because he killed in chief called a witness. The witness who has personal
before he will also kill now. Huwang mong ipasok para knowledge of the facts about the accused and he was proving
in a case of homicide the bad moral character of the accused.
Page 4 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

That the accused is aggressive, irritable, he would hit The prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the
anybody if someone looks at him straight into the eyes and accused. It can only do so by way of rebuttal. But it cannot do
without any provocation he would hit the person. Always like so in its evidence in chief. Nakalagay diyan, “Unless in
that. His bad moral character was now the subject of the rebuttal…” Hindi pa yan natatanong sa Bar kaya nga
testimony. That is in the prosecution’s evidence in chief. ginagamit ko na lang na examples yung nasa Rules hindi na
hypothetical para makatipid tayo sa oras.
So this is a character evidence, is it not? Okay, bad moral
character. So ang general rule: ‘pag evidence in chief, ang prosecution
hindi pwedeng i-put in issue ang character ng accused. It
Are you going to object? Is his character evidence cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused.
relevant? So can you convict him because he is a bad
person? Itaas natin ang antas ng ating talakayan. Englisin natin:
“Ladies and gentlemen, the Rules simply mean the
The answer is NO. Common sense – the person is to be prosecution cannot initially put the character of the accused in
convicted because he committed a crime and not because he issue. The prosecution has to wait for the accused to put his
is bad. own character in issue and then the prosecution will answer
back in rebuttal.
Ang ganda ng rules of evidence, it’s common sense.
So hindi ka pwedeng mauna kung prosecution ka na
Alam niyo ganito ang nangyayari sa buhay eh: magsabing, “Masamang tao ang accused.” Hindi. Kailangan
munang sabihin ng accused sa kanyang defense: “I am a
Person1: Oy, si Jec-jec daw eh inakyat yung bahay ni Mr. good person. Ako’y isang mabuting bata. Tulad ng isang
Lorenzo Gabutina. halamang sagana sa dilig at sikat ng araw.”

Person2: Eh, totoo yan. Masamang tao talaga yan si Jec-jec (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad
eh. moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved
in the offense charged.
Biro mo, sinasabi mong siya ang nang-akyat ng bahay dahil
sa masamang tao. That’s not logical. Siya ang nang-akyat ng General Rule: Evidence in chief, ang prosecution hindi
bahay dahil may testigo at merong ebidensiya na siya ang pwede i-put in issue ang character ng accused.
umakyat. Hindi dahil sa masama siyang tao.
Sasabihin ng accused, “Ako ay mabait.”
Ganun tayo magsalita eh. Ang dami nating elemento sa ating
kultura na hindi angkop sa Rules of Evidence. Saka pa lang sasabihin ng prosecution, “Hindi totoo yan,
masama kang tao.” Iyon, pwede na. (The law says unless in
Ay, pati yung biyanan ko minsan nung buhay pa: rebuttal)

“Tay, nasuntok pala ni Tokpok si Totoy.” Kung ikaw ay lawyer at prosecutor ka, ang gagawin mo, you
prove his bad moral character even in evidence in chief, kasi
Sagot ng biyanan ko, “Ay, walang hiya naman talaga yang si if the accused did not object, pasok yon. It becomes
Tokpok na yan eh.” admissible. Do not sabotage yourself. Bakit mo ipapasok, eh
i-object yan (comment of other lawyer). Ipapasok ko dahil
Wala naman siyang ebidensiya na nanuntok, ang ebidensiya kung walang objection, admissible naman.
lang niya – ang impression lang niya na walang hiya.
An inadmissible evidence becomes admissible when there is
Minsan sinabi ko sa inyo yung ating kultura na unresponsive: no objection because of waiver. Pero sa bar exam, sasabihin
mo, “even if this is objectionable, I will offer it because if he
Person1: Andiyan ba ang tatay mo? does not object, it will be admitted.” Huwag naman, hindi
ganoon ang examination. Pag sinabi ng rules na inadmissible,
Person2: Nasa Bulacan po. sasabihin mo inadmissible.

Unresponsive. Di ko naman tinatanong kung nasaan. Tanong LAST PART, RULE 128: COLLATERAL MATTERS
ko lang kung nandiyan o wala. So ang sagot ay ganito dapat,
“Wala po.” Nasaan? “Nasa Bulacan po.” Yun ang logical. Collateral matters are those which have no direct relationship
to the issue. General rule: they are not admissible. However,
Makigpausap ka sa iyong kaibigan. Ganun ang isasagot mo – if you can show a connection, the probability or improbability,
irrelevant. then it can be admitted.

Person1: “Oy, kumusta ka?” Example:

Person2: “Pupunta ako diyan sa kabilang ibayo eh.” Character is collateral. The character of a person has nothing
to do with his guilt or innocence. When you study Criminal
Ano ang relevance dun? Pero yan ang ating kultura. Napansin Law, you study motive. However, motive is not an element of
nyo? Huwag nyo gamitin yan sa Bar. the crime. But sometimes, you have to consider motive. For
instance, the identity of the perpetrator is not very clear so
SEC. 51 OF RULE 130 you show motive.

Can you look at Section 51 of Rule 130 for a while? You MATTERS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL
look at that portion on criminal cases. ADMISSIONS

Page 5 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

There are times when you don’t need to offer evidence for Does the Court take judicial notice of the fact that most
certain matters. We call them as matters of judicial notice and Filipinos belong to the Malay race? Yes
judicial admissions.
That Spania Boulevard becomes flooded after a heavy rain?
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE Yes

Rule 129 governs Mandatory Judicial Notice – require no But the personal knowledge of the judge is not necessarily a
evidence subject of judicial notice. If his personal knowledge is known
to him alone, and not of common knowledge then he cannot
You see judicial admission is Section 4, it needs no proof. say that I think we have to take judicial notice of this because
I studied in Cambridge and in that university, there is a room
Situation: called Room 311. He knows it personally but he cannot take
judicial notice of it.
Someone asked, “Where were you at around three forty-five
in the afternoon of April 9, 2010.” Important:

I answered, “I was getting off a plane that travelled from Los May a court (MTC) take judicial notice of a municipal
Angeles to NAIA. ordinance within its jurisdiction?

Objection ang kabila, “Objection your honor, he mentioned of The answer is yes. But you cannot compel RTC to take judicial
Los Angeles, there is no evidence on record that certain place notice of a municipal ordinance within its jurisdiction unless
called Los Angeles exists. Objection your honor, he mentioned the law tells it to do so. Like in the City of Manila, the RTC has
of 3:45 pm but there is no evidence on record that a time to take judicial notice of city ordinances of Manila because the
3:45 in the afternoon exist. charter of Manila has a provision which says all courts, sitting
in Manila must take judicial notice of the city ordinances of
The Court said, “Sustained.” You don’t have to prove Manila.
geographical location, as well as the measure of time. If you
prove it, then all of us will die because of frustration. But the courts above MTC, judicial notice is not automatic.
But from the MTC, yes.
Mandatory… the courts have to take judicial notice of those.
Should you prove the existence of the principle of
Rule 129, Section 1. “Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A diplomatic immunity?
court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of: No, the Court has a duty to take judicial notice because it’s
part of the general law of nations. It’s part of public
1. The existence and territorial extent of states international law.
2. Their political history
3. Forms of government and symbols of nationality Do you have to prove the existence of a country
4. The law of nations Slovania?
5. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals No, because of the existence of states under mandatory
6. The political constitution and history of the judicial notice.
Philippines
7. The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial JUDICIAL ADMISSION
departments of the Philippines
8. The laws of nature It is not an admission of the witness. It is an admission of a
9. The measure of time, and party. The admission need not be in writing. It can be oral
10. The geographical divisions. and the admission must be in the same case.

DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE When there is judicial admission, it requires no proof.

But there are matters which the court may take judicial notice Can you contradict a judicial admission?
of if they do not fall under the mandatory judicial notice. Does
it mean that the court cannot take judicial notice of the fact? General Rule: No.

There is such a creature in evidence we call matters of Exceptions: You can contradict in two instances.
discretionary judicial notice. There will now be discretion on
the part of the court. 1. You made it through palpable mistake.
2. The admission was not made or no such admission
But the exercise of discretionary notice is circumscribed by was made.
certain requirements.
Situation:
A court cannot simply take judicial notice of something
because the court by its own caprice wants to take judicial There are different cases, but both are civil cases. An
notice of it. The matter of which you will take judicial notice admission was made in open court by Mr. X. Is that admission
must be of common knowledge, it must be capable of by Mr. X in an open court supposed to be a judicial admission
unquestionable demonstration, and it must be something with respect to the other case?
which the judge ought to know by reason of its judicial
function.
Page 6 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Answer: No, as far as this case is concerned. This is an What if you denied the allegation but you did not follow
extrajudicial admission. Therefore it must be offered in the modes of specific denial in the Rules of Court (Rule
evidence if you want to introduce it in another case. But if 8 Sec 10), is that a judicial admission?
that judicial admission made here is with respect to that case,
it is a judicial admission. Can it be oral? Yes, kahit walang It is an implied judicial admission.
oral sa Section 4. Meron naming “verbal”.
If you made a negative pregnant denial, is that a
REQUISITES judicial admission?

1. Made by a PARTY to the case, not just by an Yes, a negative pregnant is an admission.
ordinary witness
2. Made in the course of the proceedings of the If you state, “I deny all paragraphs of the complaint,
same case. vehemently and specifically” did you make a judicial
- An admission in court in another case, with admission?
respect to another case, it is not a judicial
admission. Yes, the denial was general, not specific.
3. It can be verbal or in writing
Are all admissions in a complaint not specifically denied
ADMISSION CONFESSION deemed admitted?
Very general. Normally, A special type of an admission.
it is about facts. It is an admission that No, only material allegations not specifically denied are
acknowldges guilt in relation to deemed admitted. Immaterial allegations are not deemed
a criminal case. It is a direct admitted regardless of lack of specific denials.
acknowledgment of guilt,
cannot be implied. If the plaintiff in his complaint said, “The defendant in
performing his duties acted with recklessness and utmost
negligence” was not specifically denied by respondent. Was
INSTANCES OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS there judicial admission?

Is an admission in a complaint, answer, pleading like a No, it is not a material allegation. It is of a character of a
cross-claim, reply or third-party complaints or answer conclusion and conclusions are not allegations of fact which
in interventions, are they judicial admissions? must be denied.

Yes. Pleadings are filed in court. They are part of the Sec. 11, Rule 8. Allegations not specifically denied
proceedings. To make admissions in a pleading is to make an deemed admitted. — Material averment in the complaint,
admission in the course of the proceedings. other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
If the court, together with the parties, made an ocular Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious
examination of a crime scene, during the course of the interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
inspection, a member of the prosecution made an
admission. Is that a judicial admission? The answer of the defendant alleges usury as a defense. The
plaintiff did not even file a reply to deny usury.
Yes. An ocular inspection by the court together with the
parties is part of the criminal proceeding. The prosecution Is there an implied admission of usury?
represents the People of the Philippines, the party to the
case. No. If it is simply an allegation of usury as a defense in the
answer, it need not be denied under oath because it is not a
Is an admission during a pre-trial conference a judicial complaint to recover usurious interests.
admission?
The word “complaint” according to the Commission on Rules
Yes. Pre-trial is part of the proceedings. As long as the on Evidence should not be strictly construed as the original
admission was made by a party to the case. complaint because a counterclaim, cross-claim, third party
complaint is in the nature of the complaint. But that allegation
Is the failure to specifically deny a material allegation of usury should not be an allegation as a defense. The
of a complaint considered an implied admission? purpose is to recover usurious interests. If usury is simply
mentioned casually, not to recover usurious interests, the
ROC Rule 8 Section 11. Allegations not specifically denial under oath does not apply.
denied deemed admitted. — Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of Sec. 8, Rule 8. How to contest such documents. — When
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
under oath. execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and
sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement
Not all judicial admissions are expressed. A complaint with of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not
material allegations when not specifically denied is deemed appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance
impliedly judicially admitted. Receiving these pleadings is part with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
of the proceedings. refused.

Page 7 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

SITUATION #1: Section 2, Rule 118, ROC. Pre-trial agreement. All

agreements or admission made or entered during the pre-trial
The plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure of Real Estate of conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
Mortgage. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was allegedly accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against
executed by the defendant. Therefore, the Deed of Real the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to
Estate Mortgage is the basis of the action and if it is the basis in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
of the action, it is an actionable document.
To be admissible against him, his admission must be set forth
The defendant was surprised to see the attached deed, and in writing. It must be signed by the counsel and the accused.
specifically denied that it is he who executed the deed. In his An oral admission in a pre-trial, even if technically a judicial
answer, he is specifically denied the genuineness and the due admission, will not be admissible against him.
execution of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.
Section 26, Rule 130, ROC. Admissions of a party. The
During the trial of the case, he called an NBI handwriting
act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
expert to corroborate his allegation that his signature is a
may be given in evidence against him.
forgery. The plaintiff objected to the testimony of the NBI
agent because accordingly, the defendant already admitted
the genuineness of the signature. EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION

The court said, we cannot allow the testimony to prove the 1. No need to offer it for evidence.
forgery.
When an admisison is judicial, it requires no proof. It
Is the court correct? automatically forms part of the records, no need to prove it.
So you no longer need to offer it for evidence, because it’s
Yes. There was only a specific denial, there was no oath. It already there in the records.
should be denied under oath under Section 8, Rule 8. Take
note of actionable documents. There is already a judicial 2. The admission is conclusive against the
implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of admitter.
the document.
Part of doctrine of estoppel.
SITUATION #2:
Exceptions:
A case was filed against my father for foreclosure of REM and
he died before filing an answer. He has no other relatives a) Palpable mistake
except me. The purpose of the foreclosure is to collect the
debt or collection of money. Therefore, the case is not You did not really intend to make an admission. (Di
extinguished by the death of my father. sinasadya/Hayagan mistake)

The court will order my substitution pursuant to Sec 20 and Example:

Sec 16 of Rule 3. I filed an answer specifically denying the
genuineness of my father’s signature but there was no oath. My name is Willard Riano. I took an oath declaring that “I,
Because there was no notary public in our place. Mike Arroyo, swear…”

Is there an implied judicial admission of the I’m not Mike Arroyo. That was really just a slip of the tongue.
genuineness of my father’s signature? A lapse of judgment. Hence, when I declared in court that I
am Mike Arroyo, it doesn’t mean that I am now judicially
No. I am not a party to that instrument. It was my father who admitting that I am Mike Arroyo and I can no longer relieve
was the party. and free myself from it. It is a palpable mistake.

SITUATION #3: b) When no such admission was made.

I signed a document and a case was filed against me. I filed “I said something but that’s not what I meant.”
for a Motion for the Production and Inspection of Document.
The court ordered the plaintiff to show the original. The Example:
plaintiff refused.
I judicially admitted that I was not able to attend the meeting
I am now filing an answer, specifically denying it without an because I was sick. The other party stated that I judicially
oath. admitted that I was sick.

Is there an implied judicial admission? This is wrong. Yes, I said such statement but that is not what
I meant with “sick”. Instead, I meant that I was tired. Sick
There is none. The plaintiff did not present the original when and tired.
it was requested and ordered by the court.
IOW, this simply means that you were taken out of context.
Will an admission during the Pre-trial in a criminal case Or, that is not what you truly meant with your statement.
be deemed a Judicial Admission given that pretrial is
part of the proceedings? Suppose a pleading was amended. In the original pleading,
there was an admission. In the amendment, you no longer
Not all judicial admissions are admissible. This is an example included the admission. Is the admission in the superseded
of a non-admissible judicial admission. amended pleading be considered a judicial admission?
Page 8 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

CHING vs. CA, 331 SCRA There was no longer conspiracy when the admission was
made. It was not made during the existence of a conspiracy,
Admissions in amended and superseded pleadings are in fact, 1 month has already lapsed.
deemed extrajudicial admissions.
For the statement of X to be admissible as evidence against
It will be considered as an extra-judicial admission, therefore the other two accused, what the prosecution do, is place X in
it must be formally offered in evidence. Had it not been the witness stand and to let X testify again regarding his
amended, it would have been a judicial admission. earlier statement. Thus, it is no longer an extrajudicial
statement but a judicial testimony of a person who have
Is the admission of your counsel in open court personal knowledge of the crime. The res inter alios acta rule
considered a judicial admission of a party? no longer applies.

Generally, yes. Because in open court, the lawyer speaks in ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR
behalf of the client.
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or
EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-
ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act of declaration.
Is an extrajudicial admission admissible against the
party making it?
For a statement of a conspirator to be admissible not only
against him but also against the other co-conspirators, 3
Yes. But only “against him”. Meaning, it is not admissible
elements must concur (Sec. 30):
against the others.
1. The statement must be made the during
Section 4, Rule 129, ROC. Judicial admissions. An existence of the conspiracy;
admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the ourse of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The Note: During the existence, thus, in the earlier case, after
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was the robbery was consummated, there is no longer a
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission conspiracy.
was made
2. The act or declaration of a conspirator must
SITUATION: relate to the conspiracy; and

One month after a successful robbery of a bank, X was 3. The conspiracy is shown by evidence other than
arrested while eating in a restaurant, right there and then, such act of declaration. Thus, it must be proven
the arresting officers interrogated X. X refused to answer by another independent evidence aside from the
subject to one condition, that is, media reporters Julius Babao declaration.
and Arnold Clavio should come. When the reporters came, the
interrogation started, X admitted that he is part of the group SITUATION:
who robbed the bank in front of the reporters, and he also
stated the participation of some other persons named Jose A, B, and C decided to rob a bank. A, B, and C will be coming
Pidal and Juanito Lacson. Later on, a case was filed against from different places. While A is on his way to the bank, he
the three accused. During the trial of the case, the video tape decided to check whether he was able to bring the gun to be
recording were X’s admission was made, was offered as used for the robbing of the bank, to his surprise, he found an
evidence. air gun. Thus, he decided to make a short visit to his cousin
to borrow a gun where he admitted that he, along with B and
Is X’ statement of his participation on the bank robbery C will be robbing a bank. A, B and C were unsuccessful for
admissible as evidence if it was extra-judicially made? they were caught by the police officers while escaping the
bank. One of the evidence used by the prosecution is the
Yes, because of section 26. The act, declaration or omission testimony of his cousin.
of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him. Is his testimony based on A’s extrajudicial admission
admissible against A?
Is X’ statement on the alleged participation of the other
two accused admissible as evidence against them? Yes, A’s admission is admissible as evidence against himself.

X’ statements which are extrajudicial will not prejudice the Is it admissible against the others?
other people, as provided under section 28. The ground for
objection is res inter alios acta rule. The conspiracy was alive when A made a confession to his
cousin, said admission also relates to the conspiracy of
Section 28, Rule 130, ROC. Admision by third party. The robbing the bank. If the prosecution can prove the
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration conspiracy, aside from such declaration of A, then the
or omission of another, except as herein after provided. testimony of A’s cousin is admissible against B and C.

When Secs. 26 and 28 are put together, it would refer now to ADOPTIVE ADMISSION
the first branch of res inter alios acta.

But aren’t X and the other two accused conspirators?

Page 9 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

An extra judicial admission, where the person does not say Only the civil case can be compromised and if the civil aspect
anything is compromised it does not bar the prosecutor from
continuing the case; the criminal case will go on.
Example:
Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability
During lecture a lady would shout at the professor “ikaw ang arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not
nangrape sa akin kagabi!” He did not answer. It is extra extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal
judicial because it is not in court. penalty. (1813)

May the silence be offered in evidence against the However, prosecutors sometimes no longer continue with the
professor as an implied admission? case upon knowledge of compromise in the civil case not
because of the compromise but because of insufficiency of
Sec 32 of Rule 130. Admission by silence. — An act or evidence, there is no more witness for the prosecution.
declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act SITUATION:
or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to Nakabangga ka ng tao tumilapon ng 10m and smack his face
do so, may be given in evidence against him. but alive. The victim filed a case for damages.

IMPLIED ADMISSION If you offer to pay his hospital bills and give him ayuda,
is that an admission of guilt?
COMPROMISE
It’s not an admission of guilt (civil case) in the US it is called
a Good Samaritan rule
Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil
cases an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
When you pleaded guilty and because the plea of guilt
liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
is improvident so you withdraw it. Is that considered
an admission of guilt?
In criminal cases except those involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be The withdrawal will not have an adverse effect on you. It will
compromised an offer of compromised by the accused may be not be considered as an admission of liability.
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
Remember the distinction between a judicial admission
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a and an extra-judicial admission.
plea of guilty to lesser offense is not admissible in evidence
against the accused who made the plea or offer.
An extra-judicial confession in itself is not sufficient for a
conviction.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in
Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession not sufficient ground
evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an
(24a)
accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
Compromise offered by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
It must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. [corpus
Example: = body; delicti = crime].

I am criminally charged with reckless imprudence resulting to Corpus delicti actually refers to the fact that the crime was
less serious physical injuries, the prosecution offered evidence committed or the elements of the crime. SC had pinpointed
of my offer to compromise the case. what the corpus delicti is depends on the crime.

Is there an implied admission of liability? PEOPLE vs. SASOTA

No, because criminal negligence could be compromised. Sasota et. Al took Sabino Bucad from his house to the Bato
lake, took him with them for a boat ride on the lake, and
Types of Felonies: while sailing, continued to ill-treat him until he died, and
presumably thereafter secretly disposed of his body. The SC
• Culpa or quasi-delict or criminal negligence – can be said In the crime of Homicide or Murder, the Corpus delicti
compromised does not necessary mean the actual body because the death
• Dolo one committed with malice or deliberate intent of a person following American jurisprudence could be proven
– cannot be compromised, an offer to compromise is even if the body is not found. There are cases like death at
an implied admission of guilt sea, where the finding or recovery of the body is impossible.
It is enough that the death and the criminal agency causing
Note: Only the civil aspect can be compromised in cases of death be proven. There are even cases where said death and
dolo, because it does not bar the prosecutor from continuing the intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be
the criminal case. presumed or established by circumstantial evidence.

A criminal offence has generally 2 aspects: Criminal and Civil. PP vs. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA

Page 10 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Involving two young ladies who were allegedly raped and Note: Before the evidence will be admitted, the two
murdered by the scions of influential people, one of them was characteristics must be present: (1) relevant (2) must be
not found until now but double murder was sustained as long competent or not excluded by law or rules.
as there is enough evidence that there was death.
Which among the evidence is the most superior type of
PP. vs. ANSANG ET. AL evidence?

The testimony was, the accused threw dynamites at the other The rules do NOT establish a hierarchy of superiority. Instead,
vinta and the witnesses saw that the vinta exploded and the the evidences complement each other.
people inside where seen by them to be lifted up in the air
and that after 3 days the remains of the vinta was washed Example:
ashore but the remains of those people were no longer found
and it happened in a shark infested area. The corpus delicti of A .45 caliber pistol (object evidence) cannot in itself be
murder was proven, murder because qualified by explosion. admitted in evidence. The object must be identified and
authenticated through a witness (testimonial evidence).
Object evidence must be sponsored by a witness. Object
AMERICAN CASE
evidence, by itself, cannot talk. An object evidence or
documentary evidence needs testimonial evidence. But
Facts: testimonial evidence can stand on its own even without object
or documentary evidence.
A passenger of a plane stood up while the plane was 25,000
feet from above sea level, went at the back of the plane and  Object evidence and documentary evidence -
got his .45 Caliber pistol. He asked the stewards to open the needs testimonial evidence.
plane’s exit door and asked the victim to stand in front. He
shot him 7 times and kicked him out of the plane through the  Testimonial evidence - does not need an object. It
exit. He was accused of voluntary manslaughter (murder). does not need a document. Testimonial evidence
depends upon your perception and if you can
Accused alleged that, in order for him to be convicted of perceive and communicate your perception, that is
manslaughter, there must be someone who died. There must testimonial evidence.
be corpus delicti.
Is every object an Object Evidence?
Ruling:
No.
US Supreme Court ruled that nobody will be alive when the
accused shot the victim twice in the head, five in the chest, Is every document a documentary evidence?
and dropped him 25,000 feet from above sea level. There is
no need to search for his body because, in this case, the No. An object can be a documentary evidence, a document
corpus delicti was sufficiently proven. can be an object evidence. The reason for that is it depends
on the purpose on which it was offered.
Note: In homicide or murder the body of the person need not
be shown in court because there are cases when the body can
Rule 130 Section 1. Object as evidence – Objects as
no longer be found. Some cases, such as those falling under
evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
special penal laws, require that the object be presented in
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
court.
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
Example:
---
1. Drug cases require the presentation of the
confiscated illegal drugs along with the certification Section 2. Documentary Evidence – Documents as
evidence consists of writings or any material containing
2. In illegal possession of firearms, there is no need to letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
present the firearm but there must be a certification written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
that the accused does not have a license to possess
firearm. There are two kinds of documentary evidence:

TYPES OF EVIDENCE 1. In writing

2. Any other material
1. Object Evidence or Real Evidence – also
called autoptic evidence or prophylactic evidence Illustration:
in other jurisdictions
A deed of Sale is a writing but to be a documentary evidence
a) Demonstrative Evidence – only a specie a material that is not in writing must contain letters, words,
of an object evidence, it represents or numbers, figures, symbols and other modes of written
represents the real thing. Example: picture expression.
of the gun used in the crime
*But both kinds of documentary evidence have one
2. Documentary Evidence fundamental characteristic to make them as documentary
evidence, they must be offered as proof of their contents.
3. Testimonial Evidence

Page 11 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

BAR QUESTION: Should the objection be sustained?

May a document evidence be an object evidence? No, what counsel was merely trying to present to the court
was the observation of the witness during the marriage
Yes, it depends on the purpose in which it was offered. ceremony and not the proof of the existence of marriage. The
best evidence rule does not yet apply since there is no
If I have a pin and I use it: document involved what was merely presented was the
witness products of her own perception during the event.
• to prove the length of the pin - object evidence. Thus, the evidence at this stage is purely testimonial and not
• to prove what is inscribed in it, letters, words, documentary.
numbers etc - documentary evidence.
• to prove fact that I am holding a pin - object Counsel then proceeded to ask the witness on what happened
evidence during the marriage ceremony. In which, witness answered
that the parties and witnesses signed a marriage contract.
I have a Deed of Sale, if I am offering: Opposing counsel objected on the ground that there is now a
reference to the marriage contract and thus the best evidence
• to prove that a Deed of Sale exists between me and which is the marriage contract should be presented.
the other party - this Deed of Sale is not offered as a
documentary evidence but as an object evidence. Should the objection be sustained?
• to prove the price of the sale, which is now in
reference to a stipulation in the contract - No. Although there was a document mentioned in the
documentary evidence offered as proof of its question, there was no reference to the contents of the
content. document. What was merely asked was the existence of the
• prove the size, the paper used, the length and the marriage contract and not as to its contents.
color of the paper - it is object evidence.
Requisites of Best evidence:
Why do we have to make a clear distinction between a
documentary evidence and an object evidence? • There must be a document
• There must be an inquiry as to its contents
It is because when the evidence is offered as an object
evidence, you are not supposed to apply the best evidence Counsel then asked the witness that upon signing she must
rule. You are not supposed to apply the Parole Evidence Rule. have seen the ages of the parties and proceeded to ask what
You are not even supposed to apply the hearsay evidence were their ages as seen by her. Opposing counsel objected on
rule. Hearsay Evidence Rule applies to writings and the ground that the best evidence rule must first apply.
testimonies.
Whether objection should be sustained?
Note: For Object evidence, the following does not find
application: Yes. This time the best evidence rule must apply. There is
now a reference and an inquiry to the contents of the
• Best Evidence Rule document.
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Hearsay Evidence Rule BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SITUATION #1: The best evidence rule is the most misunderstood rule in
evidence. What is the reason why it is misunderstood?
Angel was a victim of seduction. During trial, she was asked Because of its word best which makes it misunderstood.
to stand and point to the person who perpetuated the act.
She pointed at Willard Riano. Court asked the name of the Let me catch my breath…… catch.. my.. breath… wow. English
one pointed at. Willard Riano in this scenario is an object language is beautiful. Magandang ingles pero mas rich ang
evidence. tagalog, may mga salita tayong walang translation sa english.
Pag sinabi mong sayang. Wala namang direct translation yan
Can he become a documentary evidence? sa ingles, sayang means a regrettable loss. An american does
not say when nahulog ang kanyang ice na, “what a
Yes, if the issue was and what was offered in evidence was regrettable loss.”
the writings of the tattoo in his chest. The chest has writings,
words and modes of written expression offered as proof of Kasi pag binasa mo lang ang salitang best and you are very
their content. This now becomes a documentary evidence. As literal of this and not legal, common wisdom will tell us na
a consequence, the best evidence rule must be followed. pinakamagaling, pinaka maganda, pinaka superior.
Thus, the original of tattoo must first be offered as evidence.
Look at this:
SITUATION #2:
“Mr. X, do you know Mr. Y?”
Case about Legal separation. What was brought to court by
the lawyer was not the marriage contract of the parties but a “Yes sir.”
deed of sale of another case. So what the lawyer did was he
presented one of the godmother of the spouses as a witness “How do you know him?”
to the wedding. Opposing counsel objected on the ground
that counsel is proving the marriage with not the best “Well, he is the lessee of the apartment I own.”
evidence, the best evidence being the marriage contract and
not the testimony of the witness.
Page 12 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

“So you have a contract of lease?” Why are you supposed to present the original?

“Yes sir.” Because it is reliable.

“Objection, not the best evidence, the best evidence is the This was a 250 year old rule which started in England,
written contract of lease itself.” Evidence is an English rule borrowed by the Americans. In
England, it happened that the magistrate was looking for the
The court says sustained. so-called bill of sale (deed of sale in the PH).

RIANO: That is WRONG. When I mention a contract of lease, Court: sire, where is your evidence that you are really the
there is yet no reference to a document because the contract owner of 20 acres of land?
can be an oral contract or in writing. Those are bad habits in
the courtroom. It always happens and now you know what it Sir: Your honor, I have a bill of sale.
means when you hear something like that.
Court: Is this the one that really signed by the seller and by
“Is that an oral lease or written lease?” you?

“Yes sir.” Sir: Your honor, these are just facsimilist. I copied and
imitated our signatures. I copied the bill of sale, faithfully.
“Objection.”
Court: Why? Where is the original onw?
Hindi pa rin correct. Document pa lang ang sinabi. Wala pa
ring best evidence rule. Sir: I left it at home. You know your honore, before I could
come here, I have to travel 25 miles horseback and I might
But kung nagtanong: be waylaid by robbers.

“According to that written lease, how much is the monthly Court: You know I am not even sure if you have copied it
rental?” Ayan. Objection, not the best evidence. (Correct na) faithfully. You might have committed a mistake or you might
have changed some provisions when you copied this. I don’t
The application of this rule has been misapplied. The BER is need this. I need the original. Bring it next time.
only treated with dignity and with respect in the bar exams. It
is not treated with dignity most often in court kasi kapag So he brought it the next day with a seal.
nagpakita ng xerox ang isang tao, sisigaw agad ng “not the
best evidence”, sigaw agad ng “sustained”. WRONG. Lesson of the story: Thats the origin of the BER. The best is
the original, not the photocopy you bring in the court. And the
In fact, Sec. 3 tells you that there is an application of the BER reason for this is - mistake in the copying or fraud, so it might
when the subject of the inquiry is the content of the not be reliable. However, apply only the rule if the contents of
document. Therefore, documentary evidence because this the document is the subject of the inquiry.
evidence is offered as proof of their contents.
But are we supposed to strictly and absolutely adhere to the
The reason why it is misunderstood is because of the use of rule that you must present the original at all times? NO.
the word “best”, had we followed the original wordings of the
American rules, there would not have been a confusion. Our rules give us exceptions.
Because in American rule, such evidence is referred to as
“original document rule”. Can you present secondary evidences sometimes? Yes but
remember that are only exceptional cases and because they
Kung ni retain natin ang words ng original document rule, are exceptional, they are in derogation of the original rule and
walang confusion, because the best evidence rule actually so the exceptions’ requirements must be faithfully complied
refers to a conflict between originals and secondary with.
evidences, according to that rule, the orignal prevails. Ngayon
ang ating name ay best evidence rule, sa American Now, let us suppose, here comes a Q&A in court.
jurisprudence ay original document rule.
Court: Mr. X, you testified that you executed a deed of sale
SUMMARY: with the defendant in relation to a one-hectare land. Could
you show this to us for identification?
When BER is applied: when there is a documentary
evidence and offered the subject of inquiry is the contents of Mr. X: Yes your honor. Here it is.
the document.
Court: Is this the original?
So whenever you are confronted in the bar exams with this
question: Does the BER apply? Mr. X: A copy your honor.

The BER does not apply. For the BER to apply, the subject of Court: What happened to the original.
the inquiry must be the contents of the document. While
there is a document, there is no inquiry as to its contents. To Mr. X: It was lost.
reiterate, the rule does not apply. (short, crisp, complete)
During the formal offer of evidence, can counsel present a
So when the BER applies, what is your duty? secondary evidence on the basis of the question and answer?
No, the justification for presenting secondary evidence was
Present the original. We go by degrees. not complete.
Page 13 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Section 5 was not complied with on how to lay the basis for But can you present ANY secondary evidence? No, you must
the presentation of a secondary evidence. Jurisprudence says follow an order of preference:
if you want to present secondary evidence, you must lay the
basis for the presentation of secondary evidence. Laying the (1) Copy
basis means you justify why you cannot present the original, (2) Recital of the contents in some authentic document
only then after justification can you present a secondary (3) Testimony of witnesses
evidence.
Next, what is the meaning of an “original” of a document?
The defect in the Q&A given is that Mr. X simply said it was
lost. There is even no explanation how it was lost, no Go back to Sec. 4, Rule 130.
statement that it was duly executed. While it was said it
existed, there is no testimony that it was duly executed and (1) The one the contents of which are the subject of
no explanation that it was lost without bad faith on the part of inquiry
the person offering the evidence. (2) Includes those copies which are executed at or about
the same time with identical contents
RULE 130, SEC. 5: LAYING THE BASIS (3) A repeated entry in the regular course of business

Remember this concept on Sec. 5, Rule 130: Laying the 1st Illustrative example (Typewriter):
Basis
You are writing a document in a typewriter with a carbon
Illustrative Example: Hypothetical Conversation in paper laid at the back of the document so that there will be
Court an imprint on another page creating a copy. Now here is an
affidavit and there are 6 carbon paper copies, then the affiant
--- signed all the 6 copies. Which of the copies are the originals?

Judge (J): What happened to the original? Answer: All of them are originals.

Lawyer (L): We signed it sir. It was even notarized. But the 2nd example (Modern Printer):
notary public died and everything in his possession with the
copies of the document. Another affidavit printed in a laser jet printer, signed it first,
then it was photocopied five times. How many are originals?
J: Where’s your original copy?
Answer: Only one (the printout). The photocopies are not
L: We had it kept in a safety deposit box. originals.

J: Okay, so where is it? What if you printed only one, photocopied it first, then
proceeded to sign each of it one by one simultaneously. How
L: It’s in a safety deposit box at Metrobank but the bank got many are originals?
hit by a series of lightning bolts and it exploded, including the
boxes. Answer: All of them are originals.

---- 3rd example (Newspapers):

Was it lost without bad faith on their part? You want to sue someone for libel based on a libelous remark
in a newspaper column. You are now trying to an issue of the
Yes, it was a fortuitous event covered under Art. 1174. newspaper containing the column. Wanting to present the
original, do you have to go the newspaper and ask “Which
Was it duly executed? copy here of your issue were printed first?”

Yes. Answer: No. All of the issues are originals because they were
all made at or about the same time.
Later on can you present a secondary copy?
Here is another question in the Bar Exam, an old one (1994
Yes, because the basis was laid. This is what the concept Bar Exams) and was worth 5 points. But this is probably one
means. of the most demonstrative questions in the Best Evidence
Rule, and possibly one of the decently formulated questions in
Other bar examiners will ask a question wherein the situation this topic.
is that you cannot present the original because it is in the
possession or control of the adverse party. Before you could IX.
present a secondary evidence, you must show that:
At the trial of Ace for the violation of the Dangerous Drugs
(1) An original exists; Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the
(2) It was duly executed; and marked bills used in the "buy-bust" operation. Ace objects to
(3) The adverse party was given a reasonable notice to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best
produce the original but he/she failed to do so. Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary
evidence in lieu of the original.
This is again called “laying the basis” and when it is laid,
you can now present secondary evidence. (1) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or
documentary evidence? (Not about the Best
Evidence Rule but let’s answer)
Page 14 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Suggested Answers: The next rule that applies to a documentary evidence is the
so-called parol evidence. Don’t put an “e” after parol because
RIANO: No, the photocopy of the marked bills is real (object) you would be going to the domain of political law. Dito lang sa
evidence and not a documentary evidence. It was merely ating bansa na ang parol evidence nilagay sa evidence. In this
used to prove that money changed hands during the instance we are very original. In other countries, it is part of
transaction or to prove the element consideration. It was not contract law. In fact the origin of parol evidence is contract
used to prove the contents, thus, not documentary evidence. law.

UP LAW CENTER: The photocopy of the marked bills is Now, look at sec. 9. Parol evidence rule has reference to
object evidence and not a documentary evidence because it agreements, but there is only one kind of document that is
the marked bills are real evidence. not actually a contract but is deemed to be an agreement
only for the purpose of the parol evidence rule.; and that is a
(Riano’s comments: This is a bad answer. It is like saying will. You see that in sec. 9. But a will is not an agreement for
that he is “matapang” because he is “brave”. There is really any other purpose.
no definition here. It is basically using a synonym. But it is
still acceptable because the examiners are not so strict with Do not apply the parol evidence rule if the contract is still in
basic questions.) the oral stage, because the PER applies to documentary
evidence. And if it is oral, there is no document.
(2) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence even if there
is an objection that it is not the “best evidence”? The PER simply means this way: When the party have
decided to put their agreement in writing, and when the issue
Suggested Answers: is what are the terms of the agreement, what you are
supposed to do is simply take the writing, look at it intently
RIANO: Yes, because the photocopy is object evidence. The and read it; because the only evidence of the agreement is
Best Evidence Rule does not apply to object evidence. the writing itself. There is a presumption that everything the
parties agreed upon are in that document.
UP LAW CENTER: Yes, the photocopy is admissible in
evidence because the Best Evidence Rule does not apply to Do not look outside the writing. Look only in the writing. If
object or real evidence. (People v. Tandoy) you look outside the writing for evidence as to what the
writing is saying, you are looking at something parol. You are
Riano’s Tip: These are how the questions are asked in the looking at something extraneous to the writing or outside of
bar. They are not that difficult. If at all, the difficulty lies in the writing. You are not supposed to look outside the writing.
interpreting and understanding the question as to answer it You are not supposed to ask for his testimony. You are not
properly (issue spotting). This is where you usually get supposed to look at another writing. Look only at that same
confused. writing, and that is Parol Evidence Rule.

But once you interpret it correctly, all lessons you’ve learned So Parol means something extrinsic, outside. Well it may be
will come into play. In order to do this, ask this question to oral or written, but it is outside the writing.
yourself first: “What does the bar examiner want here? What
answer is he asking for? What does he want from me?” What are you supposed to look at? Only the agreement in
Answer along this line, and do not just write what you want. writing.
Be responsive.
Are you are going to ask a person about the contents of that?
*What does the examiner want from me? Lahat ng alam ko No, because he is parol.
ibibigay ko, eh babagsak ka. Bakit? Hindi ka responsive. Gaya
ng kaklase ko. Sabe nya, taking taka ako bakit bumagsak ako Are you going to look at another document that was not cut
sa Remedial eh ang dami dami kong alam. Ang dami kong properly or in the proper size? No, because they are parol.
isinulat. Kase kahit hindi tinatanong, sinasagaot.*
They are what you call evidence aliunde, meaning outside,
Sir! Can you summarize the best evidence rule? extrinsic evidence. Don’t look at them.

Simple, when there is a document and the subject of an KUNG SIYA ANG MISIS KO, SIYA LANG ANG DAPAT
inquiry is the content, you present the original. But if you KONG TINGNAN. SIYA LANG ANG DAPAT KONG
cannot present the original you have to justify why you ASIKASUHIN. PAG IBA ANG TININGNAN KO O
cannot present the original. This justification is called laying INASIKASO KO, SIYA AY PAROL.
the basis. And if already you can lay the basis you can
present the original. Ang ibang ebidensya that modifies the writing, that adds to
the writing, that explains the writing, disregard them because
What secondary evidence can you present? they have nothing to do with the writing. If it contradicts the
writing, don’t consider it.
Copy, recital, testimony of witnesses, that’s it!
If the writing says 1 Million and he says, hindi, 500 thousand
So how do I lay the basis? lang talaga eh, nagkamali lng dyan. Do not consider it!
Because you have to look at the writing only, it contains the
I look at Sec. 5, 6, 7 and so on. repository of the agreement. Because the writing is more
reliable than any other testimony or any other writing.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Pero sir! Can we not present evidence that is contrary
to the writing?

Page 15 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Oh yes! Ito ang parol evidence rule pero walang ka ngipin HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
ngipin. Wala kang maririnig sa korte na, “objection, parol”.
Bakit? Alam ng lahat ng abogado kung papano iwasan ang One of the most important rules in the Rules of Evidence
objection dito. starts in Sec. 36. Sec. 36 is actually the Philippine version of
the Hearsay Evidence Rule.
Situation:
The basic meaning of the Philippine Hearsay Rule is you
Ok. Nakalagay sa kontrata natin, 10 Million. Dinimanda mo cannot testify based on the knowledge of another. You have
ako to collect 10M. Pinagdidian ko 6M lng eh. So, pagdating to testify based on your own personal knowledge. That’s the
ko sa pleading ko, I will put in issue in the pleading that the basic rule. It’s a shortcut of the US Hearsay Rule where we
contents of that writing are not accurate. It does not contain got it from.
the true agreement of the parties. I must put that in my
answer. If I put it in issue in the pleading, I can now present Example (Jose shot Mario):
Parol Evidence, even if it contradicts what the writing says. Or
I say the writing was invalid. Here is the Judge’s table. Here is the witness’ stand. Here is
the audience. In traditional American and English courts,
The keyword is put it in issue in the pleading. In other words, there is a railing here. The audience has no right to come
para mo maiwasan ang objection sa Parol Evidence, batikusin here. Only the lawyers and the Judge are allowed inside the
mo ang kasulatan sa pleading mo. Put it in issue, otherwise railings. That’s the origin of “passing the Bar or crossing the
hindi mo makokontra ang writing. Or you cannot present Bar”. Before you can come here, you must pass the Bar
evidence contrary to the writing. PUT IT IN ISSUE IN THE exams.
PLEADING. So if it does not reflect your true intention, you
can prove it even if it is parol. The witness here, let’s say his name is William. Before he
went to court, Pedro talked to William. Pedro said, “Jose shot
Sir, pero hindi ba eto best evidence? Mario. I saw it with my two big eyes.” Who has personal
knowledge? Pedro. Who is supposed to testify in court? Pedro,
Hindi, ang best evidence ay ganito: kung gusto mong because he is the one with the personal perception. But did
tanungin ang laman ng kasulatan ipakita mo ang orginal. Yan he tell every detail of what he had witnessed to William? Yes.
ang best evidence. Ang Parol Evidence ay: kung gusto mong So, what Pedro knows, William also knows.
malaman ang pinag-usapan natin, tingnan mo ang kasulatan.
Pero ang kasulatan na ang tingnan mo ay original, yun ang So, Pedro received a subpoena to testify against Jose who
best evidence rule. Tingan mo ang kasulatan, parol. Original now stands to be indicted for the crime of homicide. On the
na kasulatan, best evidence rule. day of the trial, when Pedro was now going to court, he
suddenly suffered from extreme chest pains. In 10 minutes,
Eh wala akong original eh, sagot mo. Then lay the basis. Once he was dead. He suffered from a massive heart attack. But
you lay the basis, pwede kanang mag secondary evidence. before that, he managed to recite Jose Rizal’s Mi Ultimo
Oh, may copy ka? Wala. May recital ka in some other Adios. But he’s dead.
authentic document, wala. Ohh, i.testify mo nalang. Oo nga,
pero nalimutan ko, ay problema mo na yun! Yan ang istorya The prosecutor was informed of the death of Pedro by
ng rule! William. William said, “Mr. Prosecutor, everything Pedro
knows, I know.” So, he was offered as a witness to prove that
Secs. 10-19 in rule 130, basahin nyo yan. Yan ay it was really Jose who shot Mario. Remember the purpose of
interpretation lang, kung sa baga, statutory construction. his testimony. “Your Honor, the testimony, William’s
testimony is offered to prove that it was indeed Jose who shot
(BROKEN AUDIO FILE)  and killed Mario.”

PARENT AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE UNDER SECTION During the trial, he was asked,
25
“Why are you here, Mr. William?”
Can a parent testify against a child or a descendant?
“To testify that it was Jose that shot and killed Mario.”
Yes, of course, but he cannot be compelled.
Nagkamali ng tanong ang prosecutor. Ang sumunod na
Can a child testify against a parent or an ascendant? tanong medyo mali:

Yes, but he cannot be compelled. “How did you know that it was Jose that shot Mario?”

But with respect to the child, Sec. 25 has been modified by “Because, sir, my good friend, Pedro who never told a lie in
the Family Code. his life, told me so.”

In Art. 215, under that provision, while a child cannot be What would you expect the defense counsel to do? “I move to
compelled to testify under the Rules of Court against a parent strike out the testimony and I move to discharge the person
or a grandparent, there is an instance where he can be because he will only testify on hearsay which is not allowed
compelled to testify under the Family Code – if his testimony by the Rules.” In most probability, the court will say, “You son
is indispensable. Indispensable where? In a crime committed of a bitch, you step out of here. You will only tell the court
against him (against the child) and a crime committed by one something you do not know.” The court will not say those bad
parent against another parent. In that case, where a crime is words, It’s only just for emphasis. Why? Because he’s not
committed against him by a descendant or against a parent supposed to testify. “Incompetent, Your Honor. No personal
by another parent and the testimony of the child is knowledge.” Yaaan!
indispensable, he can be required to testify.
Page 16 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

But then before he stepped out, “Your Honor, that was only a Mayroong kaso. Ang issue is kung buhay pa ba ang kapatid
slip of the tongue! That is not really the purpose for which I kong lalaki as of April 19, 2002. Gusto kong patunayan na
am testifying here. I am only testifying, Your Honor, as to buhay pa ang aking kapatid nung araw na yon. Tinanong ako:
what Pedro told me before he died. Whether it was true or
not, I do not know. Gusto ko lang malaman ninyo kung ano “Kailan mo nakausap o huling nakausap ang kapatid mo?”
ang sinabi niya sa akin.” He is only going to testify as to the
tenor of the statement, not as to the truth of the statement of “Nung umaga po ng April 19, 2002.”
Pedro to him.
“Anong oras?”
“Wala akong pakialam po kung totoo ang sinabi niya. Ang
gusto ko lang patunayan dito ay kung ano ang narinig ko na “Mga 7:00AM po”
sinabi ni Pedro sa akin.” That is NOT hearsay, because it was
not offered to prove the truth of what Pedro told him. If it is “Papaano mo siya nakausap?”
offered for the truth of what Pedro told him, it is hearsay.
“Tumawag po sa akin sa telepono.”
You know why? Kasi pag-tinanong siya,“Anong nakita? Anong
nangyari? Paano nabaril?” “Saan ka ba nung araw na yon?”

Ang sagot lang niya ay ganito, “Ang sabi lang ni Pedro ay “Ako po ay nasa bahay ko sa Quezon City.”
ganito ang nangyari. Ano pa, ang sabi ni Pedro, nung
nakahandusay na si Mario sa sugat sa dibdib, nilapitan pa, “Nasaan ang kapatid mo?”
tinutukan pa sa noo at tsaka binaril pa ulit. Pagkatapos po,
dinuruan pa. Pagkatapos po, kumuha pa ng kutsilyo at hiniwa “Nasa Romblon po.”
ang tiyan.”
“Paano mo nalaman na siya ay tumatawag sa Romblon?”
“Paano mo nalaman ‘yan?”
“Kasi po, na-rereflect sa telepono ko ang number, at ang
“Sabi po ni Pedro.” number na na-reflect ay ang number ng telepono naming sa
Romblon, kung saan ang kapatid ko at ang sabi pa ng kapatid
“Alam mo kung ano ang nangyari?” ko ay ‘Kuya, nandito ako sa Romblon.’ Tiningnan ko ang
number, totoo nga.”
“Hindo po. Ang sabi lang po ni Pedro.”
“Ano ba ang pinag-usapan niyo?”
Eh, papaano mo ‘yan ma-cocross-examine!? Wala siyang
personal knowledge. Ang sagot lang niya, “Sabi lang ni Pedro, “Eh nangungumusta kung ano na ang nangyayari sa akin sa
ganito. Sabi ni Pedro, ganyan.” Kaya nga, ayaw ng Rules ng Maynila, at bakit hindi ako pumupunta don.”
Hearsay – because the testimony is unrealiable. See? It’s
unrealiable. “Yun lang ba ang sinabi niya?”

But if ang purpose lang niya is to testify as to what he heard: “Kuya, umuulan ng yelo dito sa Romblon kahit na Summer.”

“Ano narinig mo?” Sigaw ng kalaban, “Objection! Hearsay. It should be his

brother testifying in court. Riano, the witness, has no
“Ito ang narinig ko.” personal knowledge about that event na umuulan ng yelo sa
Romblon nung araw na yon.”
“Ano ang sinabi niya?”
Ang magaling na Judge, hindi mag-rurule, magtatanong, “Ano
“Ito ang sinabi niya.” ba ang purpose mo na pinapasok mo ang testimony ng
kapatid mo na wala naman sa korte?”
“Totoo ba yan?”
“Ang purpose ko po ay ganito, para patunayan sa inyo na
“Anong malay ko? Pero totoo na mayroon akong narinig. Pero nung araw na yon, nagkaroon talaga ng yelo sa Romblon
kung ang narinig ko ay totoo, ay hindi ko alam kung totoo kahit ang init nung araw na yon kahit Summer.”
yun. Totoo na may sinabi sa akin. Ganito ang sinabi…”
Aba, Hearsay! Because I have no personal knowledge tungkol
He has personal knowledge. That is not hearsay. sa yelo. Yun ay galing lang sa impormasyon sa kapatid ko to
prove the truth of the fact na may yelo nga.
So, hindi lahat ng out-of-court statements na inulit mo sa
hukuman ay hearsay. Alamin mo muna ang purpose. Kung Pero sinabi ko na ang sinabi ng kapatid ko na umuulan ng
ang narinig mo ay relevant sa kaso, ang tawag dun ay yelo nung April 19, 2002 sa Romblon kahit summer at mainit
Independently Relevant Statement – Independently ang araw, para patunayan ko sa inyo na buhay ang kapatid
relevant irrespective of the truth. What is important is the ko nung araw na iyon dahil kung hindi buhay, di siya
tenor of the statement, that it was said. Meron siyang makapagkwento sakin tungkol sa pag-ulan ng yelo. Hindi to
personal knowledge, yung personal knowledge is kung ano Hearsay, dahil ang purpose ay iba.
ang kanyang narinig, Wala siyang personal knowledge sa
katotohanan ng kanyang narinig. Gusto niyo pa ng isang purpose? Para patunayan sa inyo na
nung araw na iyon, the phone lines between between
Yan ang tunay na meaning ng Hearsay. Romblon and Quezon City were working. If they are relavant
to the case, that’s okay. Ang objection mo lang dun ay kung
Another Example - Snow in Romblon: relevant or irrelevant pero hindi heasay.
Page 17 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Example (the will of Riano’s Grandmother): Example:

Noong nabasa ko ang will ng aming lola, kaming magkapatid DECLARATIONS ON PEDIGREE RELATIONSHIP
na lang ang tanging mga relatives ng lola namin. Nakita ko sa
will ang free portion, 100 hectares of rice land to Riano’s Sinabi ko na ang babeng yan ay kapatid ko. Para malaman
brother, 100 square meters to Riano. Gusto kong mabaliwala mo at may personal knowledge ka na ang babaeng yan ay
yung part na yun sa will. Gusto ko mapunta sa amin ang kapatid mo, dapat ay nandoon ka nung ginawa siya nga mga
intestate succession na lang para parehas. Ano ngayon ang magulang. Dapat mamalayan mo rin na galling ka sa nanay.
gagawin ko? Paano mo malalaman yan na anak ka ng tatay at nanay mo?

Patunayan ko na ang lola ko, nung ginawa ang will, ay sira Sinabi sayo ng tatay at nanay mo. They are Declarations on
ulo para hindi maprobate ang will. Tandaan mo, ang punto ko Pedigree Relationship. Because you see birth certificates,
ay para patunayan na ang lola ko ay may malaking family bibles, family history and family records, they’re
diperensya. admissible. If you do not admit them, wala kang kapatid sa
mundo, wala kang magulang na maituturing kung ipagpilitan
Sa probate ng will, tinawag ako as witness na ang will ay mong personal knowledge ang lahat.
signed and executed together with the instrumental witnesses
on April 1, 2005. Tanong sakin ngayon ng Lawyer ko: COMMON REPUTATION & LEARNED TREATISES

“Mr. Riano, have you spoken to your grandmother on or “Pare, ganda ng monumentong yan. Sino yan?” Si Jose Rizal,
immediately before April 1?” born on June 19, 1861 at Calumba, Laguna. Assasinated on
December 30, 1896, 7:30am Bagumbayan. Admissible yun,
“When did you speak with her on April 1? What time? Could Common reputation. Kung mabasa mo sa libro yan, Learned
you tell us the circumstances?” Treatises.

“Well, at around 6:30 in the morning she called me up and ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
said ‘Anak, dalawin mo naman ako, samahan mo ako sa
almusal.’” Ako ay accountant ng isang company. Alam ko lahat ng
receivables and payables. Ang negosyo ay construction
“Do you know Mr. Riano that the will was executed, signed materials. May isang taong may utang na 2M na hindi pa
and authorized, and signed by the witnesses in the evening of nagbabayad, so idinemanda ng companya for collection.
April 1?” Sinong dapat magtestify tungkol sa utang niya na may
personal knowledge? Ako. Ako ang may knowledge eh.
“Well, I do not know that. But all I know is that at 6:30 in the Kasama pa nga akong nung pagdeliver ng materials. Nakita
morning, we were eating our breakfast.” ko na pinirmahan niya ang receipt ng materials. Ako ang
naglagay ng documento sa opisina. Pero nung ako ay
“Can you recall, if any, anything occurred while you were magtetestify na, namatay ako. So may bagong accountant.
eating your breakfast with your grandmother. Pwede bang magtestify ang bagong accountant? YES, based
on the entries of the business records. Kung tutuusin, wala
“She pulled me aside, secretly and she told me: “Kilala niyo siyang personal knowledge. Pero based on those, she could
ba si John F. Kennedy? Hindi mo ba alam na dating Boyfriend testify.
ko yun. Yung dating Prime Minister of England na Si Margaret
Thatcher, she’s my 1st cousin. Si Saddam Hussein, boyfriend That is for convenience. Kung di mo papayagan, ano,
ko rin yun.” gigisingin mo sa kanyang grave ang accountant na may
personal knowledge? Hindi pwede iyon. See, the rules are
And so during the probate, I presented those statements of very reasonable.
my lola not to prove their truth or falsity, but that she indeed
made those statements. It’s not hearsay. You cannot teach history, physics or any science if you
demand personal knowledge. Papano mo maexplain with
General Rule: Hearsay Evidence is not admissible, because personal knowledge ang gravity? So you have to do it on the
the person who has personal knowledge cannot be cross- basis of authoritative statements, again, Learned Treatises.
examined effectively in court. The truth cannot come out if
the one who is in court has no personal knowledge. 1+1=2. Papano mo nalaman yun? That’s of common
knowledge.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE:
DYING DECLARATION
Take note: When talk about exceptions to the hearsay rule,
we are talking about exceptions which are actually all TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 37.
hearsay.
It’s not a declaration of a person who died. It’s a declaration
Ang exceptions to the hearsay rule, lahat sila ay hearsay, of a person before he died, while he was dying, not after he
kaya nga exceptions eh. Ang rule ay, ang hearsay hindi died.
pwede tanggapin kung objecan mo. Kaya nga, may mga
hearsay na pwedeng tanggapin, yun ang mga exceptions. For its application, the statement of the person who later on
Dahil kung hindi hearsay, hindi exceptions. died, must be a statement concerning the circumstances of
his death or injuries.
In other words, ang hearsay, inadmissible. Pero may mga
hearsay na admissible. Yung admissible hearsay, yun ang This is of English origin of about 250+ years ago. It began in
exceptions. a story of husband and wife in old England. They were
married for 30 years but they never had a child. Reason?
Page 18 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

They refused to touch each other. They never loved each And we know she is the killer. Others said, never mind if she
other. They were victims of parentally arranged marriage. But goes free. We are going to follow the rules for stability.
when they go out of the house, they were the model of
perfect marital bliss. However, that was only for show to But there was the youngest of them, I forgot his name,
protect the family reputation. One day, in the description of around 26 years old at that time, a brilliant professor. He
the history of hearsay evidence, they were living in one stood up and said, “Sires, may I be allowed to speak?” They
house. But it was constructed in such a way that people looked at him, the youngest of the group. I forgot his name.
would not know that they were actually living separately Let’s call him Benjamin. So Benjamin stood up and said I
inside. think we can admit the dying declaration even if it is hearsay.

They had a common living room but there is a trapdoor here The reason we do not want hearsay is because it is unreliable.
and a trapdoor here. It’s a duplex. The woman would live on We cannot cross-examine the person who said it. The person
the right side; the husband would live on the left side and who heard it has no personal knowledge. The reason
they had their own maids. Husband and wife under one roof, therefore is it cannot be cross-examined and thus, unreliable.
but have separate rooms. The husband died later on. He was
shot by the wife. Let me embellish the story a little bit. BUT LOOK, we could give it a degree of reliability. Why?
Because of common sense.
Let us suppose that one night, 10:00 in the evening, they
quarreled over a book in the library. So actually, when the People in England, no matter what their religion is, people are
husband got the book, the wife also got the book. There was fearful of the Lord. Now, put yourselves in the shoes of the
no light. That was the first mistake. They saw each other in a dead man now who uttered the dying declaration. He knows
dark place. The second mistake was the husband said, “I got he is dying and that any moment he will die and he is
it first”. The wife also said “I got it first.” Second mistake is conscious of his impending death. Now, let me ask you sires if
they talked. It turned into a heated argument. That was the you know that any second now you will be meeting your
third mistake. And around 10 in the evening, in the stillness creator, your God and your Lord, are you going to meet your
of the night, of a sleepy village in England, but an upscale God or your Lord with a lying lip? And then go to hell? Would
place of England, 2 muskets shots were heard. There were no you? I would not. I would tell the truth so that I would go to
maids at that time. A nosy neighbor heard the muskets blasts heaven. They stood up, standing ovation. The hearsay
and called the policemen. The gates were open because the exception, dying declaration was born. Then we borrowed it,
maids forgot to lock the gates. The police entered and they of course.
saw the man gasping for breath, and almost floating in a pool
of his own blood. The man looked down and he saw his Look at the elements of a dying declaration.
intestines coming out and the lungs, he saw splattered on the
chandelier. And then he saw the police who asked him “Okay Let me illustrate to you what a dying declaration is.
ka lang?” (lol) Then he was asked, “What happened to you?”
In labored breathing, he said “I was shot.” “By whom?” Before I died, I was shot. A police officer was attending to
Slowly, he raised his finger and pointed to his wife, who was me. I said “Mr. Officer, next week, let’s go play tennis. Just
calmy smoking Virginia slims humming to the tune of bring me to the hospital and I will be okay.”
Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata. “Maam, can you tell us
something about this?” “You’re the policeman. You figure it There is no consciousness of impending death here. You get
out.” The policeman looked around and found nothing. The my point? You don’t have to ask him “Are you conscious of an
scene was clean, except for the guy who was floating in an impending death?” It could be known circumstantially.
ocean of his own blood. Then at last, the guy said “Good
bye.” He has now fallen, cold and dead. There was no “Before I die, let me tell you that one of my kids I actually
evidence against the wife. The wife was sued for paricide. sired with my next door neighbor.”
Paricide is a term that originated in England. But in the
Philippines, it’s the same. The woman kills the husband, it’s Is that a dying declaration as an exception to the
paricide. The husband kills the wife, paricide. It should’ve hearsay rule?
been called “mamacide”.
No. The statement is not a dying declaration because it has
And so, there was a discussion in Oxford. They were nothing to do with the circumstances of his death.
discussing and they said that the dying declaration of the man
that it was his wife who shot him and testified to by the police The person almost could not talk because there is blood
officer is plain and simple hearsay. Reason is it is the husband gushing out from his mouth. The police said, “Magsalita ka.”
who has personal knowledge, not the policeman who is “”Ang bumaril *dugo* sa *punas* akin ay si Jose Torres”
testifying in Court. The policeman said “according to the dying “Sino ang bumaril sa katabi mo?” “Si Jose Torres po. Kanina
man, it was his wife”. So the testimony is hearsay. He has no pa siya patay dahil kulang ang resistensya. Ako medjo
personal knowledge. Who should testify? The dying man. But malakas nag jojogging ako eh. Bye, see you later.” Dying
holy smokes what should you do? Huhukayin mo siya? declaration?
Impossible! It is hearsay. They were discussing.
With respect to his own death, it is a dying declaration. With
The old man said, if he will admit the testimony of the respect to the other one, it is not a dying declaration because
policeman that according to the dead man it was his wife who it is not about his death. It is about the death of someone
shot him, we are going to admit hearsay evidence. We cannot else.
do that. We cannot change the rules. We would dislocate our
procedural rules on evidence. But if the statement was said immediately after the shooting,
that is admissible as part of the res gestae, a statement said
The other said, but if we do not carve out an exception to the after a startling occurrence or an event. That is Sec. 42. Why?
hearsay rule, what will happen? A guilty woman will go free. Because there is an indicia of reliability. When you describe

Page 19 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

an event right immediately after it happens, or during the When you testify as to the identity of the person, you are
occurrence of the event, the mind has no chance to fabricate. actually giving your opinion. Kilala mo ba ang tatay mo? That
is an opinion.
Res Gestae
Look here. “Objection your honor, the witness is not an
Example, there is a window at my back. I said “Uy, si Dean X expert on human facial anatomy.” You see how absurd that
tinututukan si Y” Mayamaya, *bang bang bang*. I was objection would be? These matters are within the range of
describing the event as it was happening. normal human experience. Those are opinions which are
usually given by us.
Sino ang dapat mag testify sa mga nangyari?
Can I testify as to the mental state of a person?
Ako. Because ako ang may personal knowledge. Pero na sa
abroad na ako. From our own experience as human beings, do you know
when I am angry, sad, happy or worried? Can you testify if
Can the person who heard me testify? the person is insane? Yes. You don’t have to be a psychologist
or psychiatrist to know this. This is common experience.
Yes.
Can I testify that I know that this is the handwriting of
Hearsay ba yon? so and so because I saw him wrote it?

Yes. But admissible as part of the res gestae. Because what Yes, you can even testify through comparisons. Sec 22 Rule
he heard me say describing the event was probably true 132.
because I had no time to fabricate anything.
Now, could you testify as to the identity of a person?
Opinion of a Witness
When you testify as to the identity of a person, you’re
Is an opinion of a witness admissible? actually giving your opinion.

General rule is NO. Why? The witness is not supposed to “Kilala mo ba ang Tatay mo?” That’s an opinion.
testify on his conclusions or his opinion, only on facts. Who is
the witness who is qualified to testify on his opinion? An “Yes sir.”
expert witness. An expert witness is qualified by the following
letters in the following order: E. X. P. E. R. T. (LOL!) Look, object yung kabila. “Objection your honor, the witness
is not an expert on human facial anatomy.”
Are there instances when an ordinary witness’ opinion
who is not called as an expert admissible? You see how absurd that objection would be? You know why?
Because these matters are matters which are within the
General rule is a witness cannot testify his opinion because a range of normal human experience. These are opinions which
witness is supposed to testify only on facts. It is the court are normally given by us.
that will draw conclusions and opinions from the facts. Which
is why in pleadings you state only facts; not only facts but Can I testify as to the mental state? You know, look at
ultimate facts. Not conclusions. this. Handwriting, identity, the mental state or
condition of a person? Yes.
But when is an opinion of an ordinary witness
admissible? Can a person testify as to the handwriting From our own experience as human beings, do you know
of another? when I am angry or sad or worried or happy? Yes.

YES. “What did you observe about him?”

Do you have to be an expert that this is the “He was happy when I saw him.”
handwriting of another?
“Objection, he is not a psychologist or psychiatrist.”
YES.
“Funny, ridiculous, is it not?”
Do you have to be an expert to testify that this is the
handwriting of another? “Objection, he was not in his right mind.”

NO. Can you testify that a person is insane?

In fact, Sec. 22 of Rule 132 tells you that you do not need an Oh yes. Everybody knows what an insane is. We know it. You
expert for that. We are connecting Sec. 50 of Rule 130 to do not have to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist to know it.
Sec. 22 of Rule 132. (Tell me if citation is correct.) That’s common experience.

Now, can I testify that this is the handwriting of my Sira ulo yan oh. Tingnan mo. Tumatawa na may luha with
father because I am familiar of his handwriting? Yes. matching sipon at tsaka siya daw ay anak ni Gloria Macapagal
Can I testify that I know this is the handwriting of so and so Arroyo. Eh ilang taon na siya, 80 years old. Paano yun? Eh
because I saw him write it? Yes, you can even testify through sira. And you know what an insane is. You know that from
comparisons. your own experience. Who knows that right now in this
conference room we are all only in our lucid interval? And the
Now, could you testify as to the identity of the person? contract we will enter into normally after coming out of this
Page 20 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

room will be voidable because we are not capacitated to enter Sec 22

into a contract. Sira.
The rule on notarized document?
Do you get my point?
Sec 30.
Now supposed you are asked the question, “what are the
kinds of documents under the Rules?” Hindi ko alam kung mamimili diyan pero chances are it’s one
of them which will be involved. Okay, that’s 132.
Public and private. I am going through priorities ha. Section
19 Rule 132. Yan. BURDEN OF PROOF VIS-À-VIS BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

You memorize public documents but I want you to connect There’s one thing I will go back to Rule 131.
Sec 19 to Sec 30 of Rule 132. You know why? Because it talks
about notarized documents. How do you distinguish burden of evidence from
burden of proof? Is there a distinction?
Are notarized documents public documents? Yes.
There is.
What is a document which is notarized but still is private? A
will. Even if notarized, a will remains a private instrument. By the way, is burden of proof in a civil case on the
plaintiff? Who has the burden of proof in a civil case?
Now, let me ask you this. If you are holding a public
document, you do not have to prove its authenticity. It is Answer, both. Because the burden of proof is not the burden
presumed to be authentic. of the plaintiff. It’s a burden of a party to prove his claim or
his defense. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove his
Now, question. When you’re holding a private document, do claim. The defendant has the burden of proof to prove his
you have the obligation to prove its due execution and defense. That’s why it’s not defined as the burden or the
authenticity? Yes or no? Kunyari bar na yan. Ngayon ang bar. obligation or the duty of the plaintiff. It is defined as the duty
of a party.
If you’re holding a private document and you’re
offering it in evidence, do you have the obligation to Do you see the word “party” there? Yan. Burden of proof is
prove the due execution and the authenticity of that fixed. The burden of evidence changes from time to time
private document? according to the evidentiary situation.

The answer is it depends upon your purpose. If you are If for example during the course of trial, the plaintiff has
offering it to prove that it is genuine or authentic, you have to presented convincing evidence then the defendant has the
prove its due execution and authenticity. But if you are not burden of evidence to rebut the evidence. If during the course
proving it as authentic, you only have to identify it. of the trial the defendant is showing beautiful convincing
evidence, then the plaintiff has the obligation to rebut that
Look at this: evidence. You call it burden of evidence.

May napulot akong dokumento. Deed of Sale daw ito. Iooffer The burden of evidence shifts according to the situation. The
mo in evidence ang napulot mo. You only have to identify it. burden of proof is fixed.
Pero pag sinabi mo “itong tunay na deed of sale,” ay iprove
mo ang due execution and authenticity because you are Criminal Case:
offering it as authentic.
In a criminal case, who has the burden of proving the guilt of
If you are not offering it as authentic, you don’t have to prove an accused? The prosecution.
its authenticity. You just identify it. You look at Sec 20 of Rule
132. What is the quantum of evidence applicable in a criminal case
according to Rule 133? Beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you see something? Look at the last part of Sec 20. Okay,
now. When you define reasonable doubt, you must have the
keyword in the definition. What is that? Moral certainty in
How do you prove the authenticity of the private Rule 133.
document?
Civil Case:
By the genuineness of the handwriting and by the person who
saw it executed. Ayan. In a civil case, what is the quantum of evidence?
Preponderance of evidence.
Are there private documents offered as authentic
wherein you do not have to prove its authenticity? What keyword should be present in your definition? Superior
weight of evidence.
Yes, the so-called Ancient Documents.
What is the quantum of evidence generally in an
What are the Ancient documents? What section is it? administrative proceeding? Substantial evidence.

Sec 21. The keyword is the last part: adequate to support a

conclusion.
How do you prove the genuineness of handwriting?

Page 21 of 22
RIANO’S DISCUSSIONS ON EVIDENCE – TRANSCRIPT / EH403 & EH404 (2017)

Quantum of Evidence not found in the Rules: between X and Y. It is offered for the purpose of so and so.”
Yan. The nature, the name of the exhibit and the purpose.
What is the quantum of evidence that is used by the court That is the formal offer of exhibits. “Any objection counsel?”
and not found in the Rules? Clear and convincing It could be in writing. Any objection. But if you become a
evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is usually used to lawyer, insist on oral ones so that the other party cannot
rebut a presumption. It is also used in bail hearings in prepare. Okay. Now, “objection?” Hindi siya prepared. “No
extradition cases, other bail hearings, in disbarment and objection.” Pieces of evidence, exhibits are admitted. “Your
suspension of attorneys. Clear and convincing evidence is not honor with the admission of my exhibits, I rest my case”.
found in the Rules. Only the SC knows when to use it. Okay. Formal offer of evidence. You call it the offer of
evidence.
GOVERNMENT OF HK vs. OLALIA JR.
“Clear and Convincing Evidence” If your evidence is disregarded by the court, rendered
inadmissible, do not panic. You say “inasmuch as your honor
Description in the case of Government of HK vs. Olalia Jr. my exhibits were not admitted, allow me you honor to have
April 19, 2007. Clear and convincing evidence is a quantum of them attached to the records of the case and make a tender
evidence lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but of excluded evidence.” So it will still be part of the records.
higher than preponderance of evidence. It lies in the middle Sec. 40.
of the two.
So that later on the court will understand on appeal that the
Now, what are the two conclusive presumptions under the lower court has committed a mistake. You get my point?
Rules? What rule is it? 131? Sec 2? You cannot memorize it
and you are asked about one presumption. Sir, supposed this is an oral evidence, a testimony that was
excluded. The court said “Mr. Witness you cannot testify.”
You wanna know something? Those presumptions are based “Your honor since you did not allow my client to testify please
on the doctrine of estoppel. When you say something you are allow me your honor to make a tender of excluded evidence.
just a tenant, you cannot bawi that anymore. When you
misrepresent something, you cannot bawi that anymore. So Offer of Proof vs. Offer of Evidence:
yan ang origin ng corporation by estoppel at tsaka
partnership by estoppel. You get my point? Yan. By the way, the tender of excluded evidence is
jurisprudentially called an offer of proof. It is not offer of
Is there a presumption that a contract has a cause or a evidence. Offer of evidence is the formal offer of exhibits.
consideration? Yes. There in Sec 3. Offer of proof is Sec 40, tender of excluded evidence. You
might be asked of the distinction between an offer of
Is there a presumption that a police officer has performed his evidence and offer of proof.
duty regularly? Yes.
Offer of proof is offering an evidence that has been excluded.
Is there a presumption that when a receipt of a later Okay you say, “Your honor inasmuch as my witness was not
installment, the prior installment has been paid? Yes. allowed to testify please allow me to make a formal offer of
the testimony of my witness. If my witness is allowed to
Where do you find them? Those are substantive law testify, he will testify on the following matters that on so and
presumptions. So look at them one by one. It has never been so—“ mas maganda pa kasi ang lawyer ang magsasabi ng
asked but just look at it. dapat sabihin ng witness na hindi pina testify. Walang cross-
examination diyan. Hiniram natin ‘to sa Amerikano.
Now, next question:
Sa Amerikano, iba. Masyadong detalye to the point na
matatawa ka. “Your honor, please allow me to make a tender
Why are you going to make objections in a trial?
of excluded evidence. Had my witness been asked to testify
and allowed to testify, the following would be the questions.”
Oh, that was asked once. To keep out from the record
Nakikita ko yung boss ko. Pagalaw-galaw pa eh. Sa California
inadmissible evidence. You also have to object. Why? In order
ganito siya.“I would have asked the question, the first is
to avoid a waiver of evidence that is inadmissible.
‘would you please state your name’ and other personal
circumstances. The witness would have answered so and so.”
Remember, an evidence that is inadmissible, if not objected
Lilipat. “I am Donald Felder. 41 years old. A resident of 1369
to, is deemed waived. Is it not? Remember that.
Barbara Beverly Hills, CA 90210” the next question your
honor would have been ‘do you remember where you were on
Formal Offer of Evidence:
such such such date’ he would have answered ‘yes sir’ the
next question could have been ‘what happened on that date
Now, what is the stage we call offer of evidence? When I
and time’ he would have answered—so parang totoo. Yan. Sa
asked that the evidence is identified as Exhibit A, that is not
atin hindi. Pwede na ang summary.
the offer. That is only the identification. The formal offer is
made at the end with respect to objects and documents. You
So when your evidence is excluded do not panic why you can
listen to this. It has to be made. Because the identification of
make an offer of proof which is called in the rules as tender
a document or object as Exhibit A is not an offer. The court
of excluded evidence.
will not consider it. Remember Sec 34 of your Rule 132. The
court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. So you make a formal offer.

It is like this. “Your honor I have no more witnesses to

present. Please allow this representation, your honor, to
make a formal offer of exhibits.” That is the formal offer of
evidence. Exhibit A. You describe it. “It is a deed of sale
Page 22 of 22