100% found this document useful (1 vote)

849 views30 pages

Evidence: Section 1. Object As Evidence.

This document discusses object or real evidence in court cases. It defines object evidence as tangible evidence directly involved in the underlying events, which courts examine using their senses. Object evidence includes the actual physical object as well as demonstrative evidence, which represents the object. Demonstrative evidence aids testimony but has no probative value itself. The document analyzes a case where inconsistent pen colors suggested witnesses did not sign a will together as claimed, undermining their testimony. It emphasizes that physical evidence is given more credence than oral testimony because it "speaks more eloquently."

Uploaded by

Rome Magbanua

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

849 views30 pages

Evidence: Section 1. Object As Evidence.

Uploaded by

Rome Magbanua

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 30

EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021

FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO

FIRST
EXAM 1

July 22 Part 1 | Rojo object evidence, an object is still the object and it actually speaks
for itself.
Take note of the case of People vs. Olarte.
RULE 130 PEOPLE v. OLARTE
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019

Object evidence is classified into:

Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those 1. Actual, physical or “autoptic” evidence: Those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant which have a direct relation or part in the fact or
to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed incident sought to be proven and those brought to
by the court. the court for personal examination by the presiding
magistrate; and
OBJECT or REAL EVIDENCE
2. Demonstrative evidence: those which represent the
 These are tangible evidence (as a weapon or visible injury) actual or physical object (or event in the case of
directly involved in the underlying events of the case. Matters pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw
of fact which object evidence tend to prove relate to an inference or to aid in comprehending the verbal
appearance, existence, condition and other matters related to testimony of a witness.
the physical characteristics of an object.
 Thus, in the appreciation of object evidence, the court uses Demonstrative Evidence
the senses of sight, touch, taste and smell.  Or evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or
 It is called Real Evidence because it has reference to the RES models) that have in themselves no probative value but is
or thing and it is the thing or object that is addressed to the used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue.
senses of the court. Demonstrative evidence as evidence is not prohibited,
although not specifically mentioned in the Rules of Court.
When you talk about object evidence, the court is supposed to use
its senses. By its definition, objects as evidence addressed to the In appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court does not only
senses of the court. When they are relevant to the fact in issue, use its 5 senses, but it also applies intelligence. Meaning, if the
they may be exhibited to be examined or viewed by the court. court is intelligent enough, it will be able to draw conclusions or
inferences from the object presented.
Remember that it is also called as real evidence because it has
reference to the res or the thing, and it is the thing or object Remember also, that the evidence offered there is not the
addressed to the senses of the court. demonstrative object, but rather the testimony that is aided by the
demonstrative object.
When we are talking about forms of evidence, there is such thing
as hierarchy of evidence. Such that in the case of People v. Distinctions:
Lavapie, REAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Tangible object that played Tangible evidence that
PEOPLE v. LAVAPIE some actual role in the merely illustrates a matter of
G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 matter that gave rise to the importance in the litigation.
litigation.
Since the physical evidence as record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conclusions (example: gun, knife, drugs,
as to physical evidence should prevail. It bears reiteration that marked money)
physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations of Intends to prove that the Intends to show that the
truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In object is used in the demonstrative object fairly
the light of the physical evidence obtaining in the case, contrary underlying event. represents or illustrates what it
oral assertions cannot normally prevail. Greater credence is is alleged to be illustrated.
given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest order (example: In a murder case,
because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred the murder weapon) To make the testimony of the
witnesses. witness more coherent

Like for example, when you are talking about testimonial evidence, Autoptic Proference
it can be changed. A person can always at the witness stand. A
documentary evidence can be forged. But, when you talk about

ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . ROJO . UGDANG
EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
FIRST
EXAM 2

A very important term that you need to remember, in a sense that of the Civil Code.
when we are talking about object evidence, mugawas jud ni siya na
term. Discussion:
In making a notarial will, we all know that the witnesses should sign
This means, in a legal parlance, as a tribunal’s self-perception, or in the presence of the testator and of one another. In this case of
autopsy of the thing itself (Balingit v. COMELEC). Calde, the witnesses testified that there is only 1 pen used in
signing of the will. However, the court noted here that there were
This comes from the Latin words: actually 2 pens used in the signing of the will, black and blue.
auto = self
optic = pertaining to the eyes. What did the Supreme Court say here?
According to the Supreme Court, murag dili tinuod that the
That’s why this autoptic preference is related to the term autopsy witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and of one
being conducted. another. Also, it may lead into an inference that the witnesses did
not sign the will in one single occasion. There were signatures in
Take note of this case, blue, and also in black – which means that it is not true katong
CALDE v. CA g’ingon sa witnesses na isa lang daw ka pen ilang g’gamit in
G.R. No. 93980, June 17 1994 signing the will and codicil of the testator.

In the making of a notarial will, there is a requirement that the The Court went further said, that a person is of small height or is of
witnesses should sign in the presence of one another. In Calde, dark complexion; as to such matters, the perception by the tribunal
two witnesses testified that only one pen was used in signing that the person is small or large, or that he has a dark or light
the will. However, the court noted that there were two colors of complexion, is a mode of acquiring belief which is independent of
pen used: black and blue. inference from either testimonial or circumstantial evidence. It is
the tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. From
Held: the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source of
A review of the facts and circumstances fails to convince us that belief, it may be termed Autoptic Proference.
the testamentary documents in question were subscribed and
attested by the instrumental witnesses during a single occasion. The case at bench, according to the Supreme Court clearly shown
black and white, or more accurately in black and blue. So, it was
The signatures of some attesting witnesses were written in blue clearly shown by autoptic proference that mali ang testimony sa
ink, while the others were in black. This discrepancy was not mga witnesses, that it is not true that they signed it in one
explained by petitioner. Nobody of his 6 witnesses testified that occasion, in the presence of the testator and of one another, and
two pens were used by the signatories on the two documents. contrary to the provisions of the Civil Code in wills and succession.
In fact, two of petitioner’s witnesses even testified that only one
ballpen was used in signing the two testamentary documents. CLASSIFICATION OF OBJECT EVIDENCE BY MORAN

The Supreme Court further discussed – That a person is of small 1. That which consists in the EXHIBITION or PRODUCTION of
height or is of dark complexion; as to such matters, the the object inside the courtroom – Example: objects of the
perception by the tribunal that the person is small or large, or crime, means to perpetrate the crime, murder weapon;
that he has a dark or light complexion, is a mode of acquiring
belief which is independent of inference from either testimonial This means that you are physically bringing object
or circumstantial evidence. It is the tribunal’s self-perception, or evidence inside the courtroom for the court’s observation
autopsy, of the thing itself. and perusal. Like, object of the crime, mga nakawat na na
recover. So, these are brought to the court and identified
From the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this by a witness.
source of belief, it may be termed Autoptic Proference.
2. That which consists in the INSPECTION of the object outside
In the case at bench, the autoptic preference contradicts the the courtroom – Examples: ocular inspection in a boundary
testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its dispute or ocular inspection of a crime scene;
codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black
and white—or more accurately, in black and blue – that more The usual example that I always give would be the
than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was criminal case that I have handled previously. It is a
not erroneous not baseless for respondent court to disbelieve criminal case for theft. My client is the accused. My client
petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question is actually harvesting mangoes from a farmland. The
were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 contention of the private complainant was that the

mangoes harvested by my client kay kawat from the land invite the court and the prosecution to similarly
of the complainant. My client’s defense was that, he manipulate the murder weapon.
harvested the mangoes from their own land.
Also, in the case of People v. Yatar, pwede ang blood
We now went to an ocular inspection; the judge went sampling conducted in open court in the presence of
there. There was also an interpreter, you enter your counsel.
appearance just like in any other case in the land which
was subject of the dispute.

Then, we found out by means of ocular inspection, that Example 2

the trees were actually planted on the land of my client, Here’s another experimentation inside the courtroom, the
pero naay isa ka sanga na ni intrude into the property of case of O.J. Simpson, a case of double murder
the private complainant. So, it was not true that the happened in the United States.
mangoes harvested were from the private complainant’s
land. He is a popular and rich African-American athlete, played
for the national league for football in the US. It just so
With that, we were able to tell the court, na kung naa happened that he and his wife separated. The wife went
may na belong kay private complainant, was katong isa on with her life, had a boyfriend, Ron Goldman. Then,
lang ka sanga na naa sa boundary line of my client and later on the crime happened, Ron Goldman and Nicole
the private complainant. Brown were killed.

Take note that an ocular inspection conducted by the Recovered from the scene of the crime was a pair of a
judge or court without the presence of the parties or bloody gloves, which the prosecution contended
without due notice is not valid, as an ocular inspection is belonged to OJ Simpson. In order to impress in the mind
part of the trial. of the jury, that OJ Simpson is the perpetrator, the
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Darden tried to
At that time, we really entered our appearance in the pull off a gambit. The prosecution wanted to leave an
disputed property. It was as if the court was moved image sa jury that it was actually Simpson committed the
outside from the courtroom, when we talk about crime, if makita sa jury na nag suot siya ug pair of the
inspection. gloves. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the gloves
didn’t fit. In other words, dili siguro siya ang owner of the
3. That which consists in EXPERIMENTATION bloody gloves, and that was enough reasonable doubt to
acquit.
Experimentation, in evidence, refers to autoptic
proference that requires manipulation of physical July 22 Part 2 | Acevedo
objects within or without the courtroom to determine a
fact in issue in the case. If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit
Because the gloves did not fit here, the jury actually
EXPERIMENTATION INSIDE THE COURTROOM acquitted O.J. Simpson. He actually got away with murder
if he really committed the murder of Nicole Brown
Example 1 Simpson and Ron Goldman.
The accused, Tyrion (a dwarf), is charged with murdering
Matteo by repeatedly bashing his head with a EXPERIMENTATION OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM
sledgehammer. The defense can ask the accused to Ex:
brandish the sledgehammer and demonstrate before the 1) A crime scene reenactment.
court the physical impossibility of him using it as a 2) In a crime of murder, where the accused contends that
murder weapon. The defense may also invite the court the alleged murder weapon retrieved from his person is
and the prosecution to similarly manipulate the murder defective [meaning, it is gun pero di siya nagabuto, it
weapon. could not be the murder used to kill the victim in the
murder case] and is therefore an ineffectual means of
An experimentation can be the defense, asking the committing the crime, the gun can be test-fired outside
accused to brandish the sledgehammer and illustrate the courtroom.
before the court the impossibility of a dwarf, for example
to hit Matteo, a normal size individual. Kaya ba na sa isa REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
ka dwarf na mabuhat na. The defense can actually also It must:

1) BE RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE;

It must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to its Purposes of Authentication
existence or non-existence. (1) To prevent the introduction of an object from the one
testified about; and
Object evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue (2) To ensure that there has been no significant changes in
as to induce belief in its existence or non- existence. the object’s condition.

Example.
When we talk about dangerous drugs where
the quantity of the illegal drugs actually is
important to determine the penalty against the
PEOPLE v. RULLEPA accused, then there should be no dag-dag-
G.R. No. 131516 March 5, 2003 bawas. When it comes to the dangerous drugs
taken by virtue of a buy-bust operation.
A persons appearance, where relevant, is admissible as
object evidence, the same being addressed to the Process of Authentication
senses of the court. (a) Proof of Identity.
Through the testimony of a witness as to objects
According to Wigmore: Object evidence, like any other which are readily identifiable by sight provided there
evidence, must pass the test of admissibility and is a bases for the identification by the witness which
relevancy. may either be:

Example. There is an exclusionary rule that (1) The markings placed by the witness upon the
would not have it admitted, the court will also object, such as his initials, his pictures in the
not admit it. digital camera; or

Thus, if an object is excluded by the law or the rules, the Ex: You will see like when you go have court
object is inadmissible. visitation, you will see taped guns. There is masking
tape all around the gun, trigger and there is an initial
Autoptic preference must also be relevant and it is of the police officer who takes it into custody, that is
relevant only if it makes a fact of consequence more or proving identity.
less probable than in the absence of such autoptic
preference. (2) By the peculiar characteristics of the object i.e.
by certain physical features which sets it apart
Note: from others of the same kind or class by which
Object evidence in itself does not establish the factum it is readily identified.
probandum. There is no factum probandum provable solely Ex:
by object evidence. (1) A hole caused by burning in a sweater,
(2) the broken hilt of a knife.
This means that, there is a need for testimonial sponsorship. In (3) Bolo that was used to hack or kill the
the case of People v. Olarte, the Supreme Court said that with victim has a defect on its handle.
respect to object evidence, it has to be authenticated in the
sense that there has to have testimonial sponsorship. (b) Proof of Integrity
Someone should identify, authenticate the object in the By proving that there was no break in the chain of
courtroom. custody in the event the object passed into the
possession of different person.
2) BE AUTHENTICATED;
This means proving the chronological sequence
Meaning of Authentication through which the object was handled only by
Authentication simply means that the genuineness of the persons who, by reason of their function or office,
object must be proven. can reasonably be expected to have the right or duty
to possess or handle the object. This is done by
It requires that the admission of an object be preceded by calling each of these persons to explain how and
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the object in why he came into possession of the object and what
question is what the proponent claims it to be. he did with the object.

The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs

When the object passed into the possession of a because the person who took the photographs was not
stranger, then there is doubt as to the integrity, if presented as witness. In other words, they objected on the
not identity of the object. This is because, there admissibility of the evidence on the ground that it was not
could be substitution for example. authenticated by the actual photographer.

(c) Proof Integrity Issue:

By proving the Proper Preservation of the object was Is the contention of the defense, that it is only the photographer
kept in a secure place as to make contamination or who can cause the authentication of the photograph when
alteration difficult, and it has not been brought out presented in court, tenable?
until its presentation in court. With respect to certain
object evidence, there are still required means of Ruling:
authentication. No, it is not needed. Generally, it should be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified under the
Ex: Pictures or Photographs [discussed below] circumstances in which they were produce.

Authentication—Specific Objects Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by

As to pictures and photographs, maps, diagrams, the the photographer as to its production and testified as to the
authenticity refers to proving the accuracy of the things, circumstances under which they were produced.
persons, things or places depicted in the photographs
which may through the testimony of: The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct
(1) The photographer; or representation or reproduction of the original, and its
(2) Any one who is familiar with the persons, things, admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the
places, shown therein. scene at the time of the crime.

Comment: The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
Before, when we were talking about photographs, like I identify the pictures he has taken.
was starting out in practice, of course there are really
cases where you need to take a photograph of The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation
something and present that in court. You cannot bring of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie [meaning,
for example, the object inside the court room like illegal disputably proved], either by the testimony of the person who
structures that were erected by illegal occupants over the made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its
property of your client. You cannot bring those structures exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit it
inside the court room. Rather, you can photograph them subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
and the photograph would now be the representation of
the object evidence that cannot be brought inside the Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence inasmuch as
courtroom. In that situation, the one who authenticates the correctness thereof was testified to by the companions of
the photographs would be the photographer. But in the the victim.
case of Sison v People, the Supreme Court here
expanded the types of persons who can actually Comment: The photographs here were properly authenticated and
authenticate already photographs. therefore it was correct for the court to admit them in evidence.

SISON v. PEOPLE AS TO TAPE RECORDINGS

GR No. 108280-23, Nov. 16, 1995 TORRALBA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 153699, Aug. 22, 2005
Facts:
In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as Facts:
evidence photographs showing the accused mauling the victim The accused was convicted of libel. Presented in evidence was a
with several of the latter’s companions. tape recording of the radio broadcast made by the adopted
daughter of the complainant.
The person who took the photograph was not presented as a
witness. Instead, the prosecution presented the companions of The daughter was not presented as a witness, only the
the victim who testified that they were the ones in the complainant who testified that he was not familiar with the
photographs. process of making the recording.

Issue: marks;
Was the tape recording properly admitted considering that the 2. Object made unique or those that are made readily
adopted daughter was not presented by the complainant who identifiable; and
was the one who made the recording? 3. Non-unique objects or those with no identifying
marks.
Ruling:
No. The person who actually recorded should have been Non-unique objects such as narcotic substances, industrial
presented by the prosecution in order to lay the proper chemicals, and body fluids cannot be distinguished and are not
foundation for the admission of the purported tape recording. readily identifiable; that is why they present an inherent
problem of fungibility or substitutability and contamination
In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that which adversely affects their relevance or probative value. This is
before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given the reason why non-unique objects have to be made unique by
probative value, the following requisites must first be law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation in order for these
established, to wit: articles to be authenticated by a sponsoring witness so that trial
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking and reviewing courts can determine their relevance or probative
testimony; value.
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the Again take note, to avoid substitution or contamination, these non-
recording; unique objects should be made unique by the law enforcers (i.e.
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not
there should be proper handling and marking in order for these
been made;
objects to be authenticated later on)
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the
recording;
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
(6) identification of the speakers [the Supreme Court considers
(For purposes of authentication)
this as the most important]; and
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
Unique objects –
without any kind of inducement.
a. Already exhibit identifiable visual or physical peculiarities
The person who actually recorded should have been presented such as particular paint job or an accidental scratch, dent, cut,
by the prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the chip, disfigurement or stain (objects made unique).
admission of the purported tape recording. b. Have a readily distinguishable mark such as a unit-specific
serial number in case of an industrially manufactured item
Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis for the (unique objects per se).
trail court to admit the tape recording in evidence.
When you compare objects made unique with unique
Comment: We need to remember that during this time, cellphones objects per se, the former became unique because of certain
are not yet available or if there is a cellphone, only those analog peculiarities.
cellphones. Now, everybody has a smart phone. You can take a
recording using your cellular phones instead of brining a tape
Non-unique objects –
recorder with you. Before, it was still separate. You have to buy a
Those which have no identifying marks and cannot be marked
device, an MP3 Player and recorder [for us before]. For example, if
you have an Ipad shuffle before, you are already famous, you can (e.g. footprints left at a crime scene)
record, you can play music. But during our time when were still in
law school, it was still Walkman [which plays a cassette tape]. Later, Chain of Custody
if you can afford, you buy deskman [a portable device that can play
CDs]. It is necessary to establish chain of custody when the object
evidence is non-unique as it is not readily identifiable, was not
July 22 Part 3 | Amistad made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable, e.g. drops of
blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and
PEOPLE v. OLARTE similar objects.
GR No. 233209 | March 11, 2019
The onus is upon the officer who retrieved or confiscated this
non-unique object.
Actual evidence is subdivided into three categories:
1. Unique objects or those that have readily identifiable
Purposes of establishing a chain of custody

1. To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence; A: NO. Writing is not a mere mechanical act but involves the
and application of the intellect. However, if the accused testifies in his
2. To prevent the introduction of evidence which is not own behalf and denies authorship, he may be compelled to give a
authentic. sample of his handwriting.

3) NOT BE HEARSAY; PEOPLE v. WILLIAM

G.R. No. 93742 | June 15, 1992
The one who should testify about the object evidence is
somebody who has a personal knowledge of the object itself . Would object evidence be inadmissible on the ground that it is
“beyond the commerce of man”?
4) NOT BE PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE EXCLUDED; and
Brief background:
Otherwise excluded—The Axiom of Competency. If it is not His client’s marijuana was confiscated. He says, “inadmissible
excluded by the law or the rules, it can be admitted into your honor because it is beyond the commerce of man”
evidence.
HELD:
Examples: NO. The probative value of an object evidence is not affected by
Wiretapped recording proposed to be played in court, the fact that it is beyond the commerce of man. Appellants raise
exhibition of a private video which might offend a person’s the strange argument that Exhibit “C” has no probative value
right to privacy, fruit of the poisonous tree. because the subject thereof – marijuana – is beyond the
commerce of man. This is simple absurd.

The transfer of marijuana was incidental to the arrest of

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
appellants and the confiscation of the subject matter of the
crime. Exhibit “C” is in the same category as a death certificate
PEOPLE v. YATAR
and autopsy report which are admissible evidence of the subject
GR no 150224 | May 19, 2004
of the crime – the human cadaver which is also beyond the
commerce of man. Transfer of goods as a consequence or by
Would the use of blood samples taken from the Accused violate
virtue of police or state action such as forfeiture, seizure,
his right to remain silent and his right against self-
condemnation, confiscation did not fall within the phrase
incrimination?
“commerce of man” even in its broadest meaning.
HELD:
NO. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but PEOPLE v. BRECINIO
against testimonial compulsion. (Meaning, it does not apply to G.R. No. 138534 | March 1, 2004
purely physical and mechanical acts.) The right against self-
incrimination is simply, against the legal process of extracting Matteo was charged with murder for shooting Gerald. After
from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not trial, Matteo was found guilty as charged. On appeal, Matteo
apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an argued that the trial court should have acquitted him as his guilt
incrimination but as part of object evidence. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the
paraffin test conducted on him 2 days after he was arrested
Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, yielded a negative result. Hence, he could not have shot Gerald.
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no Is Matteo correct?
testimonial compulsion involved.
HELD:
NO. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not
This case is very important since this is the case where the
ipso facto prove that Matteo is innocent. A negative paraffin
Supreme Court held that compulsory DNA testing is allowed and in
result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun.
Herera vs. Alba, the SC also paved the way for compulsory DNA
It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as
testing in civil cases. when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands
afterwards. Hence, since Matteo submitted himself for paraffin
Handwriting? testing only two days after the shooting it was likely he had
Q: Can a person be compelled to produce a sample of his already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all trace of
handwriting as basis for determining his criminal liability as nitrates therefrom.
the author of a certain document?
July 22 Part 4 | Bahalla

Remember, this requirement is for drugs cases only. For guns, for
PEOPLE v. BRECINIO example, there is no requirement that there should be a
GR no 138534 | March 17, 2004 representative from media, and the Department of Justice, and
elected public official.
Held: Matteo is not correct.
And Section 21 was supposed to answer the call for more
A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a person accountability on the part of the PDEA or police officers
has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be conducting buy-bust operations kay kuno, ingon nila, planted daw.
negative for nitrates as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he Daghan kaayo mga defense na planted lang ang drugs. Everybody
washes his hands afterwards. Here, since Matteo submitted will say that it is planted. Parehag defense tanan halos.
himself for paraffin test only two days after the shooting, it was
likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus Q: What would be the effect now if this Chain of Custody in
removing all traces of nitrates therefrom. Section 21 is not followed strictly? What’s the effect of lapses
of Chain of Custody?
Paraffin Test: When you discharge a gun, it will leave nitrates on
your hands because of the gun powder that is used. In People vs. Eugenio, its non-compliance will not render the
arrest illegal or the item seized or confiscated from him
5) MEET ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT SET BY LAW. inadmissible. So, it does not affect admissibility of the seized drugs.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
Section 21, RA 9165 or the Special Chain of Custody and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be
requirement in Drug Cases. utilized in the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused.

Remember, we also included Chain of Custody in our earlier In People vs. Macatingag, the Supreme Court said here that if
discussion. But when you talk about RA 9165, remember that there is non-compliance of Section 21, the problem is not
the chain of Custody requirement is unique to drugs cases admissibility but merely weight- the evidentiary merit or probative
only. The procedures that are described here are uniquely value- to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the
applicable only when you talk about confiscated drugs. courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case.
These witnesses would then describe the precaution taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the So, the court has always been consistent here. Minor lapses basta
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have ma-explain lang sya ngano nay ingana nga lapse, it does not affect
possession of the same. (Lopez vs. People) the admissibility of the evidence.

Now, let’s look at that Chain of Custody Requirement. So, in People vs. Almorfe, a different ruling was reached by the
Supreme Court. So here, after a buy-bust operation, the drugs in
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
the possession of the accused were seized. However, the drugs
Seized,and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
were not physically inventoried and photographed in the presence
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
of the accused. The accused were later on convicted. The issue is
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
whether the drugs are admissible. The Supreme Court said, anent
Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and
the non-compliance with the inventory and photographic
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
requirement, the same does not necessarily render void and invalid
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
properly preserved. So, according to the Supreme Court, for the
saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation
integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. So,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
there must be explanation if there’s a deviation from the usual
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
chain of custody procedure, dapat iexplain kaning mga lapses. And
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
the Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that while a
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
prefect chain of custody is impossible to achieve, an unbroken
of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required
chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering,
thereof.
contamination, and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every

link of the chain must be accounted for. Here, since the Q: Is it a procedural matter or a substantive matter (considering
prosecution failed to account for every link on the chain starting that the chain of custody requirements are provided by statute or
from the turnover by the accused to the investigator and from the substantive law, RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640)?
latter to the forensic chemist. Acquitted ang accused because there
was no explanation why they deviated from the usual chain of A: According to the Supreme Court, while substantive law is that
custody requirements. which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment
for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law
RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640. It simply legislates the which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a
saving clause stated by the Supreme Court. crime is to be punished. Based on the above, it may be gleaned
that the chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and of Procedure. It is, therefore, the Court who has the last say
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and regarding the appreciation of evidence. (People vs. Teng)
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and When can presentation of objects be dispensed with and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized replaced by mere testimony or documents?
items and photograph the same in the presence of the IF:
accused or the person/s from whom such items were 1. Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a
2. To require being viewed in court or in ocular inspection
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
would result in delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the expenses which is not in proportion to the evidentiary
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at value of such object.
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the 3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of
case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That the object and there is no preliminary showing that there
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable has been no substantial change in the said condition;
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value which is applicable to ocular inspections; or
of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and 4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already
invalid such seizures and custody over said items. presented clearly portrays the object in question as to
render the view thereof unnecessary.
Now, here’s an interesting case also- the case of People vs.
Villarta. So, what happened here? After a buy-bust operation, the 5. Where the existence of the object is not very the fact in
arresting officer seized the illegal drugs from the accused at the issue but is merely a collateral fact or is merely used as
locus crminis or the scene of the crime and did not mark them reference.
immediately but marked the same only after he got to the police
station. He testified that he forgot to bring a marking pen at the 6. Where the article cannot be recovered or outside the
place of arrest and seizure. Should he be acquitted? coercive jurisdiction of the court.

According to the Supreme Court, the accused should be acquitted. 7. In crimes the gist of which is the illegal possession of
Di lang ni siya basta gap in the chain of custody . It is a gap in the article, a distinction must be made. If the article is
very first link of the chain. Marking after seizure is the starting common or familiar such that it can be readily identified
point in the custodial link. by sight, its presentation is not necessary. Its presentation
is not necessary as existence may be shown by the
Marking is important because: testimony of the witnesses.
1. Succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as
reference. July 30 Part 1 | Campaner
2. Marking serves to separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time Q: How can a human be considered object evidence?
they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at A: Presenting the Cadaver before the court.
the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence. Q: Can a living human be considered object evidence?
A: Yes, where the individual can show his wounds before the court
in a case for physical injuries.

Sir: Pwede ang human body because it can be subject of autoptic Q: What about a check that is filled up?
proferrence. A: If you compare this with a blank check, the previous one is an
object, while this check is a document.
Q: What are the relevant objects in a buy bust operation?
A: Drugs and marked money. When you talk about documentary evidence, at least in the
simplistic way that it was defined prior to the amendments in the
Q: When it comes to authentication, what is the main Rules, ang mga importante nga concepts diri kay:
distinguishing characteristic between marked money and the
dangerous drugs themselves? 1. It is a mode of written expression
A: Drugs are amorphous, the marked money are objects made Meaning, it involves a deliberate intent to convey information.
unique
2. It should be offered as proof of their contents
Q: Will the chain of custody requirements also apply to Because if the paper, for example the check, is offered not as
marked money? proof of its contents but rather as proof that it simply exists,
Sir: Only to the drugs and the drug paraphernalia because the then dili sya documentary evidence, but should be properly
amount of money that is simulatedly exchanged in a buy bust appreciated as object evidence.
operation is not relevant in determining the penalty of the accused.

Object Evidence Documentary Evidence

How is money marked? Addressed to the senses of the Addressed to the intelligence
1. By actually placing markings on the money; or court. of the court.
2. Recording their serial numbers Offered as proof of its physical Offered as proof of its
characteristics. contents.
Q: In evidentiary terms, how is an object per se considered Puti ba ang papel,
evidence?
gisi-gisi na ba sya
Exhibited to, examined or Read and construed by the
A: An object is evidence if:
viewed by, the court. court.
 The object itself is relevant to the fact in issue;
An object is not necessarily A document is not necessarily
 It is addressed to the senses of the court; and
non-papyric. A “document” paper. An “object” can be
 Its presentation is made by exhibition of the object to and by
can be treated as an object. treated as a document.
examination or viewing of the object, by the court.

Example.
Just a review, because we’ll be discussing about documentary
A ceramic tile is an object. However, if you look closely,
evidence. Take note that prior to the amendment, the
there are writings in this tile, “hey x, you sh*thead, for the
documentary evidence provision used to be quite simple. Now,
crappy services you rendered, I promise to pay 500
there is a new phraseology that is used under the amended rules.
pesos” and signed by the person who wrote it. Now, it
becomes a source of rights and obligations.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Before amendment
It doesn’t necessarily mean that if something is in paper,
it is necessarily documentary evidence or if something is
Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence
non-papyric, it is necessarily object evidence.
consist of writing or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression
Q: Why is it important to distinguish documents from objects?
offered as proof of their contents.
A: It is important because different rules apply.

Q: For example, you have a check, is there any situation when

Examples of such rules are:
a blank check can be presented into evidence?
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE which applies to documents only
A: It can be subject of theft.
 CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENT, which apply to
objects
Q: But in that situation, will you consider it as an object or a
document?  MANNER OF AUTHENTICATION, which are different for
A: As an object because you are not concerned about the writings objects and documents. For documents, we apply Rule
on the check, but the check itself. In this instance, we are talking 132. For objects, we apply jurisprudence.
about the check as an object and not as a mode of written
expression offered as proof of its contents.

Now let’s go to this very weird rule. Weird because somehow, it Photographs
expands the definition of what consists documentary evidence. Now, let’s go to photographs. Originally, when we talked
about object evidence, that there is a manner of
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE authentication of photographs. We mentioned that the
After amendment manner of authenticating photographs, in the context of
object evidence, na dili lang ang photographer ang
Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence pwede mag-authenticate sa photograph. It can also be
consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material someone who is familiar with the scene or situation
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or depicted in the photograph. So, if he has personal
their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as knowledge or he is a participant in that photograph, he
proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, can authenticate the photograph.
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
But right now, PHOTOGRAPHS include
The current definition of documentary evidence, by including  Still pictures
photographs (which encompass still pictures, drawings, stored  Drawings
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos) recordings and even  Stored images
sounds, has blurred the distinctions between objects and  X-ray films
documents as evidence.  Motion pictures or videos

Q: What do you understand of “still pictures”?

WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS A: An ordinary photograph, non-moving pictures
Note that under the current definition, in addition to writings,
recordings and photographs can now be considered as documents. Q: How about a drawing of a person’s face, is that
documentary or object?
Recording A: By nature, it is object evidence, because we are talking about the
If a debtor, for example, admits in a recording that he is physical characteristics of the drawing. And yet, photographs, by
indebted to the creditor, the creditor may then use the themselves, are also subsumed under documentary evidence.
material containing such admission as evidence to prove
his cause of action against the debtor. So, the recording Q: How about stored images?
serves an evidentiary purpose. A: However stored, an image can still be considered a document.
For example, screenshots of a word or pdf file.
But, in the context of Section 2, is this a “mode of
written expression”? Q: Are X-Ray films a mode of written expression?
Because at the simplest form, documentary evidence is It is a photographical representation. So, it’s properly under the
simply a mode of written expression, offered as proof of term photograph. But, as a mode of written expression, I don’t
its contents. So when you record something, Is it written? think so.
That’s the question that I pose to all of you. Just think
about it for now. MOTION PICTURES OR VIDEOS
 Recall the example that I gave you last meeting about the
Q: In the case of Torralba vs. People, do you recall if the tape prosecution for concubinage where the husband recorded a
recording was offered as documentary evidence? VHS tape of him having carnal knowledge of another woman
A: It was offered as an object evidence. on the marital bed.
 Remember that I offered the tape as object evidence
Q: To what sense of court was it presented? addressed to the senses of the court.
A: Sense of hearing. Gipapaminaw sa Korte ang tape recording.  How can motion picture or video be considered as a
document? Is it a mode of written expression?
If you recall the case of Torralba vs. People, very clearly it was
offered as an object evidence although the Supreme Court did not Example.
make a categorical announcement as to the type of evidence that Let’s go to a footage of a CCTV camera. You can see that in
was presented. the video, there’s a time and date. So, the time stamp and the
date under the time stamp, what is that? That can be
Q: Would you agree with me that the tape recording was not a considered as a document because it is a mode of written
written expression? expression tending to prove that an event happened at a
A: Not by its nature. This was an oral expression which was particular time and date.
recorded by means of a recording device.

*Sir plays the Pinoy Ako and Chandeliers song Now, let me just comment:
The Federal Rules, from where we patterned our amendments,
What if the band who composed the Chandeliers song noticed that does not actually have provisions which define either documentary
Orange and Lemons was trying to copy their song and try to evidence or object evidence. If you look at the entirety of the
enforce their intellectual property rights over the song? Federal Rules of Evidence, wala kay makita ngadto na object
evidence or documentary evidence and their definitions.
If you’re going to prosecute, you’re going to need both songs so
that the court can determine whether or not the song was really Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules, under the heading “Article X.
plagiarized. Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs,” does not
categorize writings, recordings, and photographs as “documents.”
Q: How would you treat the copies of both songs? Both are Take note of that.
coherent sounds, masabtan nato ilang ginaingon. Would that
be object evidence or documentary evidence? What is the purpose of Rule 1001?
A: Object evidence because what you’re asking the court to do is to Rule 1001 lumps writings, recordings and photographs together,
listen and compare kung naa ba gyuy similarity. under one Article, for one purpose only:
 That is, the application of the succeeding rules on requiring
Q: Is there plagiarism here? the presentation of originals, the admissibility of duplicates
A: Yes, they are the same. They have the same musical sequence and so on and so forth.
and arrangement.
So, there is a very particular reason why they lumped these
Q: What if it is a plagiarism of lyrics of the songs? together. What Philippine law does in the current incarnation of
A: It can be offered as documentary evidence. Now, we are talking the Rules of Court is to lump them together or to subsume them
here not of musical expression but of written expression. We are under the definition of documentary evidence, which the Federal
not talking about the melody anymore, but of the lyrics. Rules do not do.

July 30 Part 2 | Du In other words, under Article X of the Federal Rules on the
“Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs”, it does not
My last question to you is this, sounds man siya, right? Organized matter whether such writings, recordings and photographs are
sound actually, you can hear what it is. considered as objects or documents. If they are writings,
recordings and photographs, it does not matter whether you
Q: Ang music ba, per se, without looking at the lyrics, it is non- present them as object or documents, the succeeding rules (on
lyrical, ang melody or tema lang imong paminawon, can that presentation of originals and admissibility of duplicates) would
be considered as document? Is it document by nature?
apply.
Definitely not. Ginapalibog ta ug ayo aning bagong Section 2. To
my mind, there really is a confusion that might go on because of all
What it does provide is, if the proponent is presenting a writing,
of these things.
recording or photograph, he must follow the rules on originality
(or our very own counterpart of the Original Document Rule).
Comments on the amendment:
I want you to pay particular attention to this. Take note that the
Take note as well that under previous incarnations of the Federal
source of writings, recordings and photographs being considered
Rules (sometime in the late 1990s), this provision can be seen:
as documentary evidence in the Philippine context is Rule 1001 of
Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence, where it defines what
(1) Writings and recordings. “Writing” and “recordings” consist of
writings, recordings and photographs are:
letters, words, or number, or their equivalent, set down by
handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing,
magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other
Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article form of data compilation.
(2) Photographs. “Photographs” include still photographs, X-ray
(a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their films, video tapes, and motion pictures.
equivalent set down in any form.
(b) A “recording” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their The context in which we understand writings and recordings would
equivalent recorded in any manner. be that they are compilations of data for purposes of intelligent
(c) A “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent analysis or to construe them.
stored in any form.
xxx xxx xxx Under the old incarnation of the Federal Rules, writings, recordings
and photographs – they are not classified as documents, nor are

they classified as objects. What really matters simple is that if it is a If evidence is offered as proof of its appearance, existence,
writing, recording or photograph, this evidence will follow the rule condition and other physical characteristics, regardless of whether
on originality. Mao lang na ang requirement. it is in writing, a recording or a photograph, do not apply Sections
3 to 9. In that situation, clearly the intention is to offer that
The Federal Rules have since been simplified precisely because, evidence not as document but as object.
according to the American Bar Association, the breath of the
definitions contained in Rule 1001 seemingly expanded the We do not look at it according to the nature but we look at it
coverage of the Rule beyond simple documents to all writings, according to how or why it is being offered as evidence.
recordings, and photographs, including virtually all methods of
data storage. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
After amendment:
Take note as well that the old incarnations of the Rule prior to SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence. — Documents as evidence
simplification and the current versions of the Federal Rules do not consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material
define objects and documents as evidence. But our rules do… containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as
[Here is where the problem lies. We blindly copy what is stated in proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures,
the Federal Rules and trying to keep in step and yet the committee drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
which drafted the Rules of Court did not take into consideration videos. (2a)
the fact na walay definition ang documentary evidence under the
Federal Rules. So what did we do? We lumped writings, recordings What is the underlying theme of these matters enumerated?
and photographs under the definition of documentary evidence, They are offered as proof of their contents. Never mind that phrase
which to my mind, is counterproductive. We are confusing laymen. “modes of written expression” because clearly some of them are
It confuses us because we blindly follow and blindly adapt.] not modes of written expression. But they are, by themselves,
EFFECT modes of expression, not necessarily written.
 To the layman at least, our amended Rules create a lot of
confusion. Purpose of Section 2:
 How can a motion picture or video be considered a Regardless of the nature or physical attributes of evidence termed
document? documentary under Section 2, the underlying purpose of the
 How can a material containing sound for that matter be provision is the most important consideration. The description of
considered a document which should, simplistically speaking, what constitutes documentary evidence serves as a trigger to the
just be a “mode of written expression”? application of the Original Document Rule and its related
provisions (Sections 3 to 9 of Rule 130). Thus, the original of a
SOLUTION writing, recording or photograph must, as a general rule, be
 We should not look at the nature of evidence as either presented in court.
document or object. Let us deconstruct our understanding of
what documents and objects are. SECTION 4. Original of Document. —
 For the purpose of Sections 3 to 9, if the evidence consists in (a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or any
writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes
equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a
proof of their contents, we should not care if the evidence is computer or similar device, any printout or other output
not a document by nature. readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately, is an "original."
Again, ang importante lang gyud na requirement is that it is
offered as proof of its contents. That’s all we need to remember. (b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same
Because otherwise, if we try to reconcile the nature of the objects impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means
or the documents, and try to make it as a trigger for the of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by
application of certain rules, then magkaproblema ta. We cannot mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reconcile it. reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.
If the pieces of evidence are enumerated in Section 2 and are
offered “as proof of their contents,” we blindly apply Sections 3 to (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original
9 accordingly. unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable
A very important limitation to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a)

document or the subject of an inquiry, the original must be

DEFINITION OF ORIGINAL presented.
Prior to amendment, the original of the document was defined
simply as “one the contents of which are the subject of How do we now construe this?
inquiry.” It is a “filtering mechanism” before you apply the Best Evidence
Rule (Original Document Rule) in Section 3. Diba, remember, under
While the previous definition no longer appears, it is submitted the Original Document Rule, when the subject of the inquiry or the
that the principle has not been totally abandoned. The document contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
itself or the counterpart intended to have the same effect must still than the original document itself; provided, a duplicate is not
be the subject of inquiry. admissible. Why is it not admissible? Because there is an objection.

If it is not the subject of inquiry, it means that it is not relevant or Before you apply Section 3, the Original Document Rule, you apply
material and would therefore (under Section 3 and 4) be first 4(c). So, it is only after there is an objection or if it falls under
inadmissible (axiom of relevancy). 4(b) exceptions to foresee that you apply the Original Document
Rule. That’s the way you should understand the relationship
If it is not the subject of inquiry, why present it in the first place. between the Original Document Rule and Section 4 (c). It’s an
Wala man siyay kalambigitan sa issue. added “trigger” or “filtering mechanism” before you apply Section
3 which is the Original Document Rule.
Section 4 provides a new definition for the term “original” as
applied to documentary evidence. Best evidence rule to Original Document Rule
As amended, an “original” of a document is now: Remember that prior to the amendments, ang tawag nato ana kay
1. The document itself; or Best Evidence Rule but now there’s a change in the title. From “Best
2. Any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person Evidence Rule” to “Original Document Rule”. If you read my book,
executing or issuing it. prior to reading the updated chapter, I commented that the Best
Evidence Rule is a source of misconception? It is given a meaning
The attribute of originality may be bestowed upon a document by that it does not deserve because despite the term “best”, the rule
intention of its makers. That is the new addition to the Rules now. does not proclaim itself as the best of the highest type of evidence
Again, this is taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence. in the hierarchy of evidence.
Example.
A person may separately write a couple of provisional The term “best” has nothing to do with the degree of
receipts with identical contents without using a carbon probativeness of the document in relation to the other forms of
paper. The receipts, of course, cannot be expected to be evidence. And more accurately, it is the Original Document Rule or
perfectly identical in form as there would be differences the Primary Evidence Rule. According to Riano, source gyud sya sa
in writing. If the maker intends both receipts to be misconception and he calls it the Original Document Rule. For all
originals, then they are so. intents and purposes, the Best Evidence Rule and the Original
Document Rule are one and the same. Only the official
July 30 Part 3 | Escritor nomenclature of the rule has been changed.

SECTION 4. Original of Document. — SECTION 3. Original document must be produced;

(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no
the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable evidence is admissible other than the original document itself,
to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (4a) except in the following cases:

What’s the significance of this? (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
Again, the duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
as a general rule. Pareha sya sa duplicate despite the fact that the offeror;
duplicate is merely a copy. It’s not an original. It is secondary (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
evidence. the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the
However, it can be admitted to the same extent as the original, if original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
there is no objection; either based on the lack of genuineness or procedures;
unfairness of the situation under the circumstances presenting into (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
evidence mere duplicates. So, if there is no objection, there is no documents which cannot be examined in court without
need to apply the general rule requiring that the contents of a great loss of time and the fact sought to be established

from them is only the general result of the whole; When you should object depends on when the evidence is offered.
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a All evidence must be offered orally. And then when you talk about
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and documentary evidence, the offer shall be made after the
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
issue.
Imagine litigation right now where testimony is in the form of
When you talk about the Original Document Rule itself, you stop Judicial Affidavits (JA). After presenting all of your witnesses
there, “No evidence is admissible other than the original document through the medium of JA, subjected to cross-examination and all,
itself”. take note that while presenting the testimony of a witness, you
also identify and authenticate documents and objects.
Take note that the Original Document Rule would be applicable
only where the subject of the inquiry would be the contents of the Remember that documents and objects cannot present
document. If the subject of the inquiry is not the contents of the themselves. They have to be subjected to testimonial sponsorship.
document, you have no business in applying Section 3. The rule They have to be sponsored at the witness stand by a competent
applies only when the purpose is to establish the terms of the witness.
writing. When evidence introduced concerns some external fact
about a writing, like its existence, execution, or delivery, without When do you formally offer your documentary evidence?
reference to its terms, the rule therefore cannot be invoked Pag nahuman na tanang testimonies sa imohang witnesses. When
because in that situation, you’re actually not presenting you rest already meaning, you are not going to present any
documentary evidence. What you are presenting, you are additional witnesses. That’s the time that you formally offer your
presenting object evidence. documentary and object evidence for that matter also. So, when
should you object? Diba ana ta, after offer? So, objections to offer
In the case of Marquez v. Espejo, the Best Evidence Rule states of evidence must me made orally, immediately after the offer is
that, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the made.
best evidence is the original document itself and no other
document. Such as a reproduction, photocopy, or other evidence is So we now know the gist of the Original Document Rule. Meaning,
admissible as a general rule. The original is preferred because it kung dili sya original, objectionable sya. Ang gibuhat nimo kay
reduces the chance of undetected tampering with the document. Atenista man gud ka, nisulod ka sa korte. Pagkahuman, ni-present
There is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule if karon imong adversary ug document. Pagkakita nimo, clearly
there is no dispute regarding the contents of the documents. photocopy kay naa pay mga linya-linya. Clearly it’s not original.
Pagkakita nimo sa document na dili diay sya original, niingon ka,
Take note, in any other exclusionary rule or rule of preference, the “Objection, Your Honor! That is a photocopy and therefore
Original Document Rule can be waived. And it can be waived (1) if violative of the Original Document Rule.” Dili pa panahon para
not raised at trial or (2) for failure of the other party to object. mag-object.

What’s the effect? You object only when evidence is formally offered. And when is it
The secondary evidence becomes a primary evidence if the formally offered again? At the end. After all the testimonial
secondary evidence is not objected to. Dapat mag-object ka gyud. evidence has been presented. That’s the time that the
But even if admitted as primary evidence, its probative value must documentary evidence is offered orally. That’s the time that you
still meet the various tests by which its reliability must be object.
determined. Its admissibility must not be confused with its
probative value. What would be particularly wrong in making a premature
objection?
When exactly must a party make an objection? 1. You do not know the rules.
We have to jump to Rule 132, Section 35. You were only taught that this rule exists; but you do not
know how to use it. You have a weapon but you do not know
SECTION 35. When to make offer. – All evidence must be how to fire.
offered orally. 2. You are giving your opponent the opportunity to correct
himself.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be What if wala gyud diay syay laing evidence? Nalimtan niya in
made at the time the witness is called to testify. the end na i-present iyahang original unya nagrest na sya.
Meaning, he waives presentation of additional evidence. So,
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made ngadto na time pa ka mag-object because that is the proper
after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. time to object.

In the case of Spouses Tapayan v. Martinez, January 31, 2017, the to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
Best Evidence Rule requires that the original document be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
produced whenever its contents are subject of the inquiry. Take Note: There is only one exception in Letter B
However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection unlike in Letter A when there actually three types of
is necessary. So, unsa ning proper and timely objection? exceptions subsumed in one paragraph.
According to the case of Spouses Tapayan, the proper time to
object would be at the time when they were offered in evidence. c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
Otherwise, such objection shall be considered as waived. documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
Okay man nang mag-object dayon ka. Kana bitawng pagsulod pa is only the general result of the whole;
lang nimo sa court, naa na kay objection daan, gamay na lang na
push. That’s a vigilant approach. But, only when it comes to d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
testimonial evidence. But when it comes to documents, there’s a officer or is recorded in a public office; and
proper time to object. Dili ka magpataka ug object.
e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
This is the general rule, the Best Evidence Rule. And the problem Note: Letter E is taken from the Federal Rules but it has
there is, you are required to present the original because the been mentioned in previous jurisprudence so it seems
subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document; but your like nothing new.
problem is, wala kay original, unavailable ang imohan original. So,
take note, the proponent or party must present the original So, let’s go to the first three exceptions (in Letter A):
document or the clear copy thereof. So long as the original is
available, no other evidence can be substituted for the original. FIRST EXCEPTION:
LOSS, DESTRUCTION AND UNAVAILABILITY
July 30 Part 4 | Estrosas
How do we define loss? Loss actually is a technical term. When it is
What should be done if the original cannot be presented? In a technical term, it admits of no other definition than that which
other words, when should the exceptions apply? the law provides.

If the original cannot be presented, the party must find a legal Where can we find that? If it is provided by the statute, if it is
justification for the failure to present the original and then present provided by the rules, then that becomes a technical term. It
secondary evidence. The Original Document Rule can thus be admits of no other definition than that which the law provides.
restated as follows:
If there is no statutory definition, then apply the doctrinal
definition.
The original must be presented except when the proponent can
justify its unavailability or non-presentation of the original in Dili man gud enough nga mutubag ka in your own words. Forgive
the manner provided by the rules. If the proponent has a legal me, pero naa ko’y nakita kana bitaw’ng mga pamphlet before nga
justification, the presentation of the original can be dispensed nakabutang ‘how to survive law school?’, ‘how to answer questions
with by the presentation of a copy. in law school?’. Nakabutang ngadto kintahay it’s a definition
question, diba, you endeavor as much as possible to use your own
words. No, I don’t believe in that. You don’t survive law school in
In other words, the proponent has to lay the basis for the that way especially under my class. Why? Because in my class, you
admission of the copy in lieu of the original. are taught to memorize these statutory definitions like loss which
is a technical term.
What are these allowed justifications? These are now the
exceptions. LOSS Article 1189 – A thing is lost when it
perishes, or goes out of commerce, or
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR NON-PRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL disappears in such a way that its existence
DOCUMENT is unknown or cannot be recovered. (Note:
Memorize)
a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
DESTRUCTION It means obliteration of a document such
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
as by tearing, shredding, or burning. It
includes acts of alteration that would
b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
render the contents of a document
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
unintelligible for the purpose it is offered

in evidence. (This is a doctrinal definition.) produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
UNAVAILABILIT It may be physical or legal. Physical existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
Y unavailability may refer to cases where the his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital
original consists of inscriptions on of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony
immovable objects or monuments and of witnesses in the order stated.
even gravestones.
Pursuant to Section 5, the offeror may now be allowed to prove the
Let’s say you want to prove that contents of the document by secondary evidence, in the following
someone has lived and died, and the order:
records of that person could not be 1. By a copy of the original; or
found because of the World War II, and 2. By a recital of its contents in some authentic document;
you know the person is buried or
somewhere. What will you do? Take a 3. By the testimony of witnesses.
photo of the gravestone. Do not
bring the gravestone because that will CITIBANK v. TEODORO
be theft. Take a picture of it and that G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003
will be your documentary evidence.
Production of secondary evidence requires compliance with the
Legal unavailability, on the other hand, following:
may refer to instances where the 1. The offeror must prove the execution or existence of
document is beyond the territorial or the original;
coercive jurisdiction of the court (e.g. 2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability;
cannot be subpoenaed). and
3. The offeror must show that the unavailability was
without bad faith on his part.
ONG CHING PO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 113472-73, December 20, 1994 DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117384, October 21, 1998
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents
were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can
such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the be presented, all duplicates and/or counterparts must be
former existence of the document. The correct order of proof is accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the
as follows: original document itself can be regarded as established until all
 Existence (you prove the existence first) its parts are unavailable.
 Execution (then you prove its execution)
 Loss (then you prove why and how it was lost) Comment: All duplicates and counterparts, i-explain pud na nimo.
 Contents (you prove its contents) Let’s say it was made quadruplicate, and all quadruplicates were
lost. So, you have to individually account for the loss of each of this
This order may be changed if necessary, in the discretion of the duplicates or counterparts.
court. (De Vera v. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602 [1993]) XXX
SECOND EXCEPTION:
Note: The procedure laid down in Ong Ching Po is known as the THE ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL
process of laying the basis or laying the foundation. OF THE ADVERSE PARTY

Remember the term “laying the basis” or “laying the foundation”  It means you do not have the original, you only have a copy.
because when we go to Rule 132, when we talk of evidence of prior
and consistent statements, naa pud ta’y ginatawag nga laying the The mere fact that the original is in the custody or under the
predicate. Just totally different from laying the basis or laying the control of the adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the
foundation. introduction of secondary evidence. The party who seeks to
present secondary evidence must lay the basis or foundation for its
Now, what will you do if you have laid the basis already? – Apply introduction, subject to the following requisites:
Section 5. 1) That the original exists;
2) That said document is under the custody or control of
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the adverse party;
the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

3) That the proponent of the secondary evidence has given nagreach ug about 23 Million ang claim namo. Nadaog
the adverse party reasonable notice to produce the nami sa RTC but wala jud nako giisa2x ug identify ang
original document; and mga receipt ug invoice because this is an exception –
4) That the adverse party failed to produce the original when the original consists of numerous accounts.
document despite the reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or 2. These documents cannot be examined in court without great
procedures. loss of time.

Mao lang na siya, requisites na siya. It doesn’t mean that the Imagine, I’ll go to Makati for the hearing, and duha ka
original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or kahon akong mga receipts and invoice. Isa-isahon nako
procedures is a separate exception. That’s just a requisite of this na? It will result to great loss of time.
exception. Why? You give notice to the adverse party first to
produce the original document. If he cannot produce it, what’s 3. The fact sought to be established from them is only the
your next remedy? Ask the court to subpoena it, ask the court for general result of the whole.
compulsory process so that the original document will be
produced in court. Kung dili pa jud, that’s the time that you will be In other words, the purpose for the introduction of such
allowed to present secondary evidence. So, the original cannot be evidence is not to examine all the documents or pages of
obtained by local judicial processes or procedures is not a documents but merely to give the judge a summary from
separate exception because that exception is already covered in which he may draw a logical inference as to the probability or
the first paragraph (unavailability). improbability of the fact in issue.

After compliance, what will you do? – Apply Section 6. When the original consists of numerous accounts, our
jurisprudential basis as what you should do would be Atlas
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, G.R.
custody or control. – If the document is in the custody or No. 141104 and 148763, June 8, 2007. In fact, this was the case I
under the control of the adverse party, he or she must have cited in the Makati case that I was talking to you about. Our claim
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after was 23 Million and actual damages almost 24 Million not to
satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the mention moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. In the
document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case end, the Supreme Court awarded us more than 30 Million…36
of its loss. Million including legal interest. That was awarded by the Supreme
Court with finality. So, our opponent, nagbayad nalang. Nakig
“Secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its settle nalang and, you know, my fee there was contingent. But I’m
loss” – what does it mean? not going to tell you how much my contingency fee is…it’s
contingent, so I’m going to be a one-day millionaire.
It means you apply Section 5 which provides that the document
may be proved by: ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT
1) A copy of the original; or CORPORATION v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 141104 and 148763, June
2) A recital of its contents in some authentic document; or 8, 2007
3) The testimony of the witnesses.
The party who desires to introduce as evidence such
THIRD EXCEPTION: voluminous documents must, after motion and approval by the
WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS Court, present:
a) A SUMMARY containing, among others, a chronological
Under Section 3(c), secondary evidence may be presented if: listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the
invoices or receipts and the amount/s of tax paid; and
1. The original consists of numerous accounts or other b) A CERTIFICATION of an independent Certified Public
documents. Accountant attesting to the correctness of the contents of
the summary after making an examination, evaluation and
An example of this would be book of accounts, receipts audit of the voluminous receipts and invoices. The name of
and similar documents. the accountant or partner of the firm in charge must be
stated in the motion so that he/she can be commissioned
I remember a case that was finally decided with finality by the Court to conduct the audit and, thereafter, testify in
by the Supreme Court where my evidence was how Court relative to such summary and certification pursuant
many boxes of receipts and invoices from three years of to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court.
transactions between my client and the defendant, na

Comment: Take note that the procedure laid down in Atlas document. This is not the foundation of your cause of action or
Consolidated seems to be incorporated under the new Section 7 of defense- hence, no need to present the original)
Rule 130 (Summaries) because Atlas itself was taken from American
jurisprudence. Then this new Section 7 was taken from Federal 1. Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature,
Rules of Evidence. appearance, or condition of physical objects; or
2. Evidence relating to a matter which does not come from the
Section 7. Summaries. – When the contents of documents, foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous 3. When a party uses a document to prove the existence of an
and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and independent fact, as to which the writing is merely collated or
the fact sought to be established is only the general result of incidental.
the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in
the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. This is what we call the Collateral Facts Rule.

The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or No need to present the original in these situations.
both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The
court may order that they be produced in court. Another Example:
When the contract or document is one that merely substantiates
July 30 Part 5 | Fernandez the testimony.

You cannot insist it to be examined at unreasonable hours or PEOPLE v. ABELLA

during midnight. You also cannot demand that the examination or GR 195666 January 20, 2016
copying be at a 5-Star Hotel. Also, the court may order that it be It is merely corroborative it is not your main evidence
produced in court.
Based from the book of Sir JZE:
If you doubt the components of the summary, ask the court to The non-presentation of the original copy of the handwritten
have it produced in court. Although I don’t think the court will agreement is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Miguel
individually examine all these voluminous records. personally testified before the RTC as to the circumstances of
her recruitment by Abella.
WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD HOW PROVED
It is proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in custody Abella made verbal, and not written, promises to Miguel of
thereof. employment abroad. The handwritten agreement merely
substantiates Miguel’s testimony at best. .
You want to get a copy of your marriage contract- the Certificate
of Marriage. When you go to the Civil Registrar, you only get the
certified copy say for example in cases of Petition under Article 36 ESTRADA v. DESIERTO
to prove the marriage. GR 146710-15 April 3, 2001
This case shows that the Supreme Court does not really look at
You cannot get the original because of: the law but on fairness- which is actually a good thing. It’s just
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. - Any public record, sometimes the Supreme Court overstretches itself- and it no
an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be longer legal or pursuant to the accepted principles of law.
removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a
FACTS:
court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just
President Estrada was constrained to leave the Malacanang. In
determination of a pending case.
his stead, Vice- President Arroyo took her oath as the next
president. Estrada alleged that he did not resign but only was
THE ORIGINAL IS NOT RELATED TO A CONTROLLING ISSUE
constrained to leave in order to calm the situation at that time.
The description of this under several rules would be merely a
collateral matter which is proved by the original- which is not the
Part of the evidence considered by the Supreme Court in
fact in issue.
declaring President Estrada as having resigned were the
newspaper accounts of the diary of then Executive Secretary
Therefore, the Federal Rules similar to ours dispenses with the
Edgardo Angara. These newspaper accounts of said diary were
presentation of the original document.
never presented to evidence,
LEE v. PEOPLE
GR 159288 October 19, 1994 According to the reports of the Angara Diary as appearing in
the Philippine Daily Inquirer:
The rule does not apply: (these are only collateral to the

Section 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
Angara asked Sen. Pimenetel to advise Estrada to – A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects
consider the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada did the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
not disagree but listened intently. At 9:30 p.m, Sen. Pimentel
repeated to Estrada the urgency of making a graceful and August 5 Part 1 | Jamero
dignified exit. He gave the proposal a sweetener by saying that
petitioner would be allowed to go abroad with enough funds
to support him and his family. Estrada expressed no objection RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS
to the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE
would never leave the country. (Sec. 10, Rule 130)

From that, Supreme Court declared in the first case that

Estrada have resigned as President. While it is subsumed under the rules of admissibility of documents,
we’re not really talking about the admissibility of documents, but
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Estrada points out that the talking about the prohibition on testimony or other evidence that
admission into evidence of mere newspaper accounts of the tends to modify or add to the terms of a written agreement.
Angara diary violated the Best Evidence Rule or the Original
Document Rule as the original or the diary itself was not Sec. 10. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of
presented. It was merely newspaper accounts of the diary- a an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
secondary evidence not the original. containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between
the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
HELD: terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However,
It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
the copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
Daily Inquirer. In doing so, the Court did not, however, violate (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
the Best Evidence Rule or the Original Document Rule. agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
The decision was based on Wigmore, in his book on evidence, and agreement of the parties thereto;
which states that: (c)The validity of the written agreement; or
Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the (d)The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the The term "agreement" includes wills.
document and no other useful purpose will be served by
requiring production. General Rule:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
The Supreme Court said it was perfectly admissible despite the writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed
fact that it was not an original upon and there can be, as between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than
DISCUSSION the contents of the written agreement. xxx
Isn’t it a fact that by raising Best Evidence Rule or making an
objection based on the Best Evidence Rule that Estrada bona fide Imagine an ordinary contractual situation: there’s the creditor, the
disputes the contents of the document. Estrada here was asking debtor, or contracting party A, B. If you recall the case of San
where that Angara Diary was. Miguel Properties vs. Wang, the SC laid down the stages in the
life of a contract: Preparation; Perfection; Execution or the Death of
But the Supreme Court (to my mind) was stretching too much- the contract. I want to take particular attention to the 1 st phase in
even if this not found in our statutes or in the Rules of Procedure the life of the contract: Preparation Stage. It is the period of
even quoting Wigmore in its decision. Because it would lead to a haggling or soliciting conditions, where the 1 st party will say, “I
constitutional crisis- imagine having 2 Presidents having control in want to buy your property for this amount xxx” and the other party
the Malacanang. would make a counter-offer that he will buy the property for a
lower amount, and then the other party would then again haggle.
For me, the ruling was correct- even if it was not proper So, there’s a series of offers and counter-offers. When the parties’
procedurally. minds have already met with respect to the terms and conditions
that are to govern their contractual relationship, it is now of
accepted practice that contracts will be reduce into writing.

Everything that they have discussed, everything that they have met 3. Comparative Accuracy of Written Evidence Over
their minds on will be reduced into writing. Everything Else that Rest Merely on the Fleeting Memory
of Man
What happens to everything else that took place prior to the Ginatagaan ug primacy ang written evidence over everything
drafting of the contract, or prior to reducing the contract into na pwede bitaw ma-mali or ma-misinterpret based on the
writing? memory of man. Malay nimo mali ang pagkahinumdom, so
Everything is already deemed integrated into the written we better rely on the written evidence.
agreement and that written agreement is the one given primacy by
the PER. The most simplistic example when it comes to PER: Moses
coming down from Mt. Sinai, and he’s bringing down
Kung sa ato pa, kung ang mga Partido gisulat na ang ilahang supposedly the 10 commandments as written by the fingers
contrata, dili na pwede pagabaguhon pa. Dili na pwede by means of God himself in those tablets of stones. (talks about
of testimony or other evidence utruhon ang contracta because that different commands) So, for example, diba 10
would be violative of the PER. commandments, naay proof si Moses na 10 commandments
lang jud sya. Can Moses say later, “By the way, naa diay
Other Names for PER: nakalimtan gibutang si God sa Commandments?” So nag
 EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE-evidence that can be seen outside dungag-dungag si Moses, dili na sya pwede. Whatever is
of the contact of the parties. written, mao lang na ang mag govern sa relationship sa
 EVIDENCE ALIUNDE (Latin term) parties.
 ORAL EVIDENCE (Layman’s term; or testimonial evidence
that tends to vary or modify the terms and conditions of 4. The Belief that Parol Evidence is Prone to Fabrication
a written agreement) (HERBON vs. PALAD, GR NO 149542, July 20, 2006)
Thus, the purpose of the parole evidence rule is to give
IT IS A RULE OF EXCLUSION stability to written agreements, and to remove the
When parties have already reduced their agreement into writing, temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be
the written agreement becomes supreme. It supersedes everything afforded if parol evidence were admissible (CONDE vs.
they have discussed prior to the perfection of the contract. COURT OF APPEALS, 119 SCRA 245)

A party therefore cannot say something different from what the

Art. 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they
contract says. He cannot modify or add to its terms.
may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites
for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a
Because mawala ang importance sa written agreement kung i-
contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or
allow lang nimo ang isa ka party to add to its terms, to change its
enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that
interpretation to suit its condition better simply by introducing
requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right
evidence to the contrary.
of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised.
(1278a)
EFFECT OF PER AS A RULE OF EXCLUSION
If not in the contract (as to terms and conditions), it is
INADMISSIBLE. Again, it could be valid between the contracting parties because a
The stipulations may be valid but you cannot prove it in court. contract is not usually formal. Contracts are ordinarily consensual—
perfected by consent, manifested by the meeting of the offer and
RATIONALE the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to
1. Hierarchy of Evidence constitute the contract. Enough na nay consent. But we’re talking
Recall that there are hierarchy of evidence; that documentary about the provability of certain terms and conditions that are not
evidence prevails over testimonial evidence (GSIS vs. CA) included in the contract.
While PER does not proclaim itself to be limitation on the validity
2. Principle of Waiver After Integration of a contract, it is a requirement that must be taken into
When the parties have already integrated into a written consideration as a condition precedent to a party's ability to prove
agreement, the terms and conditions that are to govern their the same. (So, kung wala sa kontrata, you cannot prove it.)
contractual relationship, tanan nga wala nasulat, deemed Even if the contract is valid in its oral form, contracts being in
waived. Because if it is important to the parties, they should generally and essentially consensual, it is virtually futile if you
have included that into their contract. The fact that they did cannot therefore sue upon it or you are barred by conclusive
not include that into the contract, the law presumes that it is presence of the written document relative the same agreement.
already waived.
REQUISITES
1. There must be an agreement;

2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing; to the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the agreement.
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in- Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to
interest; and the contract involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement. can introduce extrinsic evidence against the efficacy of the
writing.
REQUISITE 1:
AGREEMENT MARQUEZ v ESPEJO

In order for the rule to apply, there must be an agreement. As If you recall, mao ni to siyang voluntary land transfers. Ang nag-
understood, an agreement is a contract. Thus, where there is object on the ground na wala sa agreement, which property ba
meeting of the minds between the parties and the same is reduced gyud daw ang gibaligya, is not a party to the agreement at all.
into writing (regardless whether notarized or not), the resulting It’s the bank. Therefore, dili mag-apply ang Parol Evidence Rule.
physical contract is therefore already covered by the Rule. Not a party to the agreement ang nag-object.

This general understanding is not applicable to the last part of the REQUISITE 4:
Rule which provides that "(t)he term 'agreement' includes wills." THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT

Verily, a will is not an agreement. It is strictly personal and Thus, if the dispute between parties who are contractually bound
unilateral act. However, by force of the Rules and in an apparent refers to matters extraneous to the agreement or with respect to
legal fiction, a will is an agreement as well although there is clearly rights and obligations that do not emanate from it, the Parole
no meeting of the minds. Evidence Rule does not apply.

If you recall in your succession, you cannot subject the making of a Take note of the exceptions. Chances are, if it is going to be
will to a contract. For example, ako (Sir) ang testator, I will intstitute asked in the Bar Examinations, the examiner will not ask you about
B as my heir provided that B also institutes me as his heir. Dili na the general rule. Ang ipangutana sa inyoha, what exceptions are
sya pwede, this is what we call disposition captatoria. applicable. Commit to memory the general rule and exceptions.

Why is the Rule Applied to Wills?

The dangers (perjury) sought to be avoided by the requirement of EXCEPTIONS
the Rule is present in the making of the wills and are deemed to be This is when the second paragraph of Section 10 comes in:
more prevalent inasmuch as the maker of a will, the decendent, can
no longer objects to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as his However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add
voice is already silenced by death. to the terms of the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a
verified pleading:
REQUISITE 2: a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
REDUCED TO WRITING agreement;
b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
Is it required that the agreement should be in a public instrument intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
for the applicability of the PER? NO. c) The validity of the written agreement; or
d) The existence of other terms agree to by the parties or their
INCIONG vs. CA successors in interest after the execution of the written
GR NO 96405 | June 26, 1996
agreement.
Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be
a public document. xxx. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to Comments to Amendment:
apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or
be signed by both parties. 1. He/She
It is virtually unchanged, except for the fact that the Rule
August 5 Part 2 | Macacua committees decide to be equal opportunists here. Naay
“she”. Dili lang man ang lalaki ang pwede mahimong
REQUISITE 3: criminal, contracting party, apil ang babae. He or she. Para
DISPUTE IS BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR THEIR SUCCESSOR-IN- dili siya sexist, in a way.
INTEREST
2. Verified Pleading
LECHUGAS v COURT OF APPEALS

The rule may not properly be invoked where at least one party

The requirement that ang imong objection, in other words, NON NOCET -- a false or mistaken description does not
invocation to the exception of the Parol Evidence Rule should vitiate -- would then apply.
be in a verified pleading.
If, on consideration the language of a will with the aid of
Example. any admissible extrinsic evidence, the court comes to the
Plaintiff filed against defendant for breach of contract. conclusion that the testator intended to pass something
The defense is that, the contract is not breached because and can determine what that something is, then the fact
it did not express the true intent of the parties. That’s one that the testator gave it the wrong description in his will
of the exceptions. Ang imong answer, not verified. Now, does not prevent the will taking effect in regard to the
that is an added requirement. It has to be by way of a subject matter intended by the testator. The principle
verified pleading. (Note: how a pleading is verified). may be applied in whatever part of the description the
error occurred.
Comment to Exceptions:
For example, shares of stocks. In his will, X makes a
In (a), there are three exceptions. In (c), you are questioning the specific gift of shares of stock in ABZ Corporation, and X
validity of the contract. You are saying that the contract is void at the date of his will possessed no such stock but
from inception or that naay impediment as to giving it perfect possessed other stock oin ABC Corporation which the
validity. In (d), mao na ang ginatwag nato na “subsequent court decides was meant, the latter stock passes under
agreement”. the gift despite the false description.

INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION 2. Intrinsic Ambiguity

KINDS OF AMBIGUITY Intrinsic Ambiguity, on the other hand, can be proved by

1. Extrinsic (Patent): or parol evidence.
2. Intrinsic (Latent)
3. Intermediate Ambiguity (jurisprudence) Example. In a will, it is provided that the testator gives to
Ramon (his nephew), P200,000. However, the testator has
1. Extrinsic Ambiguity two nephews named Ramon. Here, by way of exception, a
latent ambiguity may be explained by parol evidence, for,
Extrinsic cannot be proved by parol evidence because, by as the ambiguity has been brought about by
nature, it is incurable. It is a glaring mistake. circumstances extraneous to the instrument, the
explanation must necessarily be sought from such
Example.
circumstances outside the instrument.
A will provides “I give to B something”. There is really no
description here. What is that something? In the case
Rationale
where there is no description, it cannot be proved by
The cause of the ambiguity here is something outside of
parol evidence.
the written instrument. Therefore, the explanation by way
of Parol Evidence can be sought outside of the
BORILLO v COURT OF APPEALS
instrument as well.

In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the

Ambiguity is susceptible of different interpretations. Naay
subject matter of a deed or other writing, there must be a
ginakalibugan.
description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence; the
writing must at least give some data from which the description
may be found and made certain.
3. Intermediate Ambiguity
Parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where
the description thereof is so vague as to amount to no
This arises by the use of equivocal word/s which is
description at all. In other words, parol evidence is not
susceptible of more than one interpretation. Evidence
permitted to supply a description, but only to apply it.
aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or add
to its meaning.
“Imperfect Description”
(Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet)
Wala ni siya sa Rules of Court or Civil Code. But, naa siya
sa jurisprudence.
The situation is different where there is a mere imperfect
description. The principle of FALSA DEMONSTRATIO

In the case of Palanca vs Fred Wilson & Co., A Chinese

immigrant, Tan Quin Lay, as manager of Song Fo Company, Magellan v. CA
entered into a contract with Fred Wilson & Co. for the G.R. No. 95526, August 23 1991
purchase of a distilling apparatus for P10,000. He purchased
the apparatus with the specification that it should have a
The mistake contemplated as an exception to the parol evidence
capacity of 6,000 liters a day.
rule is one which is a mistake of fact mutual to the parties.
Furthermore, the rules on evidence, as amended, require that in
We are talking about an equipment making distilling spirits,
order that parol evidence may be admitted, said mistake must be
alcohol. They are going to make liquor here.
put in issue by the pleadings, such that if not raised inceptively in
After using the distilling apparatus for some time, Song Fo the complaint or in the answer, as the case may be, a party can not
complained that it only produced 480 liters of alcohol per later on be permitted to introduce parol evidence therefrom.
day, not 6,000 liters, and filed a case for breach of contract.
Fred Wilson & Co. contended that it did not breach its You will be estopped. The earliest opportunity to raise the
contract which stated that the apparatus was of ‘de exception of mistake or any other exception must be in the
capacidad de 6,000 litros cada 24 horas de trabajo’. It said complaint or answer to begin with.
that, since the apparatus was able to process 6,000 liters of
raw material per day, there was no breach of the agreement. IMPERFECTION
This simply means that the writing is incomplete and does not
Ngano naay ambiguity? Because of the word “capacity”. What
express the whole agreement of the parties. Here, there is a failure
does capacity mean? If you are Song Fo, mas pabor sa imoha
of the parties to lay down all the terms and conditions which are to
na producing capacity.
constitute the agreement.
August 5 Part 3 | Maglinte
FAILURE OF THE AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE TRUE
The Fred Wilson & Company contended that the capacity INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
means receptive capacity. So, they have different The exception obtains where the written contract is so ambiguous
interpretations of the term capacity so there is intermediate or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties
ambiguity because the term capacity is susceptible in more cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In
than one interpretation. such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter may be
received to enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the
The SC held that extrinsic evidence or parol evidence must be instrument (Heirs of del Rosario v. de los Santos)
looked into by looking at price listing or quotations about
distilling apparatus that can actually produce 6, 000 liters a Example
day. SC found that for the price that Song Fo paid could not There is a contract which looks like a contract of sale, but the real
have been one that would produce 6, 000 liters per day. intention of the parties was to sell the property or use the property
Hence, the SC, by using extrinsic evidence, construed the
as security for the fulfillment of an obligation (like a contract of
term capacity to mean receptive capacity and not producing
loan).
capacity.

Parol evidence is admissible to show which of the two The agreement is different compared to the actual intention. In
interpretations was meant by the parties such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract
of the relation of the parties to each other and of the facts and
circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the
contract may be received in order for the court to make a proper
MISTAKE
interpretation of the instrument.
BPI v. Fidelity
G.R. No. L- 26743, Oct. 19, 1927)
The validity of a written agreement
Here, a party seeks to present extrinsic evidence to prove that the
First, that the mistake should be a fact; second, that the mistake contract is not valid. As in all the other exceptions, he must raise
should be proved by clear and convincing evidence; and, third, that the invalidity of the contract in his verified pleading at the
the mistake should be common to both parties to the instrument. inception whether in the complaint or answer.
The rule is, as has been above states, that the mistake must be
mutual.

Recall the contracts that are void ab initio including those whose
cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction. There is What else may be raised under “validity of a written
no contract. agreement”?

Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from 1. Forgery (Aloria v. Celemente)
2. Fraud & illegality (Bought v. CAntiveros)
the beginning:
3. False representation (Woodhouse v. Halili)
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
Woodhouse v. Halili
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
G.R. L-4811, July 31, 1953
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the
transaction;
The statement of the plaintiff was not sought to be introduced to
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
change or alter the terms of the agreement, but to prove how he
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
induced the defendant to enter into it – to prove the
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal
representations and inducements, or fraud, with which he secured
object of the contract cannot be ascertained;
the other party’s consent thereto. These are expressly excluded
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
from the parol evidence rule. Fraud and false representation are an
incident to the creation of a jural act, not to its integration, and are
I am using this Art. 1409 because I want to use that as an example not governed by the rules of integration.
of Dean Inigo himself.

Subsequent Agreements
Example:
This is the exception which states:
A sells to B his land for 1M. They sign a deed of sale. So:
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
“In consideration of ONE MILLION PESOS receipt of
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
which hereby acknowledged in full, I hereby sell this
property to B xxx”. But B says that he has to go to the
Rationale
bank to secure manager’s cheques as 1 Million is too
Why is this an exception?
large an amount to be paid in cash. A agrees to wait for
B, while B rings with him the deed of sale and the title of
When the parties executed the written agreement, they have yet to
the land. But B never came back, as he went straight to
enter into the subsequent agreement, meaning it came after, that
the Registry of Deeds to have the title of the property
is why you can prove it. The parties cannot incorporate in the
transferred over to him.
contract or instrument something that they will still agree on in the
future.
In the case for an annulment of sale, how will A prove
that B never paid him the agreed consideration when the Hypothetical Case
deed of sale has been duly acknowledged and the sale Maja borrowed money from JZE. For this, Maja signed a promissory
duly registered? note in favor of JZE which fixed the maturity date on August 15,
2019. When August 15, 2019 came, Maja did not pay. Thud, JZE
A will prove through his testimony, that he never received sues Maja for payment of the due account. Maja’s defense in her
the consideration. answer is that the amount is not yet due because after the
execution of the promissory note, for “unwritten considerations (i.e.
BUT, based on the general rule, A cannot really prove that she’s so cute), JZE agreed to extend the period of payment until
he did not receive the money, because the document will January 14, 2020.
show otherwise. Any attempt on the part of A to do so
will be objectionable under the PER.
What is Maja’s evidence?
However, since he filed the case to nullify the deed of Her testimony that they entered into a subsequent oral agreement
sale – in effect, he is raising the issue on the validity of which happened after the execution of the promissory note. The
the said document. So in this case, parol evidence is subject of the subsequent oral agreement is the extension of the
allowed to prove lack of consideration, with the exception maturity date of the promissory note
that the pleading or complaint should be verified. Hence
parol evidence is allowed to prove lack of consideration. Is it admissible that they entered into an extension?

Yes, because that is precisely what the exception is. Sometime in 1949, the National Airport Corporation informed
the owners of the various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport
This is the exception: “the existence of other terms agreed to by that the government will purchase their lands for the expansion
the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the of the airport. The landowners were convinced to sell their
written agreement.” properties otherwise, the government will be forced to institute
expropriation proceedings in courts. They were also assured
that their properties will be returned to them when these are no
Ultimately, Maja can testify in court on the subsequent oral
longer being used by the airport.
agreement she had with JZE. The extension on the fact resulted in
the novation of their previously agreed-upon maturity date.
There is what we call “buy-back” you were allowed to buy back the
property if the Lahug area will no longer be used.
Pay attention to the fact that while it would be admissible, Maja
properly invoked the exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule, there is The landowner Ouano did not want to sell at first. However,
still difference in admissibility and believability. It would still because she was reassured by the promise that the land will be
depend upon the court to believe the testimony on parol matters. returned to her when it is no longer in use, she was persuaded
to enter into a contract of sale.
Principle to remember
The parties cannot incorporate in the contract or agreement So, she had to had to sell the property because otherwise, they
something that they will still agree on in the future. had to enter into an eminent domain (case). I would just sell the
property, anyway, they would sell it back if they did not use it.
SUMMARY
COVERED NOT COVERED Vercide, another landowner testified, that in a meeting called by
SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS, the NAC, the landowners were given documents to sign and be
Only PRIOR AND
CONTEMPORANEOUS despite the fact that such asked for a rider or certification which would indicate that the
AGREEMENTS which are agreements may have effect land will be returned to him should it not be used by the
deemed to have been merged of adding to, modifying, or airport. He testified that it was only after the rider was given to
in writing conformably to the even altogether abrogating him that he signed the document of sale.
“integration of the agreement the contract of the parties as
rule.” (Woodhouse v. Halili) evidenced by the writing (Rule So, he had made an additional provision, specifying that if they
130, sec. 10 (d)) no longer used the property as an airport, they would sell back
COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS the property to the landowner.
Prior – what was agreed
before the contract was which, although oral and
written contemporaneous with the So, what does that tell you? In the case of Ouano, there was no
writing, are separate and rider, there was no provision. But the fact that for another
Contemporaneous – what was distinct agreements. These are landowner, it has that rider or certification, it proves to you that,
agreed while the contract was also known as : really, there could have then be this inducement. “its ok if we
written CONTEMPORANEOUS ORAL would no longer use the property, we would sell it back to you”
AGREEMENTS, or in layman’s
The moment you put your terms, SIDE AGREEMENTS. Now, years later President Aquino ordered that the airport be
agreement in writing, transferred to Mactan. So, now it was transferred there. The
everything that is not stated grandchildren of Ouano tried to repurchase the properties
there are deemed waived. originally owned by the grandmother. On Oct. 2, 1991, they
wrote to Capt. Antonio Oppus, the manager of MCIAA,
signifying their intention to repurchase the properties originally
owned by their grandmother. Capt. Oppus denied their request
because the deed of sale covering the properties did not
contain any condition relating to the right to repurchase. These
properties, it was explained, had become the absolute
August 5 Part 4 | Ugdang properties of National Airport Corp.

SIDE AGREEMENTS Imagine, you are the landowner, you sold the property that is
adjacent or near the airport. Clearly, the property had now been
MCIAA v CA flattened and cleared. The airport before was in Lahug, in the
GR 121506 Oct. 30, 1996 middle of Cebu, before Cebu became this very very developed city.
Right now, the Lahug area of the previous airport, its actually being

owned by Ayala it is prime real estate, that explained why they It is recognized that proof is admissible of any collateral
would want the property. agreements that is not inconsistent with the terms of the written
contract though it may relate to the same subject matter. The rule
The grandchildren filed a case for reconveyance with the RTC. excluding parole evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not
What is their allegation? The promise to resell the property. But, extend so far as to preclude the admission of existing evidence to
what MCIAA did was to refuse the repurchase. What is the show prior or contemporaneous collateral parole agreements
contention of MCIAA? They have no evidence. Its not in the between the parties, but such evidence may be received, regardless
contract and not in the deed of sale. of whether or not the written agreement contain any reference to
such collateral agreement and whether the action is at law or in
Since it is not in the deed of sale, such right to repurchase does not equity.
exist. Otherwise, if you accept evidence to that effect, it will violate
the parol evidence rule. Isn’t that correct? Compare MCIAA with the following cases:
1. Republic v. Roque (203610 Oct. 10, 2016)
HELD: 2. Republic v. Diaz Heirs Association Inc. (218732 Nov. 12, 2018)
Under the parol evidence rule, when the terms of an agreement
have been reduced into writing, it is considered as containing all There are two cases here where the facts are somewhat similar to
the terms agreed upon, and there can be, between the parties MCIAA. Roque – the DPWH, they are the ones who took the
and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms property for a construction President Marcos, but the case was
other than the contents of the written agreement. However, a decided in 2016. The case of Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the Association Inc. – it’s a Davao city case, why was the ruling of the
terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his SC different with Roque and Republic compared to MCIAA, that’s
pleading, the failure of the written agreement to express the for you to read. Roque is already in my book, the Diaz is in my
true intent of the parties thereto. updates.

How did the SC rule? August 5 Part 5| Rojo

It stated what the parol evidence rule is, and then the exception – a
party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms ABELLA v. ABELLA
of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, the G.R. No. 195166, July 8, 2015
failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the
parties thereto. In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to
be admitted:
The fact in which private respondents seek to establish by parol
evidence consist of the agreement or representation made by NAC First, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has
that induced Ouano to execute the deed of sale; that the vendors been put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected
and their heirs are given the right of repurchase should the to by the adverse party; and
government no longer need the property.
Second, that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves
Now, here comes the exception. Where a parol contemporaneous to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting
agreement was the moving cause of the written contract, or where party.
the parol agreement forms part of the consideration of the written
contract, and it appears that the written contract was executed on SPOUSES PARAS v. KIMWA
the faith of the parol contract or representation, such evidence is G.R. No. 171601, April 8, 2015
admissible.
Provided that a party puts in issue in its pleading any of the four
So, it was allowed by the SC to present evidence on such promise (4) items enumerated, a party may present evidence to modify,
to resell the property or the right to repurchase over the property. explain or add to the terms of the agreement. Raising any of
That is what we were talking about. The side agreement. It is not those items as an issue in a pleading such that it falls under the
necessarily one which co-exists with the contract. That its like, we exception is not limited to the party initiating an action. If the
have a contract, but we have this agreement. No. it can also be defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract
INDUCEMENT to the written contract itself. mentioned in the complaint does not express the true
agreement of the parties. Moreover, as with all possible
So, the SC allowed parol evidence to be presented in this case objections to the admission of evidence, a party’s failure to
of MCIAA. timely object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then
be entertained.

Relevancy Element The answer in the question is NO. You cannot invoke that. They are
Now, take note that we still have a relevancy element. not strictly bound by the rules on evidence.
Apart from pleading, these exceptions, it is equally imperative that
the parol evidence sought to be introduced points to the How to contradict written agreement
conclusion proposed by the party presenting it. That is, it must be Q: What is the quantum of proof required?
relevant, tending to induce belief in the existence of the flaw, true PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CUA
intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by the party G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018
seeking to introduce parol evidence.
To overcome the presumption that the written agreement
contains all the terms of the agreement, the parol evidence
Other permitted collateral agreements
must be clear and convincing and of such sufficient credibility as
 Inducements and representations which led to the execution
to overturn the written agreement.
of an agreement may be proven by parol evidence because
they do not vary the terms of the agreement. (Woodhouse vs.
CITIBANK v. SABANIANO
Halili, 93 Phil. 526; Bough vs. Cantiveros, 40 Phil 209).
G.R. No. 156132, October 12, 2006

So, inducements and representations similar to MCIAA When a document is presented to prove its existence or
 Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and condition it is offered not as documentary, but as real evidence.
collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the Parol evidence of the fact of execution of the documents is
making of the sale or part of the consideration thereof. allowed.
(Robles vs. Lizarraga, 50 Phil. 387).
This is also touched upon by MCIAA. Kay dili man siya written agreement kung tan’awon nimo. Its’
object or real evidence.

Not covered by Parol Evidence Rule Distinctions

1. ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and You may not be asked about the distinctions directly. But you will
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, if the issue be given a set of facts, where it seems that applicable either, let’s
revolves around fraud and false representation since they are say the parol evidence rule and best evidence rule. So, what rule
incidental to the execution and not to the integration. should be applied? That is why you need to know the distinctions.
(Woodhouse vs. Halili, G.R. No. L481, July 31, 1953).
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
2. ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, whether prior and Presupposes that the original The original document is not
contemporaneous, subsequent or collateral, when third document is available in court. available or there is a dispute
parties, who are not privy thereto, are involved. (Lechugas vs. as to whether said writing is
CA, G.R. No. L-39972, August 6, 1986). original
Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
Random notes on the Parol Evidence Rule terms of a written agreement secondary evidence regardless
of whether or not it varies the
Can you for example introduce or object to the presentation of
content of the original
evidence on the ground that it is a violation of parol evidence rule
Applies only to documents Applies to all kind of writing,
before the labor arbiter or DOLE?
which are contractual in contract or not
nature except wills
ILEU-FFE vs. INTERPHIL LABS
Can be invoked only when the Can be invoked by any party
G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001
contrary is between the to an action whether he has
parties to the written participated or not in the
The parol evidence rule cannot be invoked in tribunals not
agreement and their privies writing, no limitation
strictly bound by the rules of evidence. In labor cases pending
before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not
When exactly should a party object?
controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in
Cross-reference with Rule 132.
a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor
Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence Section 35. When to make offer. — All evidence must be
other than, and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA. offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be

made at the witness is called to testify. Pwede siya written or in the form of another document . Pwede
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made man ka mag introduce ug another piece of paper to contradict the
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. (35a) terms of the agreement. In this case, objection should be
interposed after formal offer, which happens after the presentation
Section 36. Objections. – Objection to offer of evidence must of a party’s testimonial evidence. Then, that’s the time na similar
be made orally immediately after the offer is made. siya sa Best Evidence Rule.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer
must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. The objectionable evidence here, more often than not, in my
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral experience is testimonial. Meaning, kana bitaw naa nay written
examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds agreement pero nag testify ang pikas Partido nan aa silay sabot na
therefor become reasonably apparent. wala sa written agreement.
The grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Q: When do you object?
Q: When do you make an offer? A: It depends in the following.
 If the objectionable testimony is in the course of
A: It depends on what you are objecting to. If it is to offer the
examination:
evidence, you have to object immediately after the offer is made.
The objection should be interposed as soon as
Objection to the testimony of the witness, or objection to the
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
apparent.
witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become
So, pagka dungog nimo, well, mag object na ka.
reasonably apparent.

 If the objectionable nature of the testimony is apparent

FOR THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE:
Q: What did we discuss in best evidence rule? When should we from the offer prior to testimony:
object? Pagkakita ba nimo na photocopy lang siya, do you object Objection to evidence offered orally must be
immediately? made immediately after the offer is made.
A: NO, after pa na i’offer siya. Which is done after the presentation
Example of “in the course of examination of the witness”:
of a party’s testimonial evidence.
 Objection should be interposed when the document is offered
Lawyer: You mentioned that you did not pay the debt because
(i.e. after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence).
you had a subsequent agreement to extend the period of
payment. What is this agreement all about?
So, when the document is offered, just before the party rests
formally.
We know for a fact that ng plaintiff nag present ug promissory
Q: When is a party deemed to have rested its case? note na nag due na, like in the Maja example I gave earlier.
A: From the moment he submits his formal offer. Dira pa ka mu
object sa document pag offer na sa iyaha, if your objection is JZE: Objection your honor. Haha. The question calls for an answer
based on Best Evidence Rule. that is outside the terms of the written agreement. It violates the
Parol Evidence Rule.
For the Parol Evidence Rule:
Q: Is the rule the same for the parol evidence rule? That is how you object. Because as soon as the objectionable
A: NO. the objection under the Best Evidence Rule is against the nature becomes apparent, that is the time you object. You should
document. You object because it is not original. not wait for the witness to answer kay klaro sa question na
objectionable siya.
Q: What about the Parol Evidence Rule? What type of evidence
is objectionable here? Example of “from the offer prior to testimony”:
A: Parol Evidence or evidence that is extrinsic or outside the terms Lawyer: The testimony of the defendant is offered to proceed that
of the agreement. (1) sometime after the executed the Loan Agreement on January 1,
2020, defendant was verbally granted an extension to pay the debt
and (2) for other purposes material in his defenses, your honor.
Objectionable na ba siya? Naa nay g’admit nila by the offer that
Q: How is it usually manifested? there was a loan agreement , and that he was verbally granted
A: extension to pay the debt.
 Written or in the form of another document;
 Testimonial Q: Is it in the agreement?

A: NO. It is not found in the agreement. So, by the offer pa lang

you object.

JZE: We object to the testimony, your Honor. As offered, the

testimony seeks to modify the terms of the written agreement by
means of parol evidence.

That’s how you object. If you look at it, from the point of view of
objection, lahi ang Best Evidence Rule and Parol Evidence Rule.
Because if the proper time to object is always after the
presentation of the party’s testimonial evidence, under the best
evidence rule, the timing of the objection based on the Parol
Evidence Rule depends on the form taken by evidence aliunde.

So, depende. Pwede siya testimonial, pwede pud documentary. If

testimonial man siya, depende kung kanus’a nimo na matikdan na
objectionable d ay and testimony.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

The timing of the objection The proper time to object is
based on the Parol Evidence always after the presentation
Rule depends on the form of a party’s testimonial
taken by evidence aliunde. evidence.

You should also know the distinctions between the Parol Evidence
Rule and Statute of Frauds. Naa silay commonality, both affect your
ability to present testimony.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

It applies to any type of Its object is to prevent
contract, and its purpose is to perjured testimony in proof of
make sure that the parties’ certain contracts and the
final understanding, statute applies only to those
deliberately expressed in enumerated types.
writing shall not be changed.
Applies to wills. Does not apply to wills.
Rule of integration which Rule of enforceability which
applies where there is a applies in the absence of an
written agreement. agreement in writing.
You cannot enforce, meaning
you cannot sue upon it.
Bars evidence of terms that Bars proof of an agreement
exists outside the agreement. altogether.

If it is one of those listed and there is no writing and memoranda,

dili pwede. Ang grounds sa imong objection would be statute of
frauds.

ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . ROJO . UGDANG

Evidence Review Guide with Notes
100% (3)
Evidence Review Guide with Notes
164 pages
Rules On Evidence
No ratings yet
Rules On Evidence
162 pages
Philippine Judicial Evidence Guide
No ratings yet
Philippine Judicial Evidence Guide
117 pages
Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020
100% (4)
Evidence TSN - Manresa 2020
217 pages
Evidence: Why Is Evidence Required?
No ratings yet
Evidence: Why Is Evidence Required?
19 pages
Provisions - Law On Evidence
100% (1)
Provisions - Law On Evidence
50 pages
Evidence Bar Questions Compiled 1997 2013 Jade
100% (1)
Evidence Bar Questions Compiled 1997 2013 Jade
65 pages
3G - Evidence Reviewer PDF
89% (18)
3G - Evidence Reviewer PDF
148 pages
Evidence TSN Full
No ratings yet
Evidence TSN Full
219 pages
Evidence Digests
100% (5)
Evidence Digests
68 pages
Evidence Finals Reviewer
71% (7)
Evidence Finals Reviewer
33 pages
Evidence Notes
No ratings yet
Evidence Notes
9 pages
Evidence Reviewer
100% (3)
Evidence Reviewer
97 pages
Francisco Book
100% (1)
Francisco Book
230 pages
Evidence
50% (2)
Evidence
32 pages
San Beda Red Book 2018, Personal Notes,,, by Lee Anne Yabut 1
No ratings yet
San Beda Red Book 2018, Personal Notes,,, by Lee Anne Yabut 1
32 pages
Evidence Rules and Principles Guide
0% (1)
Evidence Rules and Principles Guide
49 pages
Evidence Notes by Erika Rule 128 129
No ratings yet
Evidence Notes by Erika Rule 128 129
19 pages
Notes On Special Proceedings - 2018 - v2
No ratings yet
Notes On Special Proceedings - 2018 - v2
520 pages
Evidence Bar Questions Compiled 1997-2013 Jade
100% (9)
Evidence Bar Questions Compiled 1997-2013 Jade
64 pages
Evidence - The Bar Lecture Series by Riano
100% (1)
Evidence - The Bar Lecture Series by Riano
8 pages
Evidence Riano Lecture Notes
100% (2)
Evidence Riano Lecture Notes
22 pages
Evid Outline Reviewer
No ratings yet
Evid Outline Reviewer
72 pages
2019 Evidence Rules Lecture by Judge Gito
90% (10)
2019 Evidence Rules Lecture by Judge Gito
420 pages
Evidence (UST) REVIEWER PDF
100% (3)
Evidence (UST) REVIEWER PDF
74 pages
Remedial Law Case Digests
100% (1)
Remedial Law Case Digests
34 pages
Dean Tan Notes Evidence
91% (11)
Dean Tan Notes Evidence
20 pages
EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals
100% (1)
EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals
42 pages
Evidence: Prof. Jayson D. Labrador
No ratings yet
Evidence: Prof. Jayson D. Labrador
208 pages
Evidence - Riano
80% (10)
Evidence - Riano
218 pages
Riano Remedial Law
100% (1)
Riano Remedial Law
188 pages
Syllabus Evidence
No ratings yet
Syllabus Evidence
4 pages
EVIDENCE Digest PART 1
100% (1)
EVIDENCE Digest PART 1
15 pages
Evidence Case List
No ratings yet
Evidence Case List
5 pages
2019 Rules On Evidence PDF
100% (8)
2019 Rules On Evidence PDF
90 pages
Remedial Law Final (Priority)
100% (1)
Remedial Law Final (Priority)
109 pages
Evidence Notes and Reviewer
100% (2)
Evidence Notes and Reviewer
35 pages
Evidence Case Compilation Guide
67% (3)
Evidence Case Compilation Guide
225 pages
Evidence - The Bar Lecture Series (Riano)
86% (7)
Evidence - The Bar Lecture Series (Riano)
9 pages
Legal Edge Bar Review: Lecture On Evidence For 2017 Bar Examination
No ratings yet
Legal Edge Bar Review: Lecture On Evidence For 2017 Bar Examination
258 pages
Evidence Premids 2020
100% (1)
Evidence Premids 2020
55 pages
Evidence Rules and Admissibility
No ratings yet
Evidence Rules and Admissibility
41 pages
Civil Law - Quamto and Bar Qs 17-18
No ratings yet
Civil Law - Quamto and Bar Qs 17-18
146 pages
Torts Barnotes 2020
No ratings yet
Torts Barnotes 2020
37 pages
CLARENCE TIU - Evidence Notes (Last Edit-Jan2018)
100% (14)
CLARENCE TIU - Evidence Notes (Last Edit-Jan2018)
200 pages
Legal Evidence in Law Enforcement
100% (1)
Legal Evidence in Law Enforcement
34 pages
Conflicts Pe Benito CHP4 - 5
No ratings yet
Conflicts Pe Benito CHP4 - 5
100 pages
Witness Qualification Doctrines 2017
No ratings yet
Witness Qualification Doctrines 2017
41 pages
AGBAYANI Remedial Law Part 1
94% (18)
AGBAYANI Remedial Law Part 1
417 pages
Evidence Case Digests Compilation
63% (8)
Evidence Case Digests Compilation
33 pages
Evidence 1-19 Case Digest
100% (2)
Evidence 1-19 Case Digest
25 pages
Object and Documentary Evidences: A. Object Evidence (Rule 130)
No ratings yet
Object and Documentary Evidences: A. Object Evidence (Rule 130)
31 pages
Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division
No ratings yet
Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents: Second Division
6 pages
Evidence 2
No ratings yet
Evidence 2
12 pages
(Evidence) Midterm Transcript (Complete) - Eh403
No ratings yet
(Evidence) Midterm Transcript (Complete) - Eh403
51 pages
VI-VIII Evid
No ratings yet
VI-VIII Evid
48 pages
Object or Real Evidence: Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan College of Law
No ratings yet
Object or Real Evidence: Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan College of Law
25 pages
"SECTION 1. Object As Evidence-Objects As Evidence Are Those Addressed To The Senses of
0% (1)
"SECTION 1. Object As Evidence-Objects As Evidence Are Those Addressed To The Senses of
2 pages
Evidence Lecture 5
No ratings yet
Evidence Lecture 5
7 pages
2) Object Documentary
No ratings yet
2) Object Documentary
12 pages
Chain of Custody-People Vs Tripoli-Sambrano
No ratings yet
Chain of Custody-People Vs Tripoli-Sambrano
1 page
Chain of Custody Rule - People v. O'Cochlain - Amora, Gian Carlo
No ratings yet
Chain of Custody Rule - People v. O'Cochlain - Amora, Gian Carlo
2 pages
Chain of Custody Rule - Saraum Vs People - REYES
No ratings yet
Chain of Custody Rule - Saraum Vs People - REYES
1 page
Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof
No ratings yet
Evidence 2019: Aberilla, Bethany Joy (0:00-0:30) Ang Quantum of Proof
17 pages
Chain of Custody Rule - People v. Cardenas - Pizarro, Lorenzo Antonio
No ratings yet
Chain of Custody Rule - People v. Cardenas - Pizarro, Lorenzo Antonio
1 page
Evidence: Mens Rea
No ratings yet
Evidence: Mens Rea
21 pages
Intellectual Property 2018 2019 First Exam TSN
100% (1)
Intellectual Property 2018 2019 First Exam TSN
49 pages
Ong Eng Hock & Anor V Ong Cheng Guan & Anor
No ratings yet
Ong Eng Hock & Anor V Ong Cheng Guan & Anor
10 pages
Judiciary's Role in NDPS Bail Expansion
No ratings yet
Judiciary's Role in NDPS Bail Expansion
19 pages
Motion Psychiatric Examination (Manuel)
No ratings yet
Motion Psychiatric Examination (Manuel)
4 pages
Enprocon Enterprise LTD Vs The Assistant CommissioGJ202013022016354496COM254065
No ratings yet
Enprocon Enterprise LTD Vs The Assistant CommissioGJ202013022016354496COM254065
25 pages
International Humanitarian Law Flowchart 2
No ratings yet
International Humanitarian Law Flowchart 2
1 page
Remedial Law Bar Q&A 1987-2010
75% (4)
Remedial Law Bar Q&A 1987-2010
295 pages
Confession To Magistrate
No ratings yet
Confession To Magistrate
7 pages
How To Write A Judgment
No ratings yet
How To Write A Judgment
3 pages
NHA Vs Heirs of Guivelondo G.R. No. 154411
No ratings yet
NHA Vs Heirs of Guivelondo G.R. No. 154411
3 pages
Tanzania Criminal Appeal 1999
No ratings yet
Tanzania Criminal Appeal 1999
14 pages
HCCT 29-2013 Chun Wo V Metta
No ratings yet
HCCT 29-2013 Chun Wo V Metta
119 pages
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct March 2012 With Comments
100% (1)
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct March 2012 With Comments
112 pages
Civil Appeal 7 of 2019
No ratings yet
Civil Appeal 7 of 2019
22 pages
Dela Cruz Vs Garcia Case Digest
No ratings yet
Dela Cruz Vs Garcia Case Digest
6 pages
July 2019 To December 2021 Cases in Legal Ethics 2022 FINAL
No ratings yet
July 2019 To December 2021 Cases in Legal Ethics 2022 FINAL
308 pages
SPL-People Vs Macabando GR 188708
No ratings yet
SPL-People Vs Macabando GR 188708
10 pages
1) Bnss Class Test
No ratings yet
1) Bnss Class Test
28 pages
Land Dispute: ANCF vs. Heirs of Maxima Sin
No ratings yet
Land Dispute: ANCF vs. Heirs of Maxima Sin
71 pages
Lorbes V CA (G.R. No. 139884. February 15, 2001)
No ratings yet
Lorbes V CA (G.R. No. 139884. February 15, 2001)
3 pages
2015 Tax Bar Exam
No ratings yet
2015 Tax Bar Exam
12 pages
Hoosegow V Chubb National Insurance Company
100% (1)
Hoosegow V Chubb National Insurance Company
32 pages
Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA
No ratings yet
Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA
1 page
American Home Assurance v. Tantuco Ent. (366 SCRA 740)
No ratings yet
American Home Assurance v. Tantuco Ent. (366 SCRA 740)
7 pages
Batic Vs Galapon
No ratings yet
Batic Vs Galapon
2 pages
Legal Insanity: M'Naghten Rules
No ratings yet
Legal Insanity: M'Naghten Rules
6 pages
Motion for Extension in Baguio Court
No ratings yet
Motion for Extension in Baguio Court
3 pages
The Worst Daughter Ever Aarti V Raman Instant Download
100% (1)
The Worst Daughter Ever Aarti V Raman Instant Download
76 pages
Odell V DeJEAN Packing 1978. Pearl in The Oyster Tin.
No ratings yet
Odell V DeJEAN Packing 1978. Pearl in The Oyster Tin.
7 pages
People vs. Gonzales
0% (1)
People vs. Gonzales
2 pages
Lagazo Vs CA Case Digest
No ratings yet
Lagazo Vs CA Case Digest
8 pages

Evidence: Section 1. Object As Evidence.

Uploaded by

Evidence: Section 1. Object As Evidence.

Uploaded by

EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021

FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO

Object evidence is classified into:

Then, we found out by means of ocular inspection, that Example 2

1) BE RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN ISSUE;

The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs

(c) Proof Integrity Issue:

Authentication—Specific Objects Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by

SISON v. PEOPLE AS TO TAPE RECORDINGS

3) NOT BE HEARSAY; PEOPLE v. WILLIAM

The transfer of marijuana was incidental to the arrest of

Object Evidence Documentary Evidence

Q: For example, you have a check, is there any situation when

Q: What do you understand of “still pictures”?

document or the subject of an inquiry, the original must be

SECTION 4. Original of Document. — SECTION 3. Original document must be produced;

You cannot insist it to be examined at unreasonable hours or PEOPLE v. ABELLA

From that, Supreme Court declared in the first case that

A party therefore cannot say something different from what the

Why is the Rule Applied to Wills?

INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR IMPERFECTION 2. Intrinsic Ambiguity

KINDS OF AMBIGUITY Intrinsic Ambiguity, on the other hand, can be proved by

In order to admit parol evidence to aid in the description of the

In the case of Palanca vs Fred Wilson & Co., A Chinese

How did the SC rule? August 5 Part 5| Rojo

Not covered by Parol Evidence Rule Distinctions

 If the objectionable nature of the testimony is apparent

A: NO. It is not found in the agreement. So, by the offer pa lang

JZE: We object to the testimony, your Honor. As offered, the

So, depende. Pwede siya testimonial, pwede pud documentary. If

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

If it is one of those listed and there is no writing and memoranda,

You might also like