unless claimant is self-employed and receiving less, or he is a daily wage earner

less than the minimum wage.

Case Law:

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim

for loss of earning capacity. (See also: People vs. Roberto Lopez, G.R. No. 188902,
February 16, 2011) Exceptions: (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice
may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work, no evidence is
available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor laws. (Tan vs. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R.
No. 190521, January 12, 2011)

4) Q: Is absence of official receipts defeats prosecution of illegal recruitment?

A: No, the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal
prosecution for illegal recruitment.

Case Law:

The Court has ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not
defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. According to People vs.
Pabalan, the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not
warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their
respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited
recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts.
Consequently, as long as the State established through credible testimonial
evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal recruitment, her conviction was
justified, as it is herein. (People vs. Abat, G.R. No. 168651, March 16, 2011)

5) Q: Is presentation of marine insurance policy indispensable for the insurer

to recover from the common carrier?

A: No, presentation of marine insurance policy is indispensable for the insurer to

recover from the common carrier.
Case Law:

The presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable

before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the
lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory rights. (Asian Terminals, Inc. vs.
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171406, April 4, 2011)

2. Electronic Document:

a) Electronic Document defined:

Sec. 1(h), Rule 2 of the A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, otherwise known as the Electronic
Evidence Rule provides for the definition of electronic document. It states that:

"Electronic documenť" refers to information or the representation of

information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-
out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules.
The term 'electronic document' may be used inter changeably with 'electronic
data message."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is an electronic document? Electronic data message?

A: "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of

information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however

represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by

which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes
digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or
other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document.

2) Q: What is the purpose of electronic document?

Electronic document may be presented for the following purpose, to wit:

A: а) In order to establish a right;

b) In order to extinguish an obligation;

c) In order to prove or affirm a fact.

3) Q: What are the originals of the electronic document? (Bar Exam 2001)

A: An electronic document as evidence may include the following:

1) A digitally signed document; or

2) Any print-out or output readable by sight;

3) By any other means which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document.

3. Documentary Evidence in relation to Judicial Affidavit:

1 Q: Is it required that the documentary evidence be attached in the judicial

affidavit?

A: Yes, attachment of documentary or object evidence to the affidavits is required

when there would be a pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled
hearing.

Case Law:

On a final note, the Court deems it proper to discuss the relevance of the
Judicial Affidavit Rule or A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, where documentary or object
evidence are required to be attached. To begin with, the rule is not applicable
because such evidence are required to be attached to a judicial affidavit, not to a
complaint.

In the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the attachments of documentary or object

evidence to the affidavits is required when there would be a pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing. As stated earlier, where a
defendant fails to file an answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu
proprio or upon plaintiffs motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the
complaint and limited to what is prayed for. Thus, where there is no answer, there
is no need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or hearing. Sec. 2 of the Judicial
Affidavit Rule reads:
 Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and

Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - shall file with the court and serve on the
adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days
before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect
to motions and incidents, the following:

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of
such witnesses' direct testimonies; and

(2) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be

attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the
case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the
case of the respondent or the defendant

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or

object evidence in his possession, he may, after the same has been identified,
marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy
or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of
that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or

object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the
attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be
admitted. This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in
place of the original when allowed by existing rules. (Fairland Knitcraft
Corporation vs. Arturo Loo Po, G.R. No. 217694, January 27, 2016, Mendoza, J.)

1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

1. Original Document Rule [formerly Best Evidence Rule] (Bar Exams 2017,
2009, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1997, 1994, and 1988)

Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on

Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the original
document rule and the exceptions to its application. It states that:

"Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the

subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording,
photograph or other record, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
and

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

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

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is Original Document Rule?

A: Original Document Rule provides that "When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself"

2) Q: What are the exceptions?

A: The exceptions to the Original Document Rule are as follows, to wit:

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

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

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

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

3) Q: What is the purpose of Original Document Rule?

A: The purpose of Original Document Rule are as follows, to wit:

1) To determine the exact wording of the writing or document;

2) To prevent fraud;

3) To prevent erroneous interpretation of the documents or writings.

4) What is the rationale for the presentation of original document?

A: The reason for Original Document Rule is that written document is the best
evidence of its own contents.

5) Q: What is the reason for the Original Document Rule?

A: The reason for Original Document Rule is that written document is the best
evidence of its own contents.

Case Law:

It is a cardinal rule of evidence, not just one of technicality but of substance, that
the written document is the best evidence of its own contents. It is also a matter
of both principle and policy that when the written contract is established as the
repository of the parties' stipulations, other evidence is excluded, and the same
cannot be used to substitute for such contract, or even to alter or contradict the
latter. (Henry Ching Tiu, et al. vs. Philippine Banks of Communications, G.R. No.
151932, August 19, 2009)

6) Q: What is the origin and rationale of Original Document Rule?

A: The origin of the Original Document Rule can be found and traced to as early
as the 18th century in Omychund vs. Barker which declares that there is but one
general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit.

Case Law:

The origin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as early as the
18th century in Omychund vs. Barker, wherein the Court of Chancery said: "The
judges and sages of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of
evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit." The rule is that, if the
writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those
witnesses. The first ground judges have gone upon in departing from strict rules,
is an absolute strict necessity. Secondly, a presumed necessity. In the case of
writings, subscribed by witnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of their hands is
sufficient to establish the deed: where an original is lost, a copy may be admitted;
if no copy, then a proof by witnesses who have heard the deed, and yet it is a
thing the law abhors to admit the memory of man for evidence. (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Ma. Imelda “Imee" R. Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand “Bongbong"
R. Marcos, Jr., Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, Irene R. Marcos-Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan,
Yeung Chun Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and Pantranco Employees Association [PEA]-
PTGWO, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012)

7) Q: What are the requisites in order that Original Document Rule will apply?
A: In order that the original document rule will apply the following requisites
must be present:

1) The original document of the writing is the writing itself;

2) The contents of which is the subject of the inquiry; and

3) The original document must be produced if the purpose is to prove its

contents.

8) Q: When will the Original Document Rule applicable?

A: Original Document Rule applies only when the content of such documents is
the subject of the inquiry.

Case Law:

The said rule applies only when the content of such document is the
subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was
actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without
need to account for the original. In the instant case, what is being questioned is
the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of sale. There is no real
issue as to its contents. (Skunac Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto
Sylianteng and Caesar Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014)

9) Q: What is the requirement of Original Document Rule?

A: The original document rule requires that the highest available degree of proof
must be produced which is the document itself.

Case Law:

Examination of the records will show that the Kasunduan dated December
17, 1994 is a mere photocopy; as such, the same cannot be admitted to prove the
contents thereof. The best evidence rule requires that the highest available
degree of proof must be produced. For documentary evidence, the contents of a
document are best proved by the production of the document itself to the
exclusion of secondary or substitutionary evidence. (Esperanza Berboso vs.
Victoria Cabal, G.R. No. 204617, July 10, 2017)

10) Q: Is it required that the original of the document be produced?

A: Yes, Original Document Rule requires that original must be produced if the
subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document.

Case Law:

Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court lays down the Best Evidence
Rule with respect to the presentation of documentary evidence. Thus:

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exception. -When the subject of

inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following cases:

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

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be

established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.

In this case, petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason
as to why the original copies of the documents presented could not be produced
before the CTA or any reason that the application of any of foregoing exceptions
could be justified. Although petitioner presented one (1) witness to prove its
claim, it appears that this witness was not even a signatory to any of the disputed
documentary evidence. As correctly pointed out by the CTA Division, petitioner
knew all along that it had committed the foregoing procedural lapses when it
filed its Formal Offer of Evidence. (Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 192024, July 1,2015)

11) Q: What is the effect if photocopy of the document is admitted in

violation of the Original Document Rule?

A: The evidence should be excluded and not accorded any probative value.

Case Law:

The Court notes that Exhibit “E" is a mere photocopy. Pursuant to Sec. 3,
Rule 130 of the Rules or the Best Evidence Rule:

SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; еxceptions. When the subject

of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

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

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other

documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office.

The records show that YBC did not invoke any of the foregoing exceptions
to the Best Evidence Rule to justify the admission of a secondary evidence in lieu
of the original Certification. Having been admitted in violation of the Best
Evidence Rule, Exhibit “E" should have been excluded and not accorded any
probative value. (Young Builders Corporation vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No.
198998, June 19, 2019)

12) Q: What is the prevailing rule regarding the nature of a photograph as

evidence?

A: The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or
reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in
portraying the scene at the time of the crime.

Case Law:

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in

evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and
testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of
this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of
the original, and its

admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of

the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify
the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph

as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie,

either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent
witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its
accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by
any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
(Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard De Los Santos, And Joselito G.R.
Nos. 108280 83 November 16, 1995; Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard
De Los Santos, And Joselito Tamayo vs. People of The Philippines And Court of
Appeals, G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995)

13) Q: What is the best evidence to prove the existence of a loan?

A: The promissory note is the best evidence to prove the existence of the loan.

Case Law:

A promissory note is a solemn acknowledgment of a debt and a formal

commitment to repay it on the date and under the conditions agreed upon by
the borrower and the lender. A person who signs such an instrument is bound to
honor it as a legitimate obligation duly assumed by him through the signature he
affixes thereto as a token of his good faith. If he reneges on his promise without
cause, he forfeits the sympathy and assistance of this Court and deserves instead
its sharp repudiation. The promissory note is the best evidence to prove the
existence of the loan. (Philippine National Bank vs. James Cua, G.R. No. 199161,
April 18, 2018)

14) Q: What is the meaning of "When the original is not closely-related to a

controlling issue" as exception to original document rule?

A: This pertains merely to collateral matters on the main issue of the action which
under Sec. 4, Rule 128, as a

general rule is not admissible, except it tends to prove the probability or

improbability of the fact in issue, hence, a secondary evidence can be presented
as evidence as an exception to original document rule.

a) Rule on photocopy of the document:

1) Q: Is a mere photocopy of the alleged marked money admissible in

evidence if the purpose is to establish its existence?

A: Non-presentation of the original pieces of the marked money is not fatal to the
cause of the prosecution if the purpose is to merely establish its existence.

Case Law:

In People vs. Tandoy, the Court held that the best evidence rule applies
only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the
issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists,
or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (PO2 Jessie
Flores vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018)

2) Q: Can an excluded photocopy of the document which is tendered (Sec. 40)

be substituted by the original for purposes of appeal?

A: No, party cannot simply substitute the mere photocopies of the subject
documents for the original copies without showing the court that any of the
exceptions under Sec. 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies.

Case Law:

One of the grounds under the Rules of Court that determines the
competence of evidence is the best evidence rule. Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court provides that
the original copy of the document must be presented whenever the content of
the document is under inquiry. However, there are instances when the Court may
allow the presentation of secondary evidence in the absence of the original
document. Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court enumerates these exceptions:

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

(b) when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;

(c) when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is the only general result of the whole; and

(d) when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office.

While the RTC cannot consider the excluded evidence to resolve the issues,
such evidence may still be admitted on appeal provided there has been tender of
the excluded evidence under Sec. 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The PNB
cannot simply substitute the mere photocopies of the subject documents for the
original copies without showing the court that any of the exceptions under Sec. 3
of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies. The PNB's failure to give a justifiable
reason for the absence of the original documents and to maintain a record of
Anna Marie's transactions only shows the PNB's dismal failure to fulfill its
fiduciary duty to Anna Marie. The Court expects the PNB to “treat the accounts
of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature
of their relationship." (Anna Marie Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R.
No. 202514, July 25, 2016)
3) Q: Can a photocopy of the document establish its

genuineness and due execution?

A: No, the genuineness and due execution of a photocopy of a document could

not be competently established without a copy of the original.

Case Law:

Notably, the genuineness and due execution of a photocopy could not be

competently established without a copy of the original. Photocopies are
considered secondary evidence which can be rendered inadmissible absent any
proof that the original was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or under the control
of the party against whom the evidence is offered. Here, not only did the
prosecution fail to present the original copy of the subject deed in court, it
likewise did not provide ample proof that the same was lost, destroyed, or in the
custody or under the control of Lamsen. Since mere photocopies of the subject
deed were used to examine the questioned and standard signatures of spouses
Tandas, no valid comparison can be had between them, thereby rendering
Batiles'declaration inconclusive to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt against Lamsen. (Hilario Lamsen vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
227069, November 22, 2017)

b. Original of an Electronic Document under the Original Document Rule (Bar

Exam 2001):

Sec. 1, Rule 4 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-Sc, otherwise known as the Electronic

Evidence Rule provides for the rule on the original electronic document. It states
that:

"Sec. 1. Original of an Electronic Document. An electronic document

shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the data accurately."
1) Q: When will an electronic document be considered original under the
Original Document Rule?

A: An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original

document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is:

1) A digitally signed document; or

2) Any print-out or output readable by sight:

3) By any other means which accurately reflects the electronic data

message or electronic document.

2) Q: Are picture images of ballots scanned and transmitted by PCOS machine

considered original?

A: Yes, picture images of ballots scanned and transmitted by PCOS machine are
considered "official ballots" and therefore original.

Case Law:

[The Court] agree[s] therefore, with both the HRET and Panotes that the picture
images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise "official
ballots "that faithfully captures in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as
defined by Sec. 2(3) of R.A. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the functional
equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for
purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest.

It bears stressing that the digital images of the ballots captured by the
PCOS machine are stored in an encrypted format in the CF cards. Encryption is
the process of encoding messages (or information) in such way that
eavesdroppers or hackers cannot read it, but that authorized parties can. In an
encryption scheme, the message or information (referred to as plaintext)
encrypted using an encryption algorithm, turning it into an unreadable ciphertext.
This is usually done with the
use of an encryption key, which specifies how the message is to be encoded. Any
adversary that can see the ciphertext, should not be able to determine anything
about the original message. An authorized party, however, is able to decode

the ciphertext using a decryption algorithm, that usually requires a secret

decryption key, that adversaries do not have access to. (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato
vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Elmer Panotes, G.R. No.
199149; Elmer E. Panotes vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, G.R. No. 201350, January 22, 2013)

3) Q: Is facsimile considered as original document and admissible as

electronic evidence?

A: No, it is not the functional equivalent of an original under the best evidence
rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

Case Law:

A facsimile transmission is not considered as an electronic evidence under

the electronic commerce act. It is not the functional equivalent of an original
under the best evidence rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. (Ellery
March Torres vs. Phil Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 193531,
December 14, 2011)

2. Original of Document (Bar Exams 2001, 1997, and 1978)

Sec. 4, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on

Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on original
document. It states that:

"Sec. 4. Original of document.

a.) An “original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart

intended to have the same effect by a person executing or

issuing it. An “original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print

therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device any printout or other
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is
an "original."

b.) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the

original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent technique which accurately
reproduce the original.

c.) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1,) a

genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. Or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original." (4a)

COMMΕNTS:

1) Q: When is a document considered original?

A: An “original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart

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

2) Q: What is the nature of document when there are two or more copies
executed at the same time with same contents?

A: Two or more copies of the documents executed at the same time with identical
contents are original.

Case Law:

In any case, going to the matter of authenticity and due execution of the assailed
document, petitioners do not dispute that the copy of the deed of sale that
respondents submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the original
deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled that a signed carbon copy or
duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is known as a
duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence without accounting for the
non production of the original.

Moreover, Sec. 4 (b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that “[w]hen
a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals." (Skunac
Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto Sylianteng and Caesar Sylianteng,
G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014, Peralta, J.)

31) Q: What is the nature of a document which is a carbon or duplicate?

A: Carbon or duplicate copy of a document is considered as original.

Case Law:
 In any case, going to the matter of authenticity and due execution of the
assailed document, petitioners do not dispute that the copy of the deed of sale
that respondents submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the original
deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled that a signed carbon copy or
duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is known as a
duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence without accounting for the
non-production of the original.

Moreover, Sec. 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that "(w]hen a
document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals."

In addition, evidence of the authenticity and due execution of the subject

deed is the fact that it was notarized. The notarization of a private document
converts it into a public document. Moreover, a notarized instrument is
admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as
to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of
regularity. This presumption is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.
To assail the notarized document, authenticity and due execution of a the
evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. (Skunac
Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto Sylianteng and Caesar Sylianteng,
G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014)

4) Q: Is carbon sheet or duplicate of document admissible in evidence?

A: Yes, carbon sheet or duplicate of document is considered original and

therefore admissible in evidence.

Case Law:

Sec. 4. Original of document. -- ххx (b) When a document is in two or more

copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such
copies are equally regarded as originals. x x x

In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies vs. The Court of Appeals and Associated

Bank, it was stressed that duplicate originals were admissible as evidence.
Pertinent

portions of the said decision read:

Respondent court is of the view that the above provision must be

construed to mean the original copy of the document evidencing the credit and
not its duplicate, thus:
 [W]hen the law speaks of the delivery of the private document evidencing
a credit, it must be construed as referring to the original. In this case, appellees
(Trans Pacific) presented, not the originals but the duplicates of the three
promissory notes." (Rollo, p. 42)

The above pronouncement of respondent court is manifestly groundless. It

is undisputed that the documents presented were duplicate originals and are
therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent bank
itself did not bother to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate copies
submitted by petitioner. In People vs. Tan, (105 Phil. 1242 [1959|), we said:

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing
paper so that the writing of a contract the outside sheet, including the signature
of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the kheets
beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which
made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are
regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence
as such without accounting for the non- production of the others. (Capital Shoes
Factory Ltd. vs. Traveler Kids Inc., G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014)

5) Q: When will a duplicate considered "original"?

A: A “duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the

original, or from the same matrix. Or by means of photography including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original.

6) Q: What is the nature of the picture image and ballots contained in the CF
Cards?

A: The documents, the official ballot and its picture image are considered
“original documents"

Case Law:

The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents that are regarded as
the equivalents of the original official ballots themselves. In Vinzons-Chato v.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the Court held that “the picture
images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise 'official
ballots' that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as
defined by Sec. 2(3) of R.A. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the functional
equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for

purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest."

That the two documents the official ballot and its picture image are
considered "original documents" simply means that both of them are given equal
probative weight. In short, when either is presented as evidence, one is not
considered as weightier than the other. (Mayor Emmanuel Commission on
Elections and Homer T. L. Maliksi vs. Saquilavan G.R. No. 203302, April 11, 2013)

7) Q: When is a duplicate copy admissible?

A: A duplicate copy is admissible to the same extent as an original unless;

(1) A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or

(2) In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of

the original.

8) Q: Is it required that the authenticity and due execution of a canonical

certificate of marriage be proven?

A: Yes, canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document and therefore its
authenticity and due execu- tion must be proven, otherwise it is inadmissible.

Case Law:

On the other hand, a canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document.

As early as in the case of United States vs. Evangelista, it has been settled that
church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the
promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no
longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They
are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as are all
other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence. Accordingly, since
there is no showing that the authenticity and due execution of the canonical
certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be
admitted in evidence. (Virginia Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz, G.R. No.
191936, June 1, 2016)

9) Q: What is the effect if the original copies of the document are not
presented nor offered for comparison?
A: Documents cannot be admitted in evidence by the court as the original copies
were neither offered nor presented for comparison and verification during the
trial, and hence do not confer any evidentiary weight on the same.

Case Law:

Evidently, said documents cannot be admitted in evidence by the court as the

original copies were neither offered nor presented for comparison and
verification

during the trial. Mere identification of the documents and the markings thereof
as exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight on them as said documents have
not

been formally offered by petitioner and have been denied admission in evidence
by the CTA. (SILKAIR [Singapore] PTE LTD. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010)

10) Q: What are distinctions between Sec. 6 of Rule 130 and Rule 27 on
Production and Inspection of Documents as a mode of discovery?

Original is in the possession of Production and Inspection of

Adverse Party under Sec. 3, Rule 130 Documents under Rule 27
a) Sec. 3, Rule 130 is the exception to a) Rule 27 is a mode of discovery.
the Original Document Rule.
b) Under Sec. 3, Rule 130 the b) Under Rule 27, the production of
production of the original document is the document being a mode of
obtained by mere notice to the discovery is
adverse by way of motion filed before the
party court and allowed only based on good
cause
shown.
c) Under Sec. 3, Rule 130 it c) Under Rule 27, it contemplates a
presupposes that proponent is scenario where the movant has no
presumed that have knowledge of the prior knowledge of the contents of the
contents of the document. documents to be produced.
d) The requirements for such notice d) Under Rule 27 the party seeking the
must be complied with as a condition production of the documents is not
precedent for the presentation of sufficiently informed of the contents
secondary evidence by the proponent of the said documents.
under Sec. 3, Rule 130.
e) The purpose of Sec. 3, Rule 130 is e) Rule 27 is for the purpose of
the presentation of secondary copying, inspecting, photographing of
evidence in lieu of the original, the documents.
a) Copy of the Electronic Document as Original:

Sec. 2, Rule 4 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, otherwise known as the Electronic

Evidence Rule provides for the rule on the electronic document which is
equivalent to an original. It states that:

"Sec. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a document is in

two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-
recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be
regarded as the equivalent of the original.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be

admissible to the same extent as the original if:

(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or

(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the

copy in lieu of the original."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: When is a copy of an electronic document equivalent to an original?

A: An electronic document is equivalent to an original in the following instances:

1) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same

time with identical contents; or

2) It is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from

the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction; or

3) By other equivalent techniques which accurately

reproduces the original.

2) Q: What are the exceptions to the above rule?

A: Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to

the same extent as the original

if:
 1) When there is a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or

2) In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy

in lieu of the original.

2. SECONDARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

A. Basic Concept

1) Q: What is secondary evidence?

A: Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the

document itself. (e.g., 1] a copy; 2] recital of its contents in

some authentic document; or 3] recollection of the witness

(Sec. 4, Rule 130)

1. When the Original Document is Unavailable (Bar Exam 2019):

Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M.
No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule when the original of the
document is unavailable. It states that:

"Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable. When the original

document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy,
or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated."

СOMMENTS:

1) Q: How to prove the contents of a document

when the original is lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court?

A: In case the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by:

1) А сору;

2) By a recital of its contents in some authentic document; or

3) By the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

Case Law:
 Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to
satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence
of the original; (2) the

loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the
unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the
proponent/offeror. Proof of the due execution of the document and its
subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary
evidence. (Esperanza Berboso vs. Victoria Cabal, G.R. No. 204617, July 10, 2017)

2) Q: Can the marriage of parties be proven by fax or photocopy of the

marriage contract, and the canonical certificate of marriage?

A: No, fax or photocopy of the marriage contract, and the canonical certificate of
marriage, cannot be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage, the
original of the marriage contract must be produced.

Case Law:

At first blush, the documents presented as proof of marriage between

Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, viz.: (1) fax or photo copy of the marriage contract, and
(2) the canonical certificate of marriage, cannot be used as legal basis to establish
the fact of marriage without running afoul with the Rules on Evidence of the
Revised Rules of Court. Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules on Evidence provides that:
“When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, x x x." Nevertheless, a
reproduction of the original document can still be admitted as secondary
evidence subject to certain requirements specified by law. In Dantis vs.
Maghinang, Jr., it was held that:

A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130,

Sec. 5, which states that:

When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in

court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of
its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated. Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to
satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely:

(1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction
of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the
original is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror. Proof of the
due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the
basis for the introduction of secondary evidence, x x x. On the other hand, a
canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document. As early as in the case
of United States vs. Evangelista, it has been settled that church registries of births,
marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders
No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they
kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and their
authenticity must therefore be proved as are all other private writings in
accordance with the rules of evidence. Accordingly, since there is no showing that
the authenticity and due execution of the canonical certificate of marriage of
Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence.
(Virginia Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936, June 1, 2016)

3) Q: Is the rule on the production of the original document absolute?

A: No, in case the original document was lost, secondary evidence of the contents
of the original can be adduced subject to compliance with the requirements
under Sec. 5, Rule 130.

Case Law:

The rule requiring the presentation of the original of a document is not absolute -
secondary evidence of the contents of the original can be adduced, when the
original has been lost without bad faith on the part of the party offering it. (Sps.
Antonio and Leticia Vega vs. Social Security System (SSS) and Pilar Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 181672, September 20, 2010)

4) Q: How to prove lost original document?

A: In case of loss or unavailability of the original document its contents may be
proven by copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document or by
the testimony of witnesses.

Case Law:

When the original document has been lost and its unavailability has been
established, a party “may prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated." (Baguio Trinity Developers, Inc. vs. The Heirs of Jose Ramos, et al.,
G.R. No. 188381, December 14, 2011, Abad, J.)

5) Q: What are the requisites in order that secondary evidence may be

presented?

A: The requisites in order that secondary evidence may be presented are as

follows, to wit:

a) Prove the due execution of the original;

b) Proof of the loss, destruction, or unavailability of all such originals;

c) Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for at least an
attempt to produce the original.

Case Law:

Thus, in order that secondary evidence may admissible, there must be proof by
satisfactory evidence of (1) due execution of the original; (2) loss, destruction, or
unavailability of all such originals; and (3) reasonable diligence and good faith in
the search for or attempt to produce the original. (Republic of the Philippines vs.
Ma. Imelda “Imee" R. Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand “Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr.,
Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, Irene R. Marcos. Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan, Yeung Chun
Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and Pantranco Employees Association [PEA]-PTGWO. G.R.
No. 171701, February 8, 2012)

6) Q: How to prove the due execution of a lost or destroyed original

document?

A: Due execution of a lost or destroyed original documentcan be proved by:

a) The testimony of the person/s who executed it;

b) The testimony of any person before whom its execution was acknowledged;
c) Any person who was present and saw it executed

and delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signature.

7) Q: How to prove loss or destruction of the original document?

A: The loss or destruction of the original document maybe proved by:

a) The loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss; or
b) By anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient
examination in the place or places where the document or papers of
similar character are usually kept;
c) By the person in whose custody the document was lost, and unable to find
it; or

d) Those who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy
the court that the instrument is indeed lost.

8) Q: How to prove the age of the minor victim of rape for the prosecution of
statutory rape?

A: The age of the minor victim may be proven by original of the certificate of live
birth, or some authentic record, i.e. baptismal or school records, or testimony of
the mother or other relatives.

Case Law:

Although the Information alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time of
the incident, no proof was presented to attest the truth of such statement. In
People vs. Pruna, this Court laid down the guidelines in determining the age

of the victim:

1) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original
or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents
such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of
birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear
and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters
 respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age

and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;

c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to

be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's
age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial
evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age
of the victim.

Without the Certificate of Live Birth and other means by which AAA's age
as alleged in the Information could have been ascertained beyond doubt, this
Court is constrained to agree with the CA and deem the crime committed as
Simple Rape. (People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Mabalo y Bacani, G.R. No.
238839, February 27, 2019)

a) Proof of Lost or Destroyed Original Will in Relation to Secondary

Evidence:

Sec. 6, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides for the rule on proving lost
or destroyed will. It states that:

"Sec. 6. Proof of lost or destroyed will. Certificate thereupon. No will shall be

proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the due execution and validity of the
same be established, and the will is proved to have been in existence at the
time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or
accidentally destroyed in the
lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions
thereof must be distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated
and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the certificate
must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: How to prove lost or destroyed will?

A: No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the following

requirements are met:

1) The due execution and validity of the same be established;

2) The will is proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of
the testator;
3) It is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the
lifetime of the testator without his knowledge;
4) Its provisions thereof must be distinctly proved by at least two credible
witnesses;
5) When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly
stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the
certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and
recorded.

2. When the Original Document is in the Adverse Party's Control or

Possession:

Sec. 6, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence
(A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule when the original of
the document is in the custody of the adverse party. It states

that:

"Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or

control. - If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse
party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such
notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce
the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its
loss."

СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule in case the original of the document is under the
control of the adverse party?

A: If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party

secondary evidence can be presented subject to the following requirements:

1) He or she must have reasonable notice to produce it;

2) If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or
she fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be
presented as in the case of its loss.

2) Q: What are the requisites in order that secondary evidence may be

presented when the original is under the control of the adverse party?

A: In order that secondary evidence can be presented

when the original is in the possession of the adverse, it

must comply with the following requirements:

1) That the original is in the adverse party's possession;

2) There must be a reasonable notice to produce the original;
3) That there must be satisfactory proof of its existence;
4) That there is failure on the part of the adverse party to produce it despite
notice.

Case Law:

We agree with BF. The only actual rule that the term "best evidence"
denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a writing must, as a general
proposition, be produced and secondary evidence of its contents is not
admissible except where the original cannot be had. Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules
of Court enunciates the best evidence rule:

SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the subject of

inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following cases:

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

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice; (Emphasis added.)
 Complementing the above provision is Sec. 6 of Rule 130, which reads:

SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. If

the document is in the custody or under control of the adverse party, he must
have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may
be presented as in the case of loss.

Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or document

refers to evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. A party
may present secondary evidence of the contents of a writing not only when the
original is lost or destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party. In either instance, however, certain explanations
must be given before a party can resort to secondary evidence.

Clearly, the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the exception
under Sec. 3(b) of Rule 130. In other words, the conditions sine qua non for the
presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document

as secondary evidence have been met. These are: (1) there is proof of the original
document's execution or existence; (2) there is proof of the cause of the original
document's unavailability; and (3) the offeror is in good faith. While perhaps not
on all fours because it involved a check, what the Court said in Magdayao vs.
People, is very much apt, thus:

x x x To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original

of a writing is in the custody or control of the adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130
provides that the adverse party must be given reasonable notice that he fails or
refuses to produce the same in court and that the offeror offers satisfactory proof
of its existence. ххх

The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custody or control of
the party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary
evidence. The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the
best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document. The
notice may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made
in open court in the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces
tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to
produce the same. When such party has the original of the writing and does not
voluntarily offer to produce it or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may
be admitted. (Emphasis supplied) (Edsa Shangri-La Hotel And Resort, Inc., Rufo B.
Colayco, Rufino L. Samaniego, Kuok Khoon Chen, and Kuok Khoon Tsen vs. BF
Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008): Cynthia Roxas-Del Castillo vs. BF
Corporation, G.R. No. 145873, June 27, 2008)

3. Summaries:

Sec. 7, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on

Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on
summaries as evidence. It states that:

"Sec. 7. Summaries. When the contents of documents, records,

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

The originals shall be available for examination or copying. or both, by

the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that
they be produced in court." (n)

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case the documents,

records, photographs or accounts are voluminous?

A: When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous

accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of
time. and the fact sought to be establish is only the general result of the whole,
the contents of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary,
or calculation.

2) Q: May the original be produced before the court?

A: Yes, the original shall be available for examination or copying. or both, by the
adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be
produced in court.

Case Law:

Jayme allegedly based his computations on the records of the company

which were not produced in court. The
union objected to Jayme's report as inadmissible under the hearsay rule or as not
being the best evidence.

Even if the presentation of the records themselves as exhibits should have

been dispensed with, yet the complaint to show good faith and fair dealing, could
have brought the records in court (manifests, bills of lading, receipts for the
freights, if any, etc.) and enabled the court and the union's counsel and its expert
accountant to verify the accuracy of Jayme's summaries.

Photostatic copies of some manifests and bills of lading proving that the
company was not able to collect the stipulated freight on the alleged shutout
cargoes should have been proforma. in evidence as supporting papers for
Jayme's report. No such exhibits were presented.

The flaw or error in relying merely on Jayme's summaries is that, as

pointed out by witness Mariano LL. Badelles, cargoes might be shutout due to
causes other than the supposed inefficiency of the union. He testified that
cargoes were shutout deliberately by the company because they could not be
loaded in one vessel (for example, 50,000 bags of fertilizer), or a shipper had no
allotment, or because the company did not want to load cargoes like bananas
(189-194 tsn May 20, 1960). Jayme's summaries did not take into account the
probability that a part of the cargo booked in the consignees. vessel for a certain
date might not have been loaded on that date but was loaded in another vessel
of the company which docked at the port a few days later, In that case, there
would be no loss of freight revenue. The mere shutting out of cargo in a
particular voyage did not ipso facto produce loss of freight revenue.

The trial court erred in allowing the damages, totalling P82,680.12 because
Magante's statement, Exhibit D. is hearsay. Magante should have been proforma.
as a witness. Jayme was not competent to take his place since the statement was
prepared by Magante, not by

Jayme. More appropriate still, the documents and records on which the statement
was based should have been proforma. as evidence or at least brought to the
court for examination by the union's counsel and its accountant. The trial court
required the production of the manifests supporting Magante's statement (85-86
tsn March 9, 1955). Only one such manifest, Exhibit C, was produced. The
nonproduction of the other records was not explained. (Compañia Maritima vs.
Allied Free Workers Union, Salvador T. Lluch, Mariano Ll. Badelles, individually
and in their capacities as President and Vice-President, respectively of the Allied
Free Workers Union, Nicanor Halebas And Laurentino Ll. Badelles, individually and
officers of Allied Free Workers Union, G.R. No. L-28999 May 24, 1977)

4. Evidence admissible when the Original Document is a Public Record (Bar

Exams 2000 and 1997)

Sec. 8, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on

Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule when the
original of the document is a public record. It states that:

"Sec. 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.

– When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)"

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case the original document is in the custody of a

public officer or is recorded in a public office?

A: When the original of document is in the custody of

public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents

may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

Case Law:

Anent the best evidence rule, Sec. 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall admissible other than the original document itself, except

when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is

recorded in a public office. Sec. 7 of the same Rule provides that when the
original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved by a certified сору issued by the public
officer in custody thereof. Sec. 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public
documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody or the record. (Dimaguila vs. Jose and Sonia Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011,
January 27, 2014)

2) Q: Can public documents be proved by a certified

true copy of the original?

A: Yes, the rules states that when the original document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof

Case Law:

In summary, we adopt the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, to wit:

Further, again contrary to the theory of the plaintiff, the presentation of

the originals of the aforesaid exhibits is not validly excepted under Rule 130, Sec.
3(a), (b), and (d) of the Rules of Court. Under par. (d), when 'the original public
document is a public record in the custody of a officer or is recorded in a public
office,’ presentation of the

original thereof is excepted. However, as earlier observed, all except one of the
exhibits introduced by the plaintiff were not necessarily public documents. The
transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the proceedings purportedly before the
PCGG, the plaintiff's exhibit "Q", may be a public document, but what was
presented by the plaintiff was a photocopy of the purported TSN. The Rules
provide that when the original document is in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued
by the public officer in custody thereof. Exhibit "Q" was not a certified copy and it
was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the
proceedings. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Ma. Imelda "Imee" R. Marcos-
Manotoc, Ferdinand “Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr., Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, Irene R.
Marcos-Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan, Yeung Chun Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and
Pantranco Employees Association [PEA]-PTGWO, G.R. No. 171701, February 8,
2012)

5. Party Calling for the Document not Bound to Offer It:

Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on

Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule that a party
who calls for a document is not bound to offer it. It states that:

"Sec. 9. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. A party who calls for
the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
evidence."

СOMMENTS:
1) Q: What is the rule in case the party calls for the production of a
document?

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

3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

A. Basic Concept

Q: What is parol evidence?

A: 1) Oral evidence essentially. (Ace Metal Manufacturing Corporation vs.

Fernandez, 64567-R, October 30, 1981)

2) Oral or verbal evidence, that which is given by word of mouth; the ordinary
kind of evidence, given by witnesses in court. In a particular sense, and
with reference to contracts, deeds, wills, and other writings, parol evidence
is the same as extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde. (Philippine Legal
Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R. Sibal, 1986 р. 672)

1. Parol Evidence Rule and Exceptions (Bar Exams 2014, 2002, 2001, 1997,
1988, 1983, 1981, 1978, 1977, 1976):

Sec. 10, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the parol evidence
rule and the exceptions. It states that:

“Sec. 10. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an

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

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to

the terms of written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified
pleading:

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

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

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term 'agreement' includes wills."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is parol evidence rule?

A: Parol evidence rule provides that when the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

Case Law:

"The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the
terms of a written agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show
that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the
written contract."

This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided that a party puts in issue
in its pleading any of the exceptions in the second paragraph of Rule 130, Sec. 9
of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of the agreement. "Moreover, as with all possible
objections to the admission of evidence, a party's failure to timely object is
deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then be entertained. (Fernando
Manancol Jr. VS. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204289,
November 22, 2017)

2)Q: What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?

A: The exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that a party may present evidence
to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he or she puts in
issue in a verified pleading:
 (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;

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

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

Case Law:

But the exclusionary provision of the parol evidence rule admits of

exceptions. Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:

Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an agreement have

been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

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

agreement;

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

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term "agreement" includes wills.

(Sps. Manuel and Victoria Salimbangon vs. Sps. Santos and Erlinda Tan,
G.R. No. 185240, January 20, 2010)

3) Q: When to apply the exceptions to Parol Evidence Rule?

A: The first exception applies when the ambiguity or uncertainty is readily

apparent from reading the contract." The second exception pertains to instances
where “the contract is so obscure that the contractual intention of the parties
cannot be understood by mere inspection of the instrument."
 Under the third exception, the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply "where
the purpose of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract."
And, the fourth exception involves a situation where the parties agreed to other
terms after the execution of the written agreement.

Case Law:

Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an

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

Section 9, or what is commonly known as the Parol Evidence Rule, "forbids

any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony
purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other terms
were orally agreed on by the parties." Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the terms of
a written contract are deemed conclusive between the parties and evidence

aliunde is inadmissible to change the terms embodied in the document.

This rule, however, is not absolute. Thus, a party may present evidence
aliunde to modify, explain or add to the terms of a written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading any of the four exceptions to the Parol Evidence

Rule:

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

b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c) The validity of the written agreement; or
d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The first exception applies when the ambiguity or uncertainty is readily

apparent from reading the contract." The second exception pertains to instances
where “the contract is so obscure that the contractual intention of the parties
cannot be understood by mere inspection of the instrument."
 Under the third exception, the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply "where
the purpose of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract."
And, the fourth exception involves a situation where the parties agreed to other
terms after the execution of the written agreement. (Shemberg Marketing
Corporation vs. Citibank, G.R. No. 216029, September 4, 2019)

4) Q: What is the rationale for the rule?

A: The rationale for the rule is that when the parties have reduced their
agreement in writing, it is presumed that they made such writing as the
repository of all the terms of the agreement.

Case Law:

1) The rationale for the rule is that when the parties have reduced their
agreement in writing, it is presumed that they made such writing as the
repository of all the terms of the agreement, and whatever is not found in
the said writing must be considered as waived and abandoned. Van Sychel
vs. Dalrymple, 32 N.J. Eq. 233)
2) Under Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, when the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all
the terms agreed upon. In Spouses Paras vs. Kimwa Construction and
Development Corporation, the Court explained the rationale behind the
prohibition on the admission of extrinsic evidence in relation to the terms
of a written contract, to wit:

Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities

observed, “forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different
terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written
contract."

This rule is animated by a perceived wisdom in deferring to the contracting

parties' articulated intent. In choosing to reduce their agreement into writing,
they are deemed to have done so meticulously and carefully, employing specific
frequently, even appropriate to their context. From an evidentiary standpoint, this
is also because "oral testimony coming from a party who has an interest in the
outcome of the case, technical language as are depending exclusively on human
memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. Spoken words
could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a
uniform language." In other words, reliance on the terms of written contract is
practicable because it is understood that

whatever stipulations appearing therein was a result of negotiation, posturing

and bargaining between the parties. Whatever is not included in the document is
deemed waived or abandoned.

Nevertheless, the Parol Evidence Rule is not a hard- and-fast rule as it

admits of exceptions. Under the same rule, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in
his pleading: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement; (b) the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties; (c) the validity of the written agreement; or (d) the
existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest
after the execution of the written agreement. In short, in order for parol evidence
to be admitted, the following must be established: (a) the existence of any of the
four exceptions has been put in issue in a party's pleading or has not been
objected to by the opposing party; and (b) the parol evidence sought to be
presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the presenting
party. (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary of DPWH vs. Jose
Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc.,G.R. No. 218732, November 12, 2018)

5) Q: What is the purpose of parol evidence rule?

A: Parol evidence rule is intended to prevent the varying of the terms of the
agreement.

Case Law:

1) Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a written contract is
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon by the parties and no
evidence of these terms is admissible other than the contents of the
contract.

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to the terms of a written
agreement by testimony showing that the parties orally agreed on other terms
before the signing of the document. However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written agreement if he puts in issue in
his pleadings either:

(а) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written

agreement;

(b) the failure of the written agreement to express the parties' true intent
and agreement;

(c) the validity of the written agreement; or

(d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. The issue
must be squarely presented.

We note the basic rule that he who alleges must prove his case. In this
case, the respondents have the burden to prove that the sale was subject to two
conditions:

(a) their remaining properties will benefit from the increase in land value
after the construction of the NGC Project and

(b) the government will return the sold properties to them should the NGC
Project not materialize. However, they failed to discharge this burden.

Notably, they failed to present copies of the deeds of sale to show that the
sale was attended by the alleged conditions. Pursuant to the parol evidence rule,
no evidence of contractual terms is admissible other than the contract itself. On
this level alone, the respondents failed to discharge their burden. (Republic of the
Philippines and Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council vs.
Gonzalo Roque, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 203610, October 10, 2016)

2) A rule which prevents the destruction of the obligation of a written

contract by evidence of preceding or contemporaneous oral evidence
which will vary the written agreement of the parties. (Romulo vs.
Simondac, 55644-R, December 29, 1982)

6) Q: What are the factors to be established in order that the exceptions to

parol evidence will be admissible?

A: The exceptions must be raised in a verified pleading and the parol evidence
sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by
the presenting party.

Case Law:
 Per this rule, reduction to written form, regardless of the formalities
observed, "forbids any addition to or contradiction of, the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different
terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written
contract."

ххх.

Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does

exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary
evidence. 1"I would sooner trust the smallest slip of paper for truth," said Judge
Limpkin of Georgia, “than the strongest and most retentive memory ever
bestowed on mortal man." This is especially true in this case where such oral
testimony is given by. . . a party to the case who has an interest in its outcome,
and by . . . a witness who claimed to have received a commission from the
petitioner.

This, however, is merely a general rule. Provided that a party puts in issue
in its pleading any of the four(4) items enumerated in the second paragraph of
Rule 130, Sec. 9, "a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the agreement[.]" Raising any of these items as an issue in a pleading
such that it falls under the exception is not limited to the party initiating an
action. In Philippine National Railways v. Court of First Instance of Albay, this
court noted that "if the defendant set up the affirmative defense that the contract
mentioned in the complaint does not express the true agreement of the

parties, then parol evidence is admissible to prove the true agreement of the
parties[.]" Moreover, as with all possible objections to the admission of evidence,
a party's failure to timely object is deemed a waiver, and parol evidence may then
be entertained.

Apart from pleading these exceptions, it is equally imperative that the

parol evidence sought to be introduced points to the conclusion proposed by the
party presenting it That is, it must be relevant, tending to "induce belief in [the]
existence" of the flaw, true intent, or subsequent extraneous terms averred by the
party seeking to introduce parol evidence.

In sum, two things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:

first, that the existence of any of the four exceptions has been put in issue in a
party's pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second,
that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting party. (Spouses Bonifacio and Lucia Paras
vs. Kimwa Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171601, April 8,
2015) An intrinsic ambiguity,

a) First (1st) exception - mistake of imperfection in the written agreement:

1) Q: What is an ambiguity?

A: The fact that a word or a phrase or the general sense of a document or part of
it, could equally apply to more than one thing or event. (Philippine Legal
Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R. Sibal, 1986, p. 44)

2) Q: What are the kinds of ambiguities? What is the so-called "Lord Bacon's
Rule"?

A: The kinds of ambiguities according to “Lord Bacon" are as follows:

1) Latent ambiguity – when the writing on its face is clear and unambiguous, but
there are collateral matters or

circumstances which makes the meaning uncertain or the

writing admits of two constructions.

2)Patent or extrinsic ambiguity-when the ambiguity is apparent on the face

of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the
meaning of the word.

3)Intermediate ambiguity - when the words in the writing are all sensible
and have settled meaning, but admit of two (2) interpretations according to
subject matter in contemplation of the parties.

3) Q: What is the Rule on Falsa Demonstration Non

Nocet?

A: It is a rule which states that where there are two descriptions in a deed, the one
as it were, super added to the other, and one description being complete and
sufficient in itself, and the other which is subordinate and super added is
incorrect, the incorrect description or feature or circumstance of the description is
rejected as a surplusage, and the complete and correct description is allowed to
stand alone. (Please see: Myers vs. Ladd, 26 Ill, 515, 417)

4) Q: What is mistake?

A: An error in action; a blunder. (Coombs vs. Santos, 24 Phil. 451)

5) Q: What are the requisites in order that mistake will be an exception under
the parol evidence rule?

A: In order that mistake will be an exception to the parol evidence rule it

must comply with the following requisites, to wit:

a) That the mistake should be one of fact;

b) That the mistake must be common to both parties,

c) That it must be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Case Law:

The second exception to the parol evidence rule applies only when the
written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the parties' contractual
intention cannot be understood from a mere reading of the agreement. Hence,
the court may receive extrinsic evidence to enable the court to address the
ambiguity. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the contract's
meaning, it cannot serve to incorporate into the contract additional conditions
which are not mentioned at all in the contract unless there is fraud or mistake.
Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of a valid contract. Hence,
parol evidence is inadmissible to modify the terms of the agreement if the
complaint fails to allege any mistake or imperfection in the written agreement.
(Republic of the Philippines and Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council vs. Gonzalo Roque, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 203610, October 10, 2016)

b) Second (2nd) exception True intention of the parties is not reflected in the
written agreement:

1) Q: What is the requirement in order to modify, explain, or add to the terms

of the written agreement the true intention of the parties to the written
agreement?

A: By express provision of the rules that a party may present evidence to modify,
explain, or add to the terms of a written agreement if he puts in issue in his
verified pleading the exception/s to the parol evidence rule.

Case Law:

Furthermore, the respondents failed to put in issue In their pleadings the

sale contract's failure to express the parties' agreement. In Ortañez vs. Court of
Appeals, the
respondents alleged the existence of oral conditions which were not reflected in
the deeds of sale. A witness testified in court that the sale was subject to the oral
conditions. The Court held that the parol evidence was because, among others,
the respondents failed to expressly plead that the deeds of sale did not reflect the
parties intentions. Instead, they merely alleged that the sale was subject to four
conditions which they tried to prove during trial. The Court emphasized that this
cannot be done because they failed to put in issue in their pleadings any
inadmissible exception to the parol evidence rule.

Similar to Ortañez, a review of the complaint reveals that the respondents

failed to put in issue in their complaint that the deeds of sale do not express the
parties true intent. Hence, the failure of the deeds of sale to reflect the parties'
agreement was not squarely presented as an issue for the court to hear evidence
on it. Therefore, the exceptions to the parol evidence rule cannot apply.

Even assuming that the respondents put in issue in the complaint the deed
of sales' failure to express the parties' true agreement, the parol evidence will still
not apply because they failed to justify the applicability of the second exception
to the parol evidence in this case. (Republic of the Philippines and Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council vs. Gonzalo Roque, Jr., et al., G.R. No.
203610, October 10, 2016)

2) Q: Will the notarization of a simulated written document results to its

incontrovertibility though it does not contain its true intention?

A: No, the fact that the questioned document was reduced to writing and
notarized does not accord it the quality of incontrovertibility otherwise provided
by the parole evidence rule.

Case Law:

Contrary to the appellate court's opinion, the fact that the questioned
Deed of Absolute Sale was reduced

to writing and notarized does not accord it the quality of incontrovertibility

otherwise provided by the parole evidence rule. The form of a contract does not
make an otherwise simulated and invalid act valid. The rule on parole evidence is
not, as it were, ironclad. Sec. 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides the
exceptions:

Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. - x x X

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

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

agreement;

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

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. The term
"agreement" includes wills.

The failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to express the true intent and
agreement of the contracting parties was clearly put in issue in the present case.
Again, respondents themselves admit in their Answer that the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale were only executed to facilitate the
titling of the property. The RTC is, therefore, justified to apply the exceptions
provided in the second paragraph of Sec. 9, Rule 130 to ascertain the true intent
of the parties, which shall prevail over the letter of the document. That said,
considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has been shown to be void for being
absolutely simulated, petitioners are not precluded from presenting evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement. (Avelina
Rebusquillo vs. Sps. Domingo and Emelinda Gualvez, G.R. No. 204029, June 4.
2014)

b.1) Civil Code Provisions on Reformation of Instrument:

1) Q: What is the effect in case there is ambiguity imperfection, mistake in the

written agreement or the true intention of the parties are not reflected
therein?

A: Party to awritten agreement may ask for the reformation of instrument in case
of ambiguity, imperfection, mistake or the true intention of the parties are not
reflected in the written agreement.

Legal Basis:

Articles 1359-1365 of the New Civil Code provides for the remedy of
reformation of instrument when there is ambiguity, imperfection, mistake or the
true intention of the parties are not reflected in the written agreement in the
following instances, to wit:
 Art. 1359. When there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties
to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to
embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the
end that such true intention may be expressed.

If mistake or fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a

meeting of the parties, the proper remedy. is not the reformation of instrument
but annulment of contract.

Art. 1360. The principles of general law on the reformation of instruments

are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with the provision of law.

Art. 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the
instrument to disclose their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed.

Art. 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or
inequitably in such a way that the instrument does not show their true intention,
the former may ask for the reformation of the instrument.

Art. 1363. When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed
that the instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact
from the former, the instrument may be reformed.

Art. 1364. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad
faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist,
the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may
order that the instrument be reformed.

Art. 1365. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or
personal property but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely
or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper.

2) Q: What are the instances when reformation of instrument is not proper?

A: Arts. 1359, 1366, and 1367 of the New Civil Code provides for the instances
where the remedy of reformation of instrument is not proper in the following
instances, to wit:
 a) Art. 1359. x x x. If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has
prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not
reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract;
b) Art. 1366. There shall be no reformation in the following cases:

1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;

2) Wills;

3) When the real agreement is void.

c) Art. 1367. When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the
instrument, he cannot subsequently ask for its reformation

2) Q: Who may ask for the reformation of instrument?

A: Art. 1368. Reformation may be ordered at the instance of either party or

his successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual; otherwise, upon petition of
the injured party, or his heirs and assigns.

b.2) Who may File for Reformation of Instrument:

Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the rule
on the persons who may file the remedy of reformation of an instrument It states
that:

"Sec. 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested under a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other govern-mental
regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction
or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real

property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article
1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule." (1a, R64; as amended by
Resolution of the Supreme Court, en banc dated February 17, 1998)

COMMΕNTS:

1) Q: Which court has jurisdiction over action for reformation of an

instrument?
A: Considering that the subject matter of action is the reformation of the
instrument wherein the true intention is not expressed in the instrument
purporting to embody

the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,

therefore, it is an action which the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
estimation and falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court. (Sec. 19[a), of B.P 129)

c) Third (4rd) exception - The validity of the written agreement:

1) Q: When to apply the exception on the validity of the written agreement as

an exception to Parol Evidence Rule?

A: Under the third exception, the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply "where the
purpose of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract."

Case Law:

Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the terms of an

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

Section 9, or what is commonly known as the Parol Evidence Rule, "forbids

any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony
purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other terms
were orally agreed on by the parties." Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the terms of
a written contract are deemed conclusive between the parties and evidence

aliunde is inadmissible to change the terms embodied in the document.

This rule, however, is not absolute. Thus, a party may present evidence
aliunde to modify, explain or add to the terms of a written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading any of the four exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule:

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

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

c) The validity of the written agreement; or

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

ххXX.

Under the third exception, the Parol Evidence Rule does not apply “where
the purpose of introducing the evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract."
And, the fourth exception involves a situation where the parties agreed to other
terms after the execution of the written agreement. (Shemberg Marketing
Corporation vs. Citibank, G.R. No. 216029, September 4, 2019)

d) Fourth (4th) exception – Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties

or their successor in interest after the execution of the written agreement:

1) Q: How to overcome the presumption that the written agreement contains

all the terms of the written agreement?

A: To overcome the presumption that the written agreement contains all the
terms of the agreement, the parol evidence must be clear and convincing and of
such sufficient credibility as to overturn the written agreement.

Case Law:

Rule 130, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court provides for the parol evidence rule
which states that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced into
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement.

This rule admits of exceptions. A party may present evidence to modify,

explain or add to the terms of a written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading any of the following: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection
in the written agreement; (b) the failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c) the validity of the written
agreement; or (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement.

However, to overcome the presumption that the written agreement

contains all the terms of the agreement, the parol evidence must be clear and
convincing and of such sufficient credibility as to overturn the written agreement.
(Philippine National Bank vs. James Cua, G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018)
2) Q: Is proof of verbal agreement tending to vary the terms of an agreement
admissible in evidence under the parol evidence rule?

A: No, as a rule, proof of verbal agreement that tends to vary the terms of a
written agreement, is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.

Case Law:

In Norton Resources and Development Corporation vs. All Asia Bank

Corporation, the Court discussed the parol evidence rule in this manner: The
“parol evidence rule" forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a
written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or
before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms
were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.
When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be
permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices which, to all purposes,
would alter the terms of the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the
writing is understood to have been waived

and abandoned. x x x

It is well-settled that parol evidence can serve the purpose of

incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions, which
are not mentioned at all in writing, only if there is fraud or mistake. Here the
petitioner's claim that the reason for their failure to pay the full purchase price
was due to the failure of the respondents to settle the pending litigation
involving the subject properties is not tenable. Clearly, a perusal of the CTS
executed by the parties does not show any provision pertaining to such
condition. Also, the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that
such failure was due to fraud or mistake. (Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers
Community Association, Inc. vs. Alfredo Lipat Sr. and Alfredo Lipat Jr., G.R. No.
182409, March 20, 2017)

3) Q: Is evidence of prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement admissible

to vary the terms of the agreement?

A: No, evidence of prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not

admissible to vary the terms of the agreement.

Case Law:

When the terms of an agreement were reduced in writing, it is deemed to contain

all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other
than the contents thereof. (Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court) x x x
Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not
admissible to vary, contradict of defeat the operation of a valid contract.
(Financial Building Corporation vsCorporation, Bloomfield Educational
Foundation, Inc., Rodolfo J. Lagera, Ma. Erlinda J. Lagera and Josaphat R.
Bravante, Rudlin International, G.R. No. 164186, October 4, 2010)

4) Q: How to determine whether the subject of oral agreement is separate

and distinct from the subject of the written agreement?

A: In determining whether or not the subject of an oral agreement is separate and

distinct from the subject of the writing, it is necessary that:

a) To ascertain first, what is the whole subject intended by the parties to be

covered such writing by examining the subject matter it deals and the
circumstances attending its execution; and

b) To ascertain the oral agreement offered to be proved;

c) Comparison should be made between the writing and the oral

agreement;

d) If the subject of the oral agreement is not so closely connected with the
subject of the writing as to form part and parcel of it, then parol evidence is
admissible. (Please see: Wigmore on Evidence; Meland vs. Youngberg,

124 Minn. 446,451, N.W. 167)

5) Q: What are the distinctions between parol evidence and original

document rule? (Bar Exam 1985)

A: The distinctions between parol evidence rule and original document rule are as
follows, to wit:

Parol Evidence Rule (Sec. 9, Original Document Rule

Rule 130) (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
a) In parol evidence rule the original of
a) Under the original document rule
the document is available in court. the original of the document is not
available in court.
b) Parol evidence rule prohibits the b) Original document rule prohibits
varying the terms of the written the introduction of substitutionary or
agreement. secondary evidence.
c) In Parol evidence rule the c) Original Document Rule it involves
 controversies is between the parties to any parties to the action.
the written agreement.

4. INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Interpretation of Writing according to its Legal Meaning:

Sec. 11, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
interpretation of the writing according to its legal meaning. It states that:

"Sec. 11. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. –

The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning
it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: How will the language of writing interpreted?

A: The language of writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it

bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.

2. Instrument Construed so as to Give Effect to all Provisions:

Sec. 12, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
interpretation of an instrument to give effect to all provisions. It states that:

"Sec. 12. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. –

In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give
effect to all."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: How will an instrument be construed when there are several provisions

or particulars?

A: In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or

particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to
all.

3. Interpretation according to Intention:

Sec. 13, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to

the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC,

May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the interpretation

of an instrument according to intention and particular

provisions. It states that:

"Sec. 13. Interpretation aсcording to intention; general and particular

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

СOMMENTS:

1) Q: How will the instrument be construed as to the intentions of the parties?

A: In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be

pursued.

2) Q: What is the rule in case of conflict between general and particular

provision in an instrument?

A: When a general and a particular provision are inconsistent the following rules
shall be followed:

а) The particular provision is paramount to the general;

b) So, a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with
it.

4. Interpretation According to Circumstances:

Sec. 14, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
interpretation of instrument according to circumstances. It states that:

"Sec. 14. Interpretation according to circumstances. - For the proper

construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose
language he is to interpret."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: How will the instrument interpreted according to circumstances?

A: The proper construction of an instrument according to the circumstances shall
be as follows:

1) The circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the
subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown,

2) Such circumstances must be shown so that the judge may be placed in the
position of those whose language he is to interpret.

Case Law:

Sec. 13, Rule 130, Rules of Court on interpretation of an instrument provides:

"SEC. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. - For the proper

construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language
he is to interpret. (Emphasis Supplied)

Respondent's reliance on Aragon's use of a "check writer," a machine used

to input a numerical or written value impression in the "payment amount field" of
a check that is very difficult to alter, on the left side of each letter-certification
was misplaced, what prevails being the wordings of the letter-certifications. (Bank
of Commerce vs. Goodman Fielder International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 191561,
Мarch 7, 2011)

5. Rule on Peculiar Signification of Terms:

Sec. 15, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
presumptions on the use of the terms of the writing. It states that:

"Sec. 15. Peculiar signification of terms. - The terms of a writing are

presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the presumption on the use of the terms of a writing?

A: The terms of a writing shall be interpreted as follows:

а) It shall be presumed to have been used in their primary and general

acceptation;
 b) Evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or
otherwise peculiar signification; and

c) It was so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case

the agreement must be construed accordingly.

6. Conflict Between Written Words and Printed Form

Sec. 16, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule in case of
inconsistencies in the written words and printed form in the writing. It states that:

"Sec. 16. Written words control printed. - When an instrument

consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case of conflict between written words and printed
form?

A: When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed

form, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.

7. Experts and Interpreters to be used in Explaining Certain Writings:

Sec. 17, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule in case of
difficulty in deciphering the character of the instrument. It states that:

"Sec. 17. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain

writings. - When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult
to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the
evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand
the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case the character of writing is difficult to decipher?

A: When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be

deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court it can be proved by:

1) The evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or

 2) Those who understand the language, is admissible to declare the
characters or the meaning of the language.

8. Preference over Two Interpretations in an Agreement:

Sec. 18, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on
preference in case of two interpretations in an agreement. It states that:

"Sec. 18. of Two Constructions, Which Preferred. – When the terms of

an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties
to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the
other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to
the party in whose favor the provision was made."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case the terms of an agreement admit of two (2)
interpretations?

A: When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by

the different parties to it, it shall be construed as follows, to wit:

a) That sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the

other understood it, and

b) When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally

proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor
the provision was made.

9. Construction in Favor of Natural Right:

Sec. 19, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
construction in favor of natural right. It states that:

"Sec. 19. Construction in favor of natural right . – When an instrument

is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted."

COMMENTS:
1) Q: How will an instrument be construed if it is susceptible of two (2)
interpretations one in favor and the other against natural right?

A: When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor

of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.

10. Interpretation According to Usage:

Sec. 20, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule
interpretation according to usage. It states that:

"Sec. 20. Interpretation according to usage. - An instrument may be

construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character."

СOMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the rule in case of construction according to usage?

A: An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its

true character.

B. Civil Code Provisions on Interpretation of Contracts:

1) Q: What laws governs interpretation of contracts?

A: Contracts shall be interpreted in accordance with the provision of Arts. 1370-

1379 of the New Civil Code.

Legal Basis:

1) Art. 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon
the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall
control.

If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties

the latter shall prevail over the former.

2) Art. 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties,

their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

3) Art. 1372. However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall
not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are
different from those upon which the parties intended to agree.
 4) Art. 1373. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several
meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate
to render it effectual.

5) Art. 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted

together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of
them taken jointly.

6) Art. 1375. Words which may have different significations shall be

understood in that which is most in keeping with the nature and object of the
contract.

7) Art. 1376. The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in
the interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of
stipulations which are ordinarily established.

8) Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a

contract shall not favor the party who cause the obscurity.

9) Art. 1378. When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules

established in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental
circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission of rights and
interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in favor
of the greatest reciprocity of interests.

If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract in such a
way that it cannot be known what may have been the intention or will of the
parties, the contract shall be null and void.

Art. 1379. The principles of interpretation stated in Rule 123 of the Rules
of Court shall likewise be observed in the construction of contracts.

C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

A. Basic Concept

1) Q: What is Testimonial Evidence? What is Viva Voce Evidence? (Evidence of

the Living Voice)

A: Testimonial evidence - is an oral evidence given by the witness on the witness

stand or in any proceeding.

2) Q: What is a testimony?
A: Testimony - A declaration made by a witness under oath or affirmation.
(People vs. Tolentino, 2 0.G. 685)

1. Kinds of Testimonies:

1) Q: What is affirmative testimony?

A: Affirmative testimony - The testimony of a witness that he saw or heard or did

a particular thing at a particular time and place. (Subingsubing vs. Cebu Velez
General Hospital, 42485-R, November 17, 1971)

2) Q: What is an expert testimony?

A: Expert testimony - It is a testimony of a witness on a matter requiring special

knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, which may be
received in evidence. (Sec. 49, Rule 130)

3) Q: What is negative testimony?

A: Negative testimony – Testimony of one present that he did not see or hear
that which is claimed to have occurred. (Eisma vs. Ocampo, CR-02381, May 29,
1986)

4) Q: What is positive testimony?

A: Positive testimony - Testimony of one present that he did see or hear that
which is claimed to have occurred. (Eisma vs. Ocampo, CR-02381, May 29, 1986)

5) Q: What is false testimony?

A: False testimony - It is a false declaration under oath against a person knowing

it to be false which may result to conviction, acquittal or liability.

6) Q: What is self-serving testimony?

A: Self-serving testimony - An extrajudicial statement of a party, favorable to him,

which is being urged for admission to court during the trial of the case. (Somaco
vs. Angelo, 64 O.G. 13154)

7) Q: What is hearsay testimony?

A: Hearsay testimony - Testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity

to examine the witness (People of the Philippines vs. Caballero, 24059-CR, June
13

1964)

8) Q: Who is a Witness?
A: A person called in a judicial or similar proceeding to give testimony under
oath.

2. Kinds of Witnesses:

1) Q: Who is a competent witness?

A: Competent witness - is a witness who is not legally disqualified from testifying

in courts of justice, by reason of mental incapacity, interest on the commission of
crimes, or other cause excluding him from testifying generally, or rendering him
incompetent in respect of the particular subject matter, or in the particular suit.
(Molo-Peckson vs. Tanchuco, 100 Phil. 351)

2) Q: Who is an incompetent witness?

A: Incompetent witness - is a witness who is disqualified from testifying in courts

of justice, by reason of mental incapacity, interest on the commission of crimes,
or

other cause excluding him from testifying generally, or rendering him

incompetent in respect of the particular subject matter, or in the particular suit.

3) Q: Who is a biased witness?

A: Biased witness - A witness who tends to exaggerate. Although he may be

honest, he cannot, while human nature remains unchanged, overcome to distort,
magnify or even minimize as his interest persuades, the incidents he relates.
(People vs. Coderes, L-32509, April 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 274)

4) Q: Who is a character witness?

A: Character witness - A witness, as in the petition for naturalization (Sec. 7, Com.

Act 473, as amended who testifies, being a Filipino, that he personally knows the
petitioner to possess the residence requirement, good reputation, integrity,
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to be a citizen of the Philippines.
(Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, L-37453, May 25, 1979, 90 SCRA 196)

5) Q: Who is a credible witness?

A: Credible witness - One whose testimony is worthy of credit and belief. (Lee vs.
Secretary of Labor, 39 O.G. 1051)

A witness who has no reason no pervert the truth and falsely testify
against a party. (People of the Philippines vs. Fernandez, 18465-CR, August 15,
1980)
6) Q: Who is an honest witness?

A: Honest witness - is a witness who gives truthful testimony.

7) Q: Who is a dishonest witness?

A: Dishonest witness - A witness who professes to remember things upon which

he cannot readily contradict and who declares that he forgets those upon he
would be open to contradiction.

8) Q: Who is an instrumental witness?

A: Instrumental witness - A witness who does not merely attest to the signature
of the testator, but also to the proper execution of the will. (Cuevas vs. Achacoso,
88

Phil. 730)

9) Q: Who is a plausible witness?

A: Plausible witness - A witness who recreates the emotion at the time of the
original incident. (People of the Philippines vs. Valdemoro, 16159-CR, July 30,
1979)

10) Q: Who is a state witness?

A: State witness - An accomplice who gives evidence in criminal proceeding,

usually in the expectancy of lighter punishment or pardon.

11) Q: Who is a child witness?

A: Child witness - is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the
age of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over
eighteen

(18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or
protect himself from abuse, neglect. cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition. (Sec. 4[a), Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000)

12) Q: Who is an expert witness?

A: Expert witness - A person who by study or experience has acquired particular

knowledge or experience upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating
to a specific business or employment. (Dilag & Co. vs. Merced, 45 O.G. 5542)

13) Q: Who is a hostile or adverse witness?

A: Hostile or adverse witness - a witness who manifest so much hostility or
prejudice or prejudice under examination in chief that the party who has called
him, or representative, is allowed to cross-examine him. (Black's Law Dictionary,
Fifth Edition, p. 376)

14) Q: Who is a qualified witness?

A: A witness who can perceive, perceiving; and can make known their perception
to others, and possess all the qualification and none of the disqualification.

15) Q: Who is a disqualified witness?

A: Disqualified witness - is a witness who is excluded by law or the rules to give

testimony.

1. QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

1. Rule on Witnesses and their Qualifications (Bar Exams 2015, 2004, and
1996):

Sec. 21, Rule 130 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, May 1, 2020) provides for the rule on the
competent witness and their qualifications. It states that:

"Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. - Except as provided in the

next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can

make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or

conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground
for

disqualification."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What are the qualifications of a witness?

A: Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons may be a witness
when he:

1) Can perceive, and perceiving; and

2) Can make known their perception to others.

Case Law:
 As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or
incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to
others can be a witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender, educational attainment,
or social status are not necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as
he does not possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. The generosity
with which the Rules of Court allows people to testify is apparent, for religious
beliefs, interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law are not grounds for disqualification. (People of the
Philippines vs. Alvin Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015, Bersamin, J.)

2) Q: Are religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, and
conviction a ground for disqualification?

A: No, under the above stated rule religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification.

3) Q: What are the exceptions to the non-disqualification in case of conviction

of a crime?

A: A person shall be disqualified to be a witness in case of conviction involving

the crimes of:

1) Perjury;

2) Falsification of public or private documents;

3) False testimony.

4) Q: When is a witness considered qualified?

A: When the witness possesses all the qualification and none of the
disqualification, then he is considered as a qualified witness.

Case Law:

In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that
is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged;
and (2) establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or
persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a
given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being
likewise clearly ascertained. In these cases, the prosecution had undoubtedly
discharged its task in accordance with the required degree of proof.

It was the position of the accused-appellants that Jocelyn failed to

elucidate who were the actual perpetrators and how the alleged crimes were
carried out. The petitioners claimed that the tales of the events were all
speculations and self-serving perceptions.

Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for
determining the weight of a particular testimony. Evidence to be believed must
not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in
itself, such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve
as probable under the circumstances.

Although Jocelyn was only 12 years old when the incident happened and
when called to the witness stand, the Court takes note of the truth that she
possessed all the qualification and none of the disqualification to testify in these
cases. (People of the Philippines vs. Golem Sota and Amidal Gadjadli, G.R. No.
203121, November 29, 2017)

5) Q: What is the distinction between Competency of a Witness and

Credibility of a Witness?

Competency of a witness Credibility of a witness

a) Competency of a witness refers to a) Credibility of the witness refers to
the qualification of the witness who the disposition and intention of the
can per ceive, perceiving and making wit ness to tell the truth in
known his perceptions to others. thetestimony he has given.

6) Q: What are the requisites in order that "totality of circumstances test"

shall be applied in relation to the credibility of the witness?

A: A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the witness' opportunity to

view the malefactor at the time of the crime and the witness' degree of attention
at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the extent of time, little and
fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to
be exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity,
and the witness' specialized skills

or extraordinary capabilities.

Case Law:

Domestic jurisprudence recognizes that eyewitness identification is

affected by "normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences." People vs.
Teehankee, Jr.
introduced in this jurisdiction the totality of circumstances test, which relies on
factors already identified by the United States Supreme Court in Neil vs. Biggers:

(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;

(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;

(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;

(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;

(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and

(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

A witness' credibility is ascertained by considering the first two factors, i.e.,

the witness' opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime and the
witness' degree of attention at that time, based on conditions of visibility and the
extent of time, little and fleeting as it may have been, for the witness to be
exposed to the perpetrators, peruse their features, and ascertain their identity.

Apart from extent or degree of exposure, this Court has also appreciated a
witness' specialized skills or extraordinary capabilities. (People of the Philippines
vs. Crisente Nuñez, G.R. No. 209342, October 4, 2017)

a) Competency of a Child Witness:

1) Q: What are the requisites in order for a child to be a competent witness?

A: Achild witness to be a competent witness must possess the following at the

time of the giving of his testimony:

1) Capacity to distinguish right from wrong or to comprehend the obligation of

his oath;
2) Capacity to receive correct impressions;

3) Capacity to relate those facts truly to the court at the time he is offered as a
witness.

2) Q: Can a mentally retarded be a credible witness?

A: Yes, a mental retardate may be a credible witness especially if she provides a

clear, convincing and competent testimonial evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused-appellant of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Law:

Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provide:

Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.

XX X X

Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. The

following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their
perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of

perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.

This Court finds "AAA" a very credible witness, even in her mental
condition. Contrary to defense counsel's objection that “AAA" was not capable
of intelligently making known her perception to others, “AAA" managed to
recount the ordeal she had gone through in the hands of the accused, though in
a soft voice and halting manner

хXх.

"AAA's" simple account of her ordeal clearly reflects sincerity and

truthfulness.

While it is true that, on cross-examination, "AAA" faltered in the sequence

of events xxx this is understandable because even one with normal mental
condition would not be able to recall, with a hundred percent accuracy, events
that transpired in the past. But "AAA" was certain that it was a long time x x x
after the incident' when it was reported to the police. Likewise, she was very
certain that

the accused inserted his penis into her vagina x x x.

In the same vein, the appellate court found "AAA" qualified to take the
witness stand, viz:

Our own evaluation of the records reveals that “AAA" was shown to be
able to perceive, to make known her perception to others and to remember
traumatic incidents. Her narration of the incident of rape given in the following
manner is worthy of note:

Private complainant "AAA" provided a clear, convincing and competent

testimonial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant of the crime of
rape beyond reasonable doubt. As found by the trial court, the testimony of
"AAA" was replete

with consistent details, negating the probability of fabrication.

We stress that, contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, mental

retardation per se does not affect a witness' credibility. A mental retardate may
be a credible witness. (People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Obogne, G.R. No.
199740, March 24, 2014)

b) Presumption of Competence of a Child Witness Under the Child Witness

Examination Rule (Bar Exam 2015):

Sec. 6 of the Child Witness Examination Rule (A.M.

No. 04-07-SC, December 15, 2000) provides for the rule

on presumption in case of a child witness: It states that:

"Sec. 6. Competency. Every child is pre-sumed qualified to be a witness. However,

the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on
motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability
of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.

(a) Proof of necessity. A party seeking a competency examination must present

proof of necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by itself is not
a sufficient basis for a competency examination.

(b) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a

child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. – Only the following are allowed
to attend a competency examination:

(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;

(2) The counsel for the parties;

(3) The guardian ad litem;

(4) One or more support persons for the child; and

(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be
fully evaluated in his absence.

(d) Conduct of examination. Examination of a child as to his competence shall be

conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit
questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child.

(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. - The questions asked at the

competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental level
of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability
of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth and falsehood,
and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.

(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony."

COMMENTS:

1) Q: What is the presumption in case of competency of a child witness?

A: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.

Case Law:

The qualification of a person to testify rests on the ability to relate to

others the acts and events witnessed. Towards that end, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court makes clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial proceedings, to
wit:

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next

succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known then perception to others, may be witnesses.
 Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. (18a)

As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or
incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to
others can be a witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender, educational attainment,
or social status are not necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as
he does not possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. The generosity

with which the Rules of Court allows people to testify is apparent, for religious
beliefs, interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law are not grounds for disqualification.

That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification.
The dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in
the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000), every child is now presumed
qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on
the party challenging the child's competency. Only when substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court
will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency
examination of a child.

The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the

trial court. All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed
by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying,
something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and
function of its office. The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually
examining the real and testimonial evidence,