The BenchBook

7/21/2019 The BenchBook

1/311

the benchbookcompiled by: raj


2/311

INTRODUCTIONI. JUDICIAL POWER AND THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY 1[1]

The Philippine Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may

be established by law.2[2] Judicial power is described by the same section of the Constitution as follows:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involvingrights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the government.

The use of the word 'includes' connotes that the provision is not an exhaustive enumeration of what iscomprised in judicial power. The use of the word 'duty' emphasizes the obligation of the courts of justice toexercise the judicial power in actual controversies. The inclusion of the duty to determine whether or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the government is in accord with the role of the judiciary as the last bulwark of theconstitutional rights and liberties of the people. However, it does dispense with the doctrine that purely politicalquestions are beyond the pale of judicial review.

The importance of the Judiciary in Philippine society is succinctly spelled out in the Preamble of theCode of Judicial Conduct:3[3]

An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promotethe unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.

This is an improvement of Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which provided that "The courtsexist to promote justice; and thus to aid in securing the contentment and happiness of the people."4[4]

The role of the Judiciary has been depicted in florid language

Nowhen as now is the duty of the Supreme Court in upholding the moral tenets of our Constitutionand laws more imperative. In no idea is the moral sense more inherent and manifest than in justice. By thenature of their social function, the organs of judicial power are placed in the dominant position of the highestmoral leadership. Never was the need of such moral leadership inspired, dynamic, militant felt withmore acuteness than in the present stage of our travel toward national destiny. Wickedness and lack of

scruples are on a rampage in every social strata, private and official. Flagrant violations of the fundamentallaw are committed with callous nonchalance, while robbery, banditry and gangsterism are practiced in broaddaylight. Fundamental rights and privileges, liberties and immunities, whether private or official, are trampleddown with satrapic insolence, while murders and wanton attacks against honor are perpetrated as excitingsport; graft, corruption, and absolute lack of principles in many high places; black market, gambling, shadynegotiations, and exploitation of the innocent and the weak in some other spheres.

The ultimate hope to escape collapse must be pinned on the judiciary for the latter to fulfill withunrelentless straight-forwardness the duties of moral leadership entrusted to it by the Constitution. The

judiciary should be the mighty euphroe that must link the loosened or severed moral cords and strengthen the

bonds which will keep society from disintegrating.5[5]

Twenty-one years later, the Supreme Court came up with a more pragmatic description linking the

judiciary to the rule of law, thus:

Law stands for order, for the peaceful and systematic adjustment of frictions and conflicts

1 [1] Excerpted from the draft on 'Judicial Ethics' by retired Court of Appeals Justice Hector L. Hofilea.2[2]Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.3[3]Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 6, 1989.4 [4] Administrative Order No. 162, Department of Justice, August 1, 1948.5 [5] Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947], dissenting opinion of Justice Gregorio Perfecto.


3/311

unavoidable in a modern society with its complexities and clashing interests. The instrumentality for suchbalancing or harmonization is the judiciary and other agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers. When judicialor quasi-judicial tribunals speak, what they decree must be obeyed, what they ordain must be followed. Aparty dissatisfied may ask for a reconsideration and, if denied, may go on to a higher tribunal. As long as theorders stand unmodified, however, they must, even if susceptible to well-founded doubts on jurisdictionalgrounds, be faithfully complied with. Such is the way of the law. So it has been in the past. So it shouldcontinue to be. If it were otherwise, the intellect no longer holds sway, the dictates of moderation are ignored,

and passion takes over.6[6]

In administering justice, the judiciary decides controversies between the party litigants. At the same time,it also contributes to the establishment of the Rule of Law without which there will be chaos in the community.What is more significant, however, is that the judiciary achieves such goal by relying on the moral forcegenerated by the quality of its work in administering justice. It has been pointed out that:

Among the three powers of government, the judiciary is in the material sense the weakest. Althoughits function in society is as noble and important as the ones entrusted to the legislative and executive powers,and there is none loftier that our mind may conceive or to which the most ambitious heart may aspire, itneeds the active and positive help of other agencies to make it effective. Congress must provide for theadequate budget, and the executive power the necessary force to make effective the orders and decisions oftribunals.

To compensate for that comparative physical weakness of the judicial power, it is necessary thatjudges and courts should acquire the unbounded moral force which springs from the general faith andconfidence of government and people alike. That moral force, although intangible, immeasurable andimponderable, is as effective as any cosmic force, if not more. We hold as an axiom that spiritual energy isstronger than atomic energy, the mighty basic force of material universe. But to obtain and retain public faithand confidence, it is necessary that courts and judges should show by their acts that they are actually entitledto such faith and confidence. Recalcitrant insubordination and indiscipline are not the means. On the contrary,they will only provoke public suspicion and distrust, if not popular wrath and condemnation.7[7]

To gain and maintain such confidence of the people, the judiciary must, in the words of the Code ofJudicial Conduct, be honorable, competent and independent.

Having efficient judges is one of the basic means to achieve this end, and this Benchbook for Trial CourtJudges aims to help judges attain that necessary efficiency.

II. THE BENCHBOOK AS A TOOL FOR JUDGESProceedings before courts can take different forms that are governed by different rules which cannot be found inany single law, or rule, but must often be taken from pronouncements of the Supreme Court or inferred from aprocess of reading rules together. While rules of procedure may appear to be straightforward and uncomplicated,

jurisprudence uncovers nuances and introduces subtleties that are less obvious.

Likewise, for Judges to dispense true and meaningful justice, they must have the ability to decide when it isproper to adhere to precedent, and when it would best serve the interests of justice to innovate. This is abalancing act that will defy even the most learned of jurists. Judges require a handy reminder of which rules areinflexible, and what principles provide the foundation for flexible rules.

The printed Benchbook was born from the need for a single source of direct but complete answers to the mostfrequently raised questions. Its online counterpart promises to bring that utility to Judges across the Philippines.Experts in the relevant fields were tapped to compile the information in the Benchbook. They were assisted bypersonnel from the Supreme Court and the International Development Law Institute.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, current Chancellor of the Philippine JudicialAcademy, remarks that with the Benchbook, 'There should be less reason now for uncertainty in matters

6 [6] Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Salvador, G. R. No. L-29471, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA

393.7 [7] Talabon v. The Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947].


4/311

pertaining to remedial law principally, and, we hope, less reason to find judges remiss in their duty of applyingthe law correctly, intelligently and judiciously.'

Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo credits the Benchbook with 'providing a standard reference work that willtirelessly remind our judges of both the immutable fundamentals of the law and the ceaseless evolution of legalthought and jurisprudence.' The Benchbook thus 'makes it that much easier to strike that golden middle waybetween stability and dynamism.'

The Benchbook, however, is not the single solution to a Judges every problem. Whilethe Benchbook is intended to enhance the quality of performance of Judges, constantlearning by the Judge must complement its use. The Benchbook is thus nothing less,and nothing more, than a tool to help Judges dispense justice more efficiently, but themaximization of its potentials will depend on the skills of the Judge involved.

OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

1. SUPREME COURT

A. Original

1. Exclusive

Petitions for issuance of writs ofcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following:

1.1 Court of Appeals

1.2 Commission on Elections

1.3 Commission on Audit

1.4 Sandiganbayan

2. Concurrent

2.1 with Court of Appeals

Petitions for issuance of writs ofcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following:


5/311

2.1.1 National Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Code (Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by RA 7902, St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NationalLabor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295SCRA 494)

Note:However, the petitions should be filed with the Court of Appeals; otherwise,

they shall be dismissed. (A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC)

2.1.2 Civil Service Commission (RA 7902)

2.1.3 Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD 464; Sec. 9 of BP 129 as amendedby RA 7902)

2.1.4 Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies (Rule 43, 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure)

2.1.5 Regional Trial Courts and lower courts

2.2 with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

2.2.1 Petitions forhabeas corpus and quo warranto

2.2.2 Petitions for issuance of writs ofcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against

the lower courts or bodies (Sec. 9[1] and Sec. 21 [1] of BP 129; Vergara v.Suelto, No. L-74766, December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 763 [1987])

2.3 with Regional Trial Courts

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (Sec. 5[1] Article VIII,Constitution, Sec. 21[2] of BP 129, Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil 249 [1936])

B. Appellate

1. Notice of Appeal

1.1 From Regional Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan in all criminal cases involving offenses


6/311

for which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and thoseinvolving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the sameoccurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion(Sec. 17 of Judiciary Act of 1948: Sec. 9[3] of BP 129; Sec. 5[2-d], Article VIII,Constitution; Sec. 3[c] of Rule 122; Sec. 5 of RA 8249) Exception: People v. Plateros,No. L-37162, May 30, 1978, 83 SCRA 401

1.2 Automatic review in criminal cases where the death penalty is imposed by the RegionalTrial Court or the Sandiganbayan (RA 7659 and 8249; Secs. 3 [d] and10 of Rule 122)

2. Petition for Review on Certiorari

2.1 Appeals from the Court of Appeals (Sec. 17 of Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended by RA5440; Sec. 5[2] Article VIII, Constitution; Rule 45 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

2.2 Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of law, except cases where thepenalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death (Sec. 7 of PD 1606 asamended by RA 8249; Nuez v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-50581-50617, January 20,1982, 111 SCRA 433; Rule 45 Ibid.)

2.3 Appeals from Regional Trial Courts exercising original jurisdiction in the following cases:

2.3.1 If no question of fact is involved and the case involves-

a) Constitutionality or validity of treaty, international or executive agreement,law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance orregulation

b) Legality of tax, impost, assessments, or toll, or penalty in relation thereto

c) Jurisdiction of lower court

2.3.2 All cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved (Sec. 5[2-a,b,c,

and e], Article VIII, Constitution, Sec. 9[3] of BP 129); Rule 45 Ibid; Sec. 2[c] ofRule 41; Sec. 3[e] of Rule 122)

3. Special Civil Action ofCertiorarifiled within thirty days against the following:

3.1 Commission on Elections (Sec. 7, Article IX-A Constitution; Aratuc v. Comelec, No. L-49705-09, Feb. 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251)


7/311

3.2 Commission on Audit (Ibid. 1987 Constitution) (Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

2. Court of Appeals

A. Original

1. Exclusive

Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9[2] of BP 129; Rule 47 of1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

2. Concurrent

2.1 with Supreme Court

Refer to Sec. 2.1 above under I.A. supra

2.2 with Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts

Refer to Sec. 2.2 above under I.A. supra

B. Appellate

1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or Record on Appeal

1.1 Appeals from Regional Trial Courts, except those appealable to the Supreme Courtunder Sec. 2(3) of 1-B above.

1.2 Appeals from Regional Trial Courts on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional questionsinvolving questions of fact which should be appealed first to the Court of Appeals (Sec.

17 subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended,which was not intended to be excluded by Sec. 9[3] of BP 129)

1.3 Appeals from decisions and final orders of the Family Courts. (Sec. 14 of RA 8369)

2. Petition for Review


8/311

2.1 Appeals from the Civil Service Commission (RA 7902; Rule 43 of 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure)

2.2 Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in cases appealed from Metropolitan Trial Courtsand Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, which are not a matter of right. (Sec. 22 of BP 129;Rule 42 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Sec. 3[b] of Rule 122)

2.3 Appeals from Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies. Among these are:

1. 1. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

2. 2. Securities and Exchange Commission

3. 3. Office of the President

4. 4. Land Registration Authority

5. 5. Social Security Commission

6. 6. Civil Aeronautics Board

7.7.

Intellectual Property Office (formerly the Bureau of Patents, Trademark andTechnology Transfer)

8. 8. National Electrification Administration

9. 9. Energy Regulatory Board

10. 10. National Telecommunications Commission

11. 11. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA 6657

12. 12. Government Service Insurance System

13. 13. Employees Compensation Commission

14. 14.Agricultural Inventions Board

15. 15. Insurance Commission

16. 16. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission

17. 17. Board of Investments

18. 18. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

19. 19. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Rule 43 of 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure)

2.4 Appeals from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). (Sec. 67 ofRA 8371)

2.5 Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC, Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295SCRA 470)

3. SANDIGANBAYAN

A. Original

1. Exclusive


9/311

1.1 Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft), RA 1379 and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII of RevisedPenal Code; and other offenses committed by public officials and employees in relationto their office, and private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices andaccessories including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in thegovernment, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of thecommission of the offense:

1. 1. Officials of the Executive branch xxx classified as Grade '27' or higher xxxspecifically including xxx

2. 2. Members of Congress xxx

3. 3. Members of Judiciary xxx

4. 4. Members of Constitutional Commissions xxx

5. 5. All other national and local officials classified as grade '27' and higher

In cases where none of the accused are occupying the above positions, the originaljurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional trial court or metropolitan trial court,

etc., as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions. (Section 2, RA 7975,as amended by RA 8249)

In cases where there is no specific allegation of facts showing that the offensecommitted in relation to the public office of the accused, the original jurisdiction shall alsobe vested in the proper regional trial court or metropolitan trial court, etc., as the casemay be. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA298)

1.2 Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive OrderNos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. (Sec. 2 of RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249)

2. Concurrent with Supreme Court

Petitions forcertiorari, prohibition, mandamus,habeas corpus, injunction and other ancilliarywrits in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases falling under saidExecutive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. (Ibid. As amended by RA 8249)

B. Appellate

Decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original or

appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606, as amended, shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the

manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. (Sec. 5 of RA 8249)

4. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

A. Original


10/311

1. Civil

1.1 Exclusive

1.1.1 Subject of action not capable of pecuniary estimation;

1.1.2 Actions involving title or possession of real property or interest thereinwhere the assessed value exceeds Php 20,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php50,000.00 except forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

1.1.3 Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where demand or claimexceeds Php100,000.00; or in Metro Manila Php 200,000.00;

1.1.4 Matters of probate, testate, or intestate, where gross value of estate

exceeds Php100,000.00 or in Metro Manila P200,000.00

1.1.5 Actions involving marriage and marital relations(now under the jurisdictionof the Family Courts);

1.1.6 Cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person orbody exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function;

1.1.7 Actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original

jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts (now the FamilyCourts, Sec. V, infra) and the Court of Agrarian Relations;

1.1.8 Other cases where demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneysfees, litigation expenses and costs, or value of property in controversy exceedsPhp 100,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php 200,000.00 (Sec. 19 of BP 129 asamended by RA 7691) However, if the claim for damages is the main cause ofaction, the amount thereof shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction ofthe court. (Administrative Circular No. 09-94, dated June 14, 1994)

Note: The amounts in 1.1.3, 1.1.4 and 1.1.8 were doubled as of March 20, 1999under Sec. 5 of RA 7691; Circular No. 21-99. The original amount of Php 100,000.00 which was increased to Php 200,000.00 will be increased to Php300,000.00 five (5) years thereafter.

1.1.9 Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Section 5.2 of theSecurities Regulation Code:


11/311

a) Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the board ofdirectors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting tofraud and misrepresentation xxx

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relationsxxx

c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees,officers or managers of such corporation, partnerships or association.

d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declaredin a state of suspension of payments xxx (RA No. 8799 approved onJuly 19, 2000)

1.2 Concurrent

1.2.1 with Supreme Court

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls; (Sec. 21[1]of BP 129)

1.2.2 with Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

a) Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus against lower courts and bodies.

b) Habeas corpus and Quo Warranto, Sec. 9 [1] and Sec. 21 [1] of BP 129

1.2.3 with Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit TrialCourts

No concurrent jurisdiction: Guardianship and adoption cases are now under theexclusive original jurisdiction of Family Courts established by RA 8369 known as the

'Family Courts Act of 1997' approved on October 28, 1997. (See Sec. 5 infra.)

1.2.4 With the Insurance Commission

Claims not exceeding Php 100,000.00 (Sec. 416 of the Insurance Code (1974), PD612). Applicable if subject of the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation;otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent with Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.


12/311

2. Criminal

2.1 Exclusive

Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body. (Sec. 20 of

BP 129) These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6)years imprisonment irrespective of the fine. (RA 7691). These also include criminal casesnot falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of theaccused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' and higher. (RA 7975and 8249)

But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the Regional Trial Courts havejurisdiction if the amount of the fine exceeds Php 4,000.

(RA 7691 as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994)

Notes: Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases where one ormore of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years ofage, or when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of theoffense. (Sec. 5(a) of RA 8369)

B. Appellate

All cases decided by lower courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (Sec.22 of BP 129)

5. FAMILY COURTS

A. Exclusive and Original

1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but notless than nine (9) years of age, when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of thecommission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgatesentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Presidential Decree No.903, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";

2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

3. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

4. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to


13/311

marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under differentstatus and agreements; and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;

5. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

6. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209,otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

7. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children,petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination, orrestoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603,Executive Order No. 56 (Series of 1986) and other related laws;

8. Petitions for the constitution of the family home;

9. Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;

10. Violations of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of ChildrenAgainst Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act", as amended by Republic Act No.7658, and

11. Cases of domestic violence against:

11.1 Women which are acts of gender-based violence that result, or likely to result inphysical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms ofphysical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a womanspersonhood, integrity and freedom of movement; and

11.2 Children which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,exploitation, violence and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to theirdevelopment.

If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to

criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in anycase pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

6. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIALCOURTS.


14/311

A. Original

1. Civil

1.1 Exclusive

1.1.1 Actions involving personal property valued at not more than Php100,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php 200,000.00

1.1.2 Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding Php 100,000.00 or inMetro Manila, Php 200,000.00; in both cases, exclusive of interest, damages,attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs, the amount of which must bespecifically alleged, but the filing fees thereon shall be paid.

These include admiralty and maritime cases.

1.1.3 Actions involving title or possession of real property where the assessedvalue does not exceed Php 20,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php 50,000.00

1.1.4 Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction, and inproper cases, such as preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction,appointment or receiver and delivery of personal property. (Rules 57, 58, 59 and60)

1.1.5 Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction to resolve issue ofownership to determine issue of possession.

1.1.6 Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of estatedoes not exceed Php 100,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php 200,000.00 (Sec. 33 ofBP 129 as amended by RA 7691).

Note: The amounts in 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.6 were doubled as of March 20, 1999under Sec. 5 of R.A. 1761; Circular No. 21-99. The original amount of Php

100,000.00, which was increased to Php 200,000.00 will be increased to Php300,000.00 five (5) years thereafter.

1.1.7 Inclusion and exclusion of voters. (Sec. 138 of BP 881, Omnibus ElectionCode of the Philippines (1985)

1.2 Concurrent with Regional Trial Courts


15/311

None

1.3 Delegated

Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by Supreme Court where there is no

controversy or opposition and in contested lots valued at not more than Php 100,000.00.(Sec. 34 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)

1.4 Special

Petition forhabeas corpus in the absence of all Regional Trial Judges. (Sec. 35 of BP129)

2. Criminal

2.1 Exclusive

2.1.1 All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within theirrespective territorial jurisdictions;

2.1.2 All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than six (6) yearsirrespective of the fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or otherpenalties and the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in

offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shallhave exclusive original jurisdiction. (Sec. 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)

2.1.3 All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction ofthe Sandiganbayan where none of the accused are occupying positionscorresponding to salary grade '27' and higher. (As amended by RA 7675 and8249)

2.1.4 However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine notexceeding Php 4,000, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc. have jurisdiction.

(Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994.)

2.2 Concurrent with Fiscals and State Prosecutors

Except for Metropolitan Trial Courts in National Capital Regions, conduct preliminaryinvestigation of offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years,two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to fine. (Sec. 37 of BP 129; Sec. 1 of Rule112, as amended). Preliminary investigation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the


16/311

Sandiganbayan is conducted by the office of the Special Prosecutor under theOmbudsman. (Sec. 11 of RA 6770)

2.3 Special

Applications for bail in the absence of all Regional Trial Judges. (Sec. 35 of BP 129)

3. Summary Procedure

3.1 Civil

3.1.1 Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount ofdamages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; but attorneys fees shall notexceed Php 20,000.00 (Revised effective November 15, 1991)

3.1.2 All other cases, except probate proceedings, where total claim does notexceed Php10,000.00

3.2 Criminal

3.2.1 Traffic violations

3.2.2 Rental law violations

3.2.3 Violations of City and municipal ordinances

3.2.4 All other cases where penalty does not exceed 6 months and/or fine ofPhp1,000.00


17/311

EVIDENCE

Basic Principles and Selected Problems1. WHEN EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY

Evidence is the means of proving a fact. It becomes necessary to present evidence in a case when thepleadings filed present factual issues. Factual issues arise when a party specifically denies materialallegations in the adverse partys pleading. These are the issues which the judge cannot resolve withoutevidence being presented thereon. Thus, whether a certain thing exists or not, whether a certain act wasdone or not, whether a certain statement was uttered or not, are questions of fact that require evidence fortheir resolution. Questions of fact exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood ofalleged facts.1 Other than factual issues, the case invariably presents legal issues. On the other hand, aquestion of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.Legal issues are resolved by simply applying the law or rules applicable, or interpreting the law applicableconsidering the facts of the case. Generally, no evidence need be presented on what the applicable law is.Everyone, including the judge, is presumed to know the law.

When the parties pleadings fail to tender any issue of fact, either because all the factual allegations havebeen admitted expressly or impliedly (as when a denial is a general denial), there is no need of conductinga trial, since there is no need of presenting evidence anymore. The case is then ripe for judicialdetermination, either through a judgment on the pleadings2or by summary judgment.3

2. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

The study of the law on Evidence involves two main problems, viz.: (1) determining whether a given pieceof evidence is admissible; and (2) the proper presentation of that evidence so that the court will consider itin resolving the issues and deciding the case. Although evidence may, by itself, be admissible, the court

may not admit or consider it in the resolution of the case unless the evidence was properly presented.

A. Axiom of Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issues and is competent, i.e., it is not excluded by the lawor the Rules of Court.4 Evidence is relevant if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probabilityor improbability of a fact in issue.5It is of a lesser degree of reliability as evidence than material evidence.Material evidence directly proves a fact in issue. Thus, the testimony of an eyewitness to the commissionof a crime is material; the evidence of motive or flight of the accused may be relevant. Evidence that ismaterial or relevant must also be competent to be admissible. For example, although the testimony of theeyewitness may be material, it may be inadmissible if it is excluded by the marital disqualification rule.

1 Paraaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111538, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 727.

2 Rules of Court, Rule 34.

3 Ibid, Rule 35.

4 Rules of Court, Rule 128, Sec. 3.

5 Ibid.


18/311

Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining itslogical connection to a fact in issue in the case. It is therefore inadvisable for a judge to ask an objectingcounsel why an offered piece of evidence is irrelevant or immaterial. By his inquiry, he shows hisunfamiliarity with the issues in the case. A judge is expected to be aware of the issues which he wassupposed to have defined and limited in his mandatory pre-trial order. On the other hand, the grounds forobjection to the competency of evidence must be specified6 and are determined by the Rules or the law.

The opposites of the three requisites for admissibility of evidence, viz, irrelevancy, immateriality orincompetency, are the general grounds for objection. The first two are valid grounds for objection withoutneed of specification or explanation. The third ground for objection, incompetency, if offered without furtherexplanation, is not valid for being unspecific, except when invoked in reference to the lack of qualification ofa witness to answer a particular question or give a particular evidence.

B. Proper Presentation Of Evidence

Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain processes of presentation for itsadmissibility and admission.

1. Object evidence

Object evidence must generally be marked (Exhibit A, B, etc. for the plaintiff; Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc. for thedefendant) either during the pre-trial or during its presentation at the trial. It must also be identified as theobject evidence it is claimed to be. This requires a testimonial sponsor. For example, a forensic chemistidentifies marijuana leaves as those submitted to him in the case for examination. Further, object evidencemust be formally offered after the presentation of a partys testimonial evidence.7

2. Oral evidence

Oral evidence is presented through the testimony of a witness. Under the 1989 Rules on Evidence, oral

evidence must be formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify.8

Objections may then be raisedagainst the testimony of the witness. If the objection is valid, as when the witness testimony is barred bythe hearsay rule or the opinion rule, the witness will not be allowed to testify. If the witness is otherwiseallowed to testify, he shall be sworn in, either by taking an oath or making an affirmation.9It is essential thatthe proper foundation for the testimony of a witness must be laid. An ordinary witness must be shown tohave personal knowledge of the facts he shall testify to; otherwise, his testimony will be hearsay, or he willbe incompetent to answer the questions to be asked of him. An expert witness must be specificallyqualified as such; otherwise, he cannot validly give his opinion on matters for which he may have beensummoned as a witness.

However, the requirement of qualifying an expert witness may be dispensed with if:

(a) the adverse counsel stipulates on the experts qualification; or



8Ibid.



19/311

(b) the court takes judicial notice of the witness expertise, because the judge happens to beaware thereof on account of the judges judicial functions.

3. Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence is (1) marked; (2) identified as the document which it is claimed to be (as when thewitness asserts that the document presented to him is the same contract which he claims was executed

between the two parties); (3) authenticated, if a private document, by proving its due execution andgenuineness; and (4) formally offered after all the proponents witnesses have testified.10

Rule 132, Sec. 34 provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered,and that the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. In this connection, it has beenasked whether it would be proper for the judge to disregard a witness direct testimony given without theprior formal offer thereof which Rule 132, Sec. 35 requires, and corollarily, whether the adverse party maybe required to cross-examine that witness. In People v. Marcos,11 the Supreme Court ruled that if a witnesshas given unoffered direct testimony without objection from the adverse party, the latter is estopped fromraising that objection which he is deemed to have waived; hence, although not formally offered, thetestimony may be considered by the court.

The view can be advanced, however, that although the aforesaid testimony was not expressly formallyoffered, it was nonetheless formally offered, albeit impliedly and automatically, the moment each questionwas propounded to elicit an answer. This view is premised on two related provisions in Rule 132, Sec. 36,i.e., that 'Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made,' and that'Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made assoon as the grounds therefor shall have become reasonably apparent.'Clearly, the purpose of the expressformal offer of oral evidence before the witness testifies is merely to determine, on the basis of the statedsubstance of the testimony and its purpose, whether the witness shall be allowed to testify. Once thewitness is allowed to testify, each question propounded to elicit specific oral evidence may still be objectedto as soon as a ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent. But it is fundamental that an objectionto evidence can be validly raised only after an offer is made. Thus, every question asked of a witnessespecially on direct examination presupposes a formal offer of the answer, the oral evidence, sought to be

elicited. It would seem therefore that unlike documentary and object evidence which are formally offeredonly after all the witnesses of a party have testified, oral evidence is offered twice: once, expressly, beforethe witness testifies, and again, with each question propounded to the witness.

C. Formal Offer Of Evidence; Need For Statement Of The Purpose Of Evidence

Evidence not formally offered will not be considered by the court in deciding the case.12

A party makes a formal offer of his evidence by stating its substance or nature and the purpose orpurposes for which the evidence is offered.13 Without a formal offer of evidence, and hence without adisclosure of its purpose, it cannot be determined whether it is admissible or not. This is so because it isthe intended purpose of a piece of evidence which determines what rule of evidence will apply for itsadmissibility. A piece of evidence may be admissible if offered for one purpose but may be inadmissible ifoffered for another. For example, the testimony of a witness, in a libel case, that he heard the defendantcall the plaintiff a liar and a crook is certainly inadmissible for being hearsay, if offered to prove the truth ofthe perceived statement. However, the same testimony is perfectly admissible if offered simply to prove

1 0 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35.

1 1 G.R. No. 91646, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 748.


1 3Ibid.


20/311

that the statement was uttered. For that purpose, the witness would be the only person qualified to testifyon, and prove, what he heard defendant say. Similarly, the declaration of a dying person made withoutconsciousness of his impending death will not qualify as a dying declaration, although it may be admissibleif offered as part of the res gestae.

It must be noted that the mere marking, identification, or authentication of documentary evidence does not

mean that it will be, or has been, offered as part of the evidence of a party. This was the ruling of theSupreme Court in People v. Santito, Jr.14

Annexes attached to pleadings, if not offered formally, are mere scraps of paper and should not beconsidered by the court,15 unless the truth of their contents has been judicially admitted.

To the general rule that the court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered, there are certainexceptions:

1. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full blown trial is held in the interest ofspeedy administration of justice;

2. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge bases his decisions on the pleadings,depositions, admissions, affidavits and documents filed with the court;

3. Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of by the court;

4. Documents whose contents are judicially admitted;

5. Object evidence which could not be formally offered because they have disappeared or havebecome lost after they have been marked, identified and testified on and described in the recordand became the subject of cross-examination of the witnesses who testified on them during thetrial, e.g., marijuana involved in a prohibited drugs prosecution.16

III. MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

There are two ways of excluding inadmissible evidence. One is by objection and the other is by a motion to

strike out.

1 4People v Santito, Jr., G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991, 201 SCRA 87.

1 5 Llaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 63226, December 20, 1991 204 SCRA 887 (Although the decision inLlaban was withdrawn by the Supreme Court on March 17, 1993, the withdrawal affected only the validity ofthe final disposition of that case. This did not void the soundness of the Courts pronouncement on thetreatment of annexes attached to pleadings.)

1 6People v. Napat-A, G. R. No. 84951, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 403; Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.85423, May 6, 1991 196 SCRA 650.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=145


21/311

A. Evidence is objected to at the time it is offered and not before:

1. Oral evidence is objected to after its express formal offer before the witness testifies. 17

When thereafter the witness is allowed to testify, objection to a question propounded in thecourse of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds thereforshall become reasonably apparent.18

2. Documentary and object evidence are objected to upon their formal offer after thepresentation of a partys testimonial evidence.

Failure to seasonably object to offered evidence amounts to a waiver of the grounds for objection. Therules of exclusion are not self-operating. They must be properly invoked.

The grounds for objection must be specified.19 Grounds not raised are deemed waived. However, repetitionof objection is unnecessary when a continuing objection is properly made .20 Objection to the purpose forwhich evidence is offered is not proper.

B. A motion to strike out answer or testimony is proper in the following instances:

1. The witness answers prematurely.21

2. The answer is incompetent, irrelevant or improper.22

The incompetency referred to here is limited to the incompetency of the witness to answer thequestion posed; it does not extend to the general concept of incompetency of evidence for beingexcluded by law or the Rules.

3. The answer given is unresponsive.

4. The ground for objection was not apparent when the question was asked.

5. Uncompleted testimony e.g., a witness who gave direct testimony becomes unavailable forcross-examination through no fault of the cross-examiner.

6. Unfulfilled condition in conditionally admitted testimony.

C. Objections and Ruling

1 7Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35.1 8Ibid, Section 36.1 9Ibid.2 0Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 37.2 1Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 39.2 2Ibid.


22/311

Objections to evidence may be formal or substantive.

1. Formal objections are based on the defective form of the question asked. Examples:

(1) leading questions which suggest to the witness the answer desired.23

a. If counsel finds difficulty in avoiding leading questions, the judge may suggest,to expedite questions, that counsel begin his questions with the properinterrogative pronouns, such as "who", "what", "where", "why", "how", etc.

b. Leading questions are allowed of a witness who cannot be reasonably expectedto be led by the examining counsel, as (a) on cross-examinations; 24 (b) when thewitness is unwilling or hostile, after it has been demonstrated that the witness hadshown unjustified reluctance to testify or has an adverse interest or had misled theparty into calling him to the witness stand, and in either case after having been

declared by the court to be indeed unwilling or hostile;25

or (c) when the witness isan adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or privatecorporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.26

c. Leading questions may also be asked when there is difficulty in getting directand intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years,or is feeble minded, or a deaf-mute.27

d. Leading questions may moreover be asked on preliminary matters, i.e., on factsnot in controversy, and offered only as basis for more important testimony tofollow. For example, "You are Mrs Maria Morales, wife of the plaintiff in this case?"

(2) misleading questions, which assume as true a fact not testified to by the witness("question has no basis"), or contrary to that which he has previously stated;28

(3) double or multiple questions, which are two or more queries in one. For example, Q:"Did you see the defendant enter the plaintiffs house, and was the plaintiff there?"

(4) vague; ambiguous; indefinite or uncertain questions - not allowed because the witnesscannot understand from the form of the question just what facts are sought to be elicited.

(5) repetitious questions; or those already answered. However, on cross-examination, thecross-examiner may ask a question already answered to test the credibility of the witness.

2 3 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec 10.2 4 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec 10.2 5Ibid, Secs. 10 and 12.2 6Ibid.2 7Ibid.2 8 Rules of Court, Rule 132.


23/311

(6) argumentative questions, which challenge a witness testimony by engaging him in anargument, e.g., Q: "Isnt it a fact Mr Witness that nobody could possibly see all thecircumstances you mentioned in a span of merely two seconds, and that either yourobservations are inaccurate or you are lying?"

2. Substantive objections are those based on the inadmissibility of the offered evidence, e.g.;

(1) irrelevant, immaterial

(2) best evidence rule

(3) parol evidence rule

(4) disqualification of witness

(5) privileged communication

(6) res inter alios acta

(7) hearsay

(8) opinion

(9) evidence illegally obtained

(10)private document not authenticated

The ruling by the court on an objection must be given immediately after an objection is made, unless thecourt desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shallalways be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made anopportunity to meet the situations presented by the ruling. 29 Thus, an objection to a question asked of awitness must be at once resolved by the court by either sustaining or overruling the objection. It would beincorrect for a judge to consider the objection "submitted" or "noted". Unless the objection is resolved, theexamination of the witness could not be expected to continue since, in all likelihood, the next questionwould depend on how the objection is resolved. If the issue raised by the objection is a particularly difficultone, it would not be improper for the judge to perhaps declare a brief recess to enable him to quickly studythe matter. But certainly, the resolution must be given before the trial resumes.



24/311

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is basedon two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection, or one or some of them, must specify the groundor grounds relied upon.30

Judges are advised to judiciously consider the validity of the grounds for objections and carefully rule onthem. A ruling that all evidence formally offered are "admitted for whatever they may be worth" will not

reflect well on the judge, as it implies a hasty and ill-considered resolution of the offer and the objections.Besides, the phrase "for whatever they may be worth" is improper since it refers to the weight or credibilityof the evidence; the weight of the evidence shall be considered only after the evidence shall have beenadmitted. Another ruling that is ludicrous and even nonsensical is "Evidence admitted subject to theobjections". This is a non-ruling.

In case of an honest doubt about the admissibility of evidence, it is better policy to rule in favor of itsadmission. An erroneous rejection of evidence will be unfair to the offeror since the judge cannot validlyconsider it even if after the trial, the judge realizes his mistake. On the other hand, if the judge had erred inadmitting a piece of evidence, he may simply give it little or no weight when deciding the case.

IV. LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR EVIDENCE

In determining the competency of an offered piece of evidence, the court must examine the requisitesprovided by the pertinent rule or law for its admissibility. These requisites must be established asfoundations for the evidence. For example, for a declaration of an agent to be admissible against hisprincipal, as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule,31 the declaration must be: (1) within the scope ofthe agents authority; (2) made during the existence of the agency; and (3) the agency is shown byevidence other than by such declaration.32 If the agents declaration is on a matter outside the scope of hisagency, or is made after the agency had ceased, the agents declaration cannot be admitted against hisprincipal; the general rule ofres inter alios acta will apply instead.

Similarly, the foundation required by the Rules for the proper presentation of evidence must be laid, lest the

evidence be rejected. For example, when the original of a document is unavailable, before secondaryevidence thereof is admitted, the proponent must establish: (1) the existence or execution of the originaldocument, and (2) the circumstances of the loss or destruction of the original, or that the original cannot beproduced in court.

A. Judicial Notice

1. Mandatory and Discretionary Judicial Notice

Not everything alleged in a partys pleading is required to be proved. Certain matters may be so well knownto the court that to compel a party to prove it would be a waste of time and effort.

Under the Rules, it shall be mandatory for the court to take judicial notice, without the introduction ofevidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government andsymbols of nationalities, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,

3 0 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 383 1 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 28.3 2Ibid., Section 29.


25/311

the political Constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the three departments of thePhilippine government, the laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical divisions.33 Courtsmay take judicial notice of matters which are: (a) of public knowledge, (b) capable of unquestionabledemonstration, or (c) ought to be known to judges because of their official functions.34

2. Hearing the Parties on Discretionary Judicial Notice

During the trial, when a court is uncertain whether it may, at its discretion, take judicial notice of a certainfact or not, it may call the parties to a hearing to give them a reasonable opportunity to present informationrelevant to the propriety or impropriety of taking judicial notice of that fact. Certainly the so-called "hearing"is not for the purpose of adducing evidence on that fact. Similarly, even after the trial and before judgmentor on appeal, the court may hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of a certain matter ifsuch matter is decisive of a material issue in the case .35 This procedure will apprise the parties of thepossibility that the judge will or will not take judicial notice of a fact, or of his resolution either way; it willthus eliminate the element of surprise and enable the parties to act accordingly.

3. Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case

In the adjudication of a case pending before it, a court is not authorized to take judicial notice of thecontents of another case even if said case was heard by the same judge. The following are exceptions tothis general rule: (1) when in the absence of any objection, with the knowledge of the opposing party, thecontents of said other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action and adopted orread into the record of the latter; or (2) when the original record of the other case or any part of it is actuallywithdrawn from the archives at the courts discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the parties,and admitted as part of the record of the pending case .36Parenthetically, a court will take judicial notice ofits own acts and records in the same case.37

When there is an objection, and the judge therefore cannot take judicial notice of a testimony or depositiongiven in another case, the interested party must present the witness to testify anew. However, if the witnessis already dead or unable to testify (due to a grave cause almost amounting to death, as when the witnessis old and has lost the power of speech38), his testimony or deposition given in a former case orproceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given inevidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.39

If the testimony or deposition given in another proceeding is that of a party in a case, the other party maysimply offer in evidence the record of that testimony or the deposition without having to call the declarant-party to testify thereon. Certainly, a party will offer the opposing partys declaration as evidence only if it isprejudicial to the latters interest. Such declaration of a party against his interest is an extra-judicialadmission which may be given in evidence against him.40

B. Admissions: Judicial And Extra-Judicial

An admission is a partys acknowledgment of a fact which is against his interest.

3 3 Rules of Court, Rule 129, Sec. 1.3 4Ibid, Sec. 2.3 5 Rules of Court, Rule 129, Sec. 3.3 6Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 16;People v. Mendoza, G. R. No. 96397, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 288.3 7Republic v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 119288, August 18, 1997, 277 SCRA 633.3 8Tan v. CA, No. L-22793, May 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 54.3 9Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 47.4 0Ibid, Sec. 26
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=146


26/311

A party may make an admission in any of these ways:

1. In written pleadings, motions and other papers, and stipulations filed in the case.

2. In open court, either by his testimony on the stand or by his statement or that of his

counsel.

3. In his statement made outside the proceedings in the same case.

In the first two instances above-mentioned, the admissions made are regarded as judicial admissions. Ajudicial admission does not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing that it was madethrough palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. A judicial admission need not be offered inevidence since it is not evidence. It is superior to evidence and shall be considered by the court asestablished.

On the other hand, statements made by a party outside the proceedings in the same case are extrajudicialadmissions which may be an act, declaration or omission made by a party as to a relevant fact and may begiven in evidence against him.41 This type of admission is regarded as evidence and must be offered assuch; otherwise, the court will not consider it in deciding the case. If the extra-judicial statement of a partyis not against his interest but is in his favor, it becomes a self-serving declaration which is inadmissible forbeing hearsay since it will be testified to by one who simply heard the statement and has no personalknowledge of it. But it will not be incompetent evidence, nor self-serving, if testified to by the party himselfat the trial.42

By the rules definition, not all admissions made by a party during a judicial proceeding are judicialadmissions. To qualify, they must be made and offered in the proceedings in the same case. If made in one

judicial proceeding, but offered in another, they become extrajudicial admissions for purposes of the lattercase. Thus, the declaration of a defendant in a case that the plaintiff therein is his agent is a judicialadmission of the agency relationship between them if that fact is against the defendants interest. However,that same admission may only be an extrajudicial admission if considered in another case between thesame parties.

With more reason, an admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing as a pleading in thecase but never filed, another pleading being filed in its stead, is not a judicial admission, for the unfileddocument is not considered a pleading. Whether it would even be an extrajudicial admission would dependupon whether the document was signed by the client or only by his attorney. If signed only by the attorney,it would not be admissible at all, since an attorney has authority to make statements on behalf of his clientonly in open court or in a pleading actually filed.43

In criminal cases, it should be noted that an admission or stipulation made by the accused during the pre-trial cannot be used in evidence against him unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his counsel.44

But this rule does not apply to admissions made in the course of the trial. Thus, an admission made by an

4 1 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 26.4 2Tuason v. Court of Appeals, G. R. Nos. 113779-80, February 23, 1995, 241 SCRA 695.4 3 Jackson v. Schine Lexington Corporation, 305 Ky. 823, 205 S.W. 2d 1013.4 4 Rules of Court, Rule 118, Sec. 4;Fule v. Court of Appeals, No. L-79094, June 22, 1988, 162 SCRA446.


27/311

accused or his counsel during the trial may be used against the accused although not signed by either ofthem.45

Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading, althoughfiled in the same case, are reduced to the status of extrajudicial admissions and therefore must be provedby the party who relies thereon46 by formally offering in evidence the original pleading containing such

extrajudicial admission.

47

Consistently, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 'An amendedpleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may bereceived in evidence against the pleader xxx.'48

Since generally a judicial admission does not require proof and cannot be contradicted, any attempt madeby a party to still prove it may be objected to as immaterial, i.e., not in issue anymore; and any attempt toadduce evidence in contradiction of that admission may also be objected to. In either case, the judge mayhimself block such attempts as improper departures from the issues of the case. Unless, of course, it canbe shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made atall.49

C. Best Evidence Rule

The Best Evidence Rule is applicable only to documents. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of adocument, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original writing itself.50 Not every writing isconsidered a document for purposes of the best evidence rule. Documents as evidence consist of writings

or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressionsoffered as proof of their contents.51

If a writing is offered not to prove its contents but to prove some other fact, e.g., that the writing exists, orthat it is done on sheepskin, or the size of the paper it is written on, it is, for purposes of evidence, onlyobject evidence. To determine the admissibility of object evidence, the best evidence rule does not apply.Hence, the original writing need not be presented. The existence or condition of that writing may beproved, at once, by any other evidence, like oral testimony.52

Closely related to the best evidence rule is the rule that a document or writing which is merely 'collateral' to

4 5People v. Hernandez, G. R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996, 260 SCRA 25.4 6 Bastida v. Menzi & Co., 58 Phil. 188 [1933].4 7Javellana v. D. O. Plaza Enterprises, Inc., G. R. No. L-28297, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 261; Torres v. Court

of Appeals, No. L-37420, July 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 24; Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 31408,April 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 94.

4 8 Rules of Court , Rule 10, Sec. 8.4 9 Rules of Court, Rule 129.5 0 Rules of Court, Rule 130.5 1 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 2.5 2People v. Tandoy, G. R. No. 80505, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 28.


28/311

the issue involved in the case on trial need not be produced. This is the collateral facts rule. Thus, wherethe purpose of presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but merely to give coherence to, or tomake intelligible, the testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original ofthe document need not be presented. In this case, the contents of the document are not sought to beproven, but are simply incidental to the fact being testified to. Thus, the best evidence rule cannot apply.53

The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

54

Even a mere photocopyof a document may be an original if it is the contents of that photocopy that are inquired into.

When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, allsuch copies are equally regarded as originals. Thus, the first copy and four (4) carbon copies of a contract,all of which are identical, are all considered originals. Each of them may be offered as proof of theircontents. But if a party has lost his original document, he must account not only for the unavailability of hiscopy but also for the loss, destruction or unavailability of the rest of the original copies. Otherwise,secondary evidence of his lost original will not be admitted. Any of the four other extant originals would stillbe the best available evidence.55

Secondary evidence may also be resorted to, as though the document had been lost, when the adverseparty who has custody of the original refuses, despite reasonable notice, to produce the document.56 In thiscase, such adverse party should not later be allowed to introduce the original for the purpose ofcontradicting the secondary evidence presented.57

When the proper foundation for the reception of secondary evidence has been laid, the best evidence ruleinsists on a preference in the type of secondary evidence that will be presented. Thus, the Rule provides:

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, theofferor, 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 authenticdocument, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

Hence, before a party may offer the testimony of witnesses to prove the contents of a lost original, he mustfirst show or prove that no copy of the document exists and, in addition, that there exists no authenticdocument reciting the contents of the unavailable original. This second layer of foundations may of coursebe established by oral testimony, but it must be established.

D. Parol Evidence Rule

The Parol Evidence Rule applies only to contractual documents.58 However, it does not apply where atleast one party to the suit is not a party nor a privy to a party to the written instrument and does notbase his claim, nor assert a right arising from the instrument or established therein. Thus, a total stranger

5 3 Air France v. Carrascoso, G. R. No. 21438, September 28, 1966, 18 SCRA 155.5 4 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 4.5 5De Vera v. Aguilar, G. R. No. 83377, February 9, 1988, 218 SCRA 602.5 6 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 6.5 7 Wigmore on Evidence, 1210.5 8 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 79962, December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 209.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=148http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=148


29/311

to the writing is not bound by its terms and is allowed to introduce extrinsic or parol evidence againstthe efficacy of the writing.59

In order that parol evidence may be admissible, the exceptional situation, including the fact of asubsequent agreement, must be put in issue in the pleading. Otherwise, no parol evidence can beadmissible. When the defendant invokes such exceptional situations in his answer, such facts are

sufficiently put in issue as to allow the presentation of parol evidence. However, if, when presented, theparol evidence is not objected to, such objection is deemed waived.

E. Admissibility Of Extra-Judicial Confessions

The extra-judicial confession of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of anyoffense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.60 Note that if the confession is

judicially given, either by way of a plea of guilty upon arraignment or made in the course of the trial, it neednot be offered in evidence since it is a judicial admission.61

An extra-judicial confession may be given either before the custodial investigation stage or during custodialinvestigation. A person is placed under custodial investigation when after a crime has been committed, the

authorities investigation ceases to be a mere general inquiry into the circumstances and authorship of thecrime and begins to focus on the individual as a suspect.62 Under Republic Act 7438,63 custodialinvestigation shall include the practice of issuing an 'invitation' to a person who is investigated inconnection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.

When under custodial investigation, a person shall have the constitutional right to be informed of his rightto remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If theperson cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot bewaived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.64 It must be noted that neither a lawyer, NBI agentnor the City Legal Officer can be considered an independent counsel for this purpose.

If the person under custodial investigation has not been informed of any of the above-mentioned rights, anyconfession or declaration given by him during said investigation shall be inadmissible.65 To be valid, theinformation to be given to the accused regarding his rights must be more than a perfunctory recitation ofsuch rights; it must be made in practical terms, in a language or dialect he understands and in a manner hecomprehends, the degree of explanation varying according to the persons level of education andintelligence.66 The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not apply to in-custodyconfessions. The prosecution must prove compliance with the aforementioned constitutionalrequirements.67

No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the

5 9 Lechugas v. Court of Appeals, Nos. L-39972 and L-40300, August 6, 1986, 143 SCRA 335.6 0 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 33.6 1Ibid, Rule 129, Sec. 4.6 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478.6 3 An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Persons Arrested, Detained, Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As

The Duties Of The Arresting, Detaining, And Investigating Officers And Providing Penalties For ViolationsThereof.

6 4 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12.6 5People v. Jimenez, No. L-40677, May 31, 1976, 71 SCRA 186.6 6People v. Camalog, G. R. No. 77116, January 31, 1989, 169 SCRA 816.6 7People v. Trinidad, No. L-38930, June 28, 1988, 162 SCRA 714.


30/311

person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either by thedetainee himself or by anyone in his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not bevalid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure,whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.68

In People v. Policarpio,69 the accused who was arrested in a buy-bust operation refused to give a

statement after having been informed of his Constitutional rights; but he was made to acknowledge inwriting that six plastic bags of marijuana leaves were confiscated from him, and he was also made to signa receipt for Php 20.00 as the purchase price of the marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that said receiptswere in effect extra-judicial confessions given during custodial investigation and were thereforeinadmissible for having been given without the assistance of counsel.

An extra-judicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient for conviction unless corroboratedby evidence ofcorpus delicti.70 Thus, in People v. Barlis,71the accused who validly gave a statement duringcustodial investigation confessing to the commission of homicide and robbery was convicted of homicideonly and acquitted of the robbery charge in the absence of evidence establishing the corpus delicti ofrobbery.

The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution are not available when he is notunder custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession voluntarily given by an employee during anadministrative investigation that he had malversed his employers funds is admissible although without aprior information of said rights and without the assistance of counsel.72

Similarly competent is the admission of adulterous conduct made by a woman to her husband when thelatter confronted her with incriminatory evidence in their residence.73

F. Examination Of Witnesses

1. Generally, the testimony of a witness is elicited through questions propounded by the examining counselin open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode ofanswer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. 74 The main purpose of requiring a witness toappear and testify orally in open court is to secure to the adverse party the opportunity to cross-examinethe witness. Another reason for such rule is to enable the judge to observe the countenance and demeanorof the witness while testifying, an important factor in determining the credibility of a witness. Therefore, itwould be impermissible and would be a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to accept theaffidavit of a witness in lieu of the latters direct testimony subject to cross-examination.75

6 8People v. Galit, No. L-51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465;Morales v. Ponce-Enrile, No. L-61016, April20, 1983, 121 SCRA 538.

6 9People v Policarpio, No. L-69844, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 85.7 0 Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 37 1People v Barlis, G. R. No. 101003, March 24, 1994, 231 SCRA 426.7 2People v. Ayson, G. R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989, 175 SCRA 216.7 3Arroyo v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 96602, November 19, 1991, 203 SCRA 750.7 4 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 1.7 5People v. Estenzo, G. R. No. L-41166, August 25, 1976, 72 SCRA 428.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=149http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150


31/311

The aforesaid rule is relaxed under the Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP) where in criminal casescovered by said Rule, the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties witnesses constitute their directtestimonies subject however to cross-examination, re-direct or re-cross examination.76 And in civil actionscovered by the RSP, no examination of witnesses is even required or allowed; the parties simply submit theaffidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the preliminary conferenceorder prepared by the judge after the termination of said conference.77

Another exception is found in the trial of agrarian cases where the parties submit affidavits of theirwitnesses subject to cross-examination.78

2. One question often asked is whether a witness may be allowed to testify by narration. While the generalrule is that material and relevant facts are elicited from a witness by questions put to him, it still rests withinthe sound discretion of the trial judge to determine whether a witness will be required to testify by questionand answer, or will be permitted to testify in narrative form.79

There is no legal principle which prevents a witness from giving his testimony in narrative form ifhe is requested to do so by counsel. A witness may be allowed to testify by narration if it would be

the best way of getting at what he knew or could state concerning the matter at issue. It wouldexpedite the trial and would perhaps furnish the court a clearer understanding of the mattersrelated as they occurred. Moreover, narrative testimony may be allowed if material parts of hisevidence cannot be easily obtained through piecemeal testimonies. But if in giving such testimony,the witness states matters irrelevant or immaterial or incompetent, it is the right and duty ofcounsel objecting to such testimony to interpose and arrest the narration by calling the attention ofthe court particularly to the objectionable matter and, by a motion to strike it out, obtain a ruling ofthe court excluding such testimony from the case.80 While a witness may be permitted in thediscretion of the court to narrate his knowledge of material facts bearing upon the case withoutspecifically being interrogated in detail, it is also within the discretion of the court to prohibit awitness from volunteering unsought information in connection with the case.81

3. Some jurisprudential rules regarding uncompleted testimonies:

3.1 When a witness had testified on direct examination but was not cross-examined because hedies after numerous postponements of his cross-examination attributable to the cross-examiningparty whereas the witness had all the time been available for cross-examination, his directtestimony shall be allowed to remain in the record and cannot be ordered stricken off. The cross-examiner is deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine.82

3.2 On the contrary, when cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due tocauses attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby

rendered incompetent.83

7 6 Rule on Summary Procedure, Sec. 15.7 7 Rule on Summary Procedure, Sec. 9.7 8 Pres.Decree No. 946, Sec. 16.7 9 98 C.J.S. Sec. 325, p. 26.8 0Ibid.8 1 People v. Calixtro, G. R. No. 92355, January 24, 1991, 193 SCRA 303.8 2Dela Paz, Jr., v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-71537, September 17, 1987, 154 SCRA 65.8 3Ortigas, Jr., v. Lufthansa German Airlines, No. L-28773, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 610.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150


32/311

3.3 The direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross-examination can bestricken only insofar as not covered by the cross-examination, and absence of a witness is notenough to warrant striking his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination wherethe witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined, and the matter on which further cross-examination is sought is not in controversy.84

4. A judge may intervene in the trial of a case to promote expedition and avoid unnecessary waste of timeor to clear up some ambiguity. A judge is not a mere referee like that of a boxing bout. He should have asmuch interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, calling the attention ofcounsel to points at issue that are overlooked, directing them to ask questions that would elicit the facts onthe issues involved, clarifying ambiguous remarks. The number of times a judge intervenes in theexamination of a witness is not necessarily an indication of bias. It cannot be taken against a judge if hisclarifying questions happen to reveal certain truths which tend to spoil the theory of one party.85

5. The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidenceupon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to beadditionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution.86

G. Authentication And Proof Of Documents

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.87 Publicdocuments need not be authenticated; private documents have to be authenticated to be admissible inevidence.

There are only three types of public documents, viz.: (1) the written official acts or records of official acts ofthe sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of aforeign country, e.g., transfer certificate of title, the Official Gazette, entries in the book of entries of

judgments; (2) documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; (3) publicrecords, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein, e.g., certifiedtrue copies of birth certificates or of death certificates issued by the local civil registrar.88

All other writings are private and thus ought to be authenticated. Their due execution and genuinenessmust be proved either (1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (2) by evidence of thegenuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.89 Note that the opinion of an ordinary witnessregarding the handwriting of a person is admissible under Rule 130, Sec. 50, as an exception to theopinion rule provided the witness is shown to have sufficient familiarity with the handwriting.

The last paragraph of Rule 132, Sec. 20states that 'Any other private document need only be identified asthat which it is claimed to be.'This provision should be taken in relation to the first paragraph which reads:'Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution andgenuineness must be proved.'If it is offered as a genuine writing, it must be proved to be genuine. If it isoffered as a forgery, it must be proved to be a forgery. If a private writing is offered not as an authentic

8 4People v. Seeris, No. L-48883, August 6, 1980, 99 SCRA 928 5People v. Hatton, G. R. No. 85043, June 16, 1992, 210 SCRA 1.8 6 Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 6.8 7 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 19.8 8Ibid.8 9 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 20.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/benchbook/Evidence/bench_topframe.cfm@s=detail&nav=content&ID=150


33/311

document, it need only be identified as that which the offeror claims it to be. Thus, if an anonymous letter aparty has received is relevant to the issues in a case, he need not authenticate it since he cannot possiblydo that anyway. He only has to identify it as the anonymous letter he had received. The authenticity of thedocument is immaterial for he is not offering it as authentic. An ancient document, although private innature, needs no authentication either; provided, it appears to be more than thirty years old, is producedfrom a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished