EVIDENCE

• Click Case Title for Case Digest
• Click GR No. for Full Text

2019 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1989 REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE – (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

RULE 128
1) Reyes v. CA – GR 96492, 26 November 1992
2) Imperial Textile v. NLRC – GR 101527, 19 January 1993

RULE 129
1) Sermonia v. CA – GR 109454, 14 June, 1994
2) Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Disierto – GR 130817, August 22, 2001
3) City of Manila v. Garcia –  GR L-26053, 21 February 1967
4) Tabuena v. CA and Tabernilla – GR 85423, 6 May 1991
5) Baguio v. Vda De Jalagat – GR L-28100, 29 November 1971
6) Torres vs CA –  GR L-37421, July 31, 1984

RULE 130

Object Evidence
Sison v. People – GR 108280-83 (1995)

Admissibility of DNA Testing
Agustin v. CA – GR 162571, 15 June 2005

Evidence in relation to RA 4200
Ramirez v. CA – GR 93833, 28 September 1995

Best Evidence Rule
1) People v. Tandoy – GR 80505, 4 December 1990
2) People v. Tan – GR L-14257 (1959)
3) Hutchison v. Buscas – GR 158554, 26 May 2005
4) Rodelas v. Aranza – GR L-58509, 7 December 1982

Secondary Evidence
1) Ebreo v. Ebreo, – GR 160065, 28 February 2006
2) Municipality of Victoria v. CA, – GR L-31189 (1987)
3) Villa Rey Transit v. Ferrer – GR L-23893 (1968)
4) De Vera v. Aguilar – GR 83377, 9 February 1993
5) US v. Gregorio – GR L-5791 (1910)
6) Magdayao v. People – GR 152881 (2004)
7) Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers Union, – GR 28999 (1977)
8) Gan v. Yap – GR L-12190 (1958)

Parol Evidence
1) Robles v. Lizarraga Ermanos, GR L-26173 (1927)
2) PNB v. Seeto, GR L-4388 (1952)
3) Woodhouse v. Halili, GR L-4811 (1953)
4) Inciong v. CA, GR 96405, 26 June 1996 – [What is required is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in fact founded on “long experience that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and vary the stronger and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them.” Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence.]
5) Yu Tek v. Gonzales, GR L-9935 (1915) – [Parties are presumed to have reduced to writing all the essential conditions of their contract. While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. ]
6) Lechugas v. CA, GR 39972 (1986) – [the rule therefore applies, that as between parties to a written agreement, or their privies, parol evidence cannot be received to contradict or vary its terms. Strangers to a contract are, of course, not bound by it, and the rule excluding extrinsic evidence in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases; and it is relaxed where either one of the parties between whom the question arises is a stranger to the written agreement, and does not claim under or through one who is party to it. In such case the rule is binding upon neither.]
7) Land Settlement Development Corp. v. Garcia Plantation, GR L-17820 (1963) – [When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the occurrence of an event, which, for that reason is a condition precedent, such may be established by parol evidence. This is not varying the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement, for the simple reason that there is no contract in existence; there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule. This rule does not prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to show that a supposed contract never became effective by reason of the failure of some collateral condition or stipulation, pre-requisite to liability. The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing, does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement.]
8) Pioneer Savings and Loan Banks v. CA, GR 105419, 29 September 1993
9) Maulini v. Serrano, GR L-8844 (1914)
10) Canuto v. Mariano, GR L-11346 (1918) – [The rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement between the parties to a writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing; for the parol evidence does not in any way deny that the original agreement of the parties was that which the writing purports to express, but merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or abrogate the same, or to make a new and independent contract.

It makes no difference how soon after the execution of the written contract the parol one was made. If it was in fact subsequent and is otherwise unobjectionable it may be proved and enforced.]

11) Cruz v. CA, GR 79962, 10 December 1990 – A receipt — i.e. a written acknowledgment, handed by one party to the other, of the manual custody of money or other personality — will in general fall without the line of the rule; i.e. it is not intended to be an exclusive memorial, and the facts may be shown irrespective of the terms of the receipt. This is because usually a receipt is merely a written admission of a transaction independently existing, and, like other admissions, is not conclusive.
12) Madrigal and Mallari v. CA, (G.R. No. 142944. April 15, 2005)
13) Enriquez v. Ramos, GR L-18077 (1962)
14) Ortanez vs. CA, GR 107372 January 23, 1997

Testimonial Evidence
 Mental Incapacity or Immaturity
1) *People v. De Jesus, GR L-39087, April 27, 1984
2) *People v. Salomon, GR 96848, January 21, 1994
3) *People vs Mendoza 254 SCRA 18 (1996)
 Marital Disqualification
4) People v. Castañeda, GR L-46306, 27 February 1979
5) People v. Francisco, GR L-568, 16 July 1947
6) Lezama v. Rodriguez, GR L-25643, 27 June 1968
 Dead Man’s Statute
7) Razon v. IAC, GR 74306, 16 March 1992
8) Reyes v. Wells, GR L-30587, 4 December 1929
9) Guerrero v. St. Clare Realty, GR L-58164 (1983)
10) Abraham v. Intestate Estate of Ysmael, Recto-Kasten GR L-16741, 31 January 1962
11) Testate Estate of Fitzsimmons v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company, GR L-2016 (1949)
12) Goñi v. CA, GR L-27434, 23 September 1986
13) Tongco v. Tiamson, GR 27498, 20 September 1927
 Privileged Communications
o Marital Privilege
14) People v. Carlos, GR 22948, 17 March 1925
15) *Orient Insurance Company v. Revilla, GR No. 34098, Sep 17, 1930
16) *Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US 495 (1947)
17) *Upjohn Company v. US, 449 US 383 (1981)
18) *People v. Sandiganbayan, GR 115439-41 July 16, 1997
o Attorney-Client Privilege
19) Barton v. Leyte Asphalt, GR 21237, 22 March 1924
20) Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, GR 9231, 6 January 1915 – Of the very essence of the veil of secrecy which surrounds communications made between attorney and client, is that such communications are not intended for the information of third persons or to be acted upon by them, put of the purpose of advising the client as to his rights. It is evident that a communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. When the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions be delivering the communication to the third person for whom it was intended and the latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning whatever, be classified in a legal sense as a privileged communication between the attorney and his client. It is plain that such a communication, after reaching the party for whom it was intended at least, is a communication between the client and a third person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role of intermediary or agent.
o Physician-Patient Privilege
21) Lim v. CA, GR 91114, 25 September 1992
22) Krohn v. CA, GR 108854, 14 June 1994
o Public Officer Privilege
23) Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 142 SCRA 523

Admissions and Confessions
 Sec. 28
 People v. Raquel, GR 119005, 2 December 1996
 Sec. 29 (Partner’s/Agent’s Admissions)
1) Ormachea Tin-Congco v. Trillana, GR 4776, 18 March 1909
2) Kiel v. Estate of Sabert, GR 21639, 25 September 1924 – A party to an action against an executor or administrator of a deceased person, upon a claim against the estate of the latter, is absolutely prohibited by law from giving testimony concerning such claim or demand as to anything that occurred before the death of the person against whose estate the action is prosecuted.
3) People v. Serrano, GR L-7973, 27 April 1959
 Sec. 30 (Co-conspirator’s Statements)
4) People v. Tena, GR 100909, 21 October 1992
5) People v. Yatco, GR L-9181, 28 November 1955
6) People v. Cabrera, GR L-37398, 28 June 1974
7) People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, GR L-19590, 25 April 1968
*Take note of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule*
 Sec. 31 (Admission by Privies)
8) Alpuerto v. Pastor, GR 12794, 14 October 1918
9) City of Manila v. Del Rosario, GR 1284, 10 November 1905
 Sec. 32 (Admission by Silence)
10) People v. Paragsa, GR L-44060, 20 July 1978
11) People v. Alegre, GR L-30423, 7 November 1979
 Sec. 33 (Confessions)
12) People v. Marra, GR 108494, 20 September 1994
13) US v. Evangelista, GR 8132, 25 March 1913
14) US v. Pineda, GR L-12858, 22 January 1918
15) People v. Abulencia, GR 138403, 22 August 2001
16) People v. Encipido, GR 70091, 29 December 1986
17) People v. Endino, GR 133026, 20 February 2001
18) People v. Sumayo, GR L-30713, 30 April 1976
19) *People v. Yip Wai Ming 264 SCRA 224 (1996)
20) *People v. Wong Chuen Ming 256 SCRA 182 (1996)

*People v. Ong, G.R. NO. 137348, June 21, 2004 (Compelling considerations why confidential informants are usually not presented by the prosecution)
*US v. Singson (Confidentiality of Public Communication)

Hearsay
Section 36: 1)People v. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516, [August 12, 1992]
Sec. 37: 2)People v. Laquinon, G.R. No. L-45470 [February 28, 1985.] – 
3)People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-26193 [January 27, 1981.]
4)People v. Agripa, G.R. No. 72244 [May 8, 1992.]
5)People v. De Joya, G.R. No. 75028 [November 8, 1991.]
6)People v. Devaras, GR L-25165, [February 27, 1971]
Sec. 38: 7)Viacrusis v. CA, G.R. No. L-29831 [March 29, 1972.]
Sec. 39: 8)People v. Alegado
9) Ferrer v. Inchausti, L-12993, [October 28, 2018] – 

Sec. 42: 10) People v. Putian, G.R. No. L-33049, [November 29, 1976]
11)People v. Peralta, , G.R. No. 94570, [September 28, 1994]
Sec. 44: 12) Fortus v. Novero, GR L-22378, 29 June 1968
Sec. 46: 13)Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960 [November 24, 1988]
Sec. 47: 14)Tan v. CA, G.R. No. L-22793, [May 16, 1967]
15)People v. Liwanag,G.R. No. L-27683 [October 19, 1976]

RULE 131
1) Industrial Finance Corp. v. Tobias, G.R. No. L-41555, [July 27, 1977], 168 PHIL 197-204
2) People v. Pajenado, G.R. Nos. L-27680-81, [February 27, 1970], 142 PHIL 702-708
3) People v. Verzola, G.R. No. L-35022, [December 21, 1977], 170 PHIL 622-633
4) Molina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-14524, [October 24, 1960], 109 PHIL 769-772
5) Figui v. CA (ruling only), 233 SCRA
6) People v. Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, [February 27, 1976], 161 PHIL 623-634
7) People v. Pablo y Dolloso, G.R. No. 91129, [August 25, 1992], 287 PHIL 921-936

RULE 132
Sec. 6: Cross Examination
1) De la Paz, Jr. v. IAC, G.R. No. 71537, [September 17, 1987]
2) Fulgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61570, [February 12, 1990], 261 PHIL 189-199

Sec. 9: Recalling witness
3) People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 98376, [August 16, 1991], 277 PHIL 876-882
4) Villalon, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73751 (Resolution), [September 24, 1986]
5) People v. Resabal, G.R. No. 26708, [September 29, 1927], 50 PHIL 780-786

Secs. 20 to 24
6) Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, [February 19, 1992], 283 PHIL 253-262
7) Bunag v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39013, [February 29, 1988], 242 PHIL 33-41
8) Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 76792, [March 12, 1990], 262 PHIL 113-126 – 

Secs. 21 to 22
9) Lacsa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 79597-98, [May 20, 1991], 274 PHIL 506-516
10) Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76595, [May 6, 1988]
11) Spouses Zalamea v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104235, [November 18, 1993]
12) Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119602, [October 6, 2000]
Sec. 33
13) People v. Monleon, G.R. No. L-36282, [December 10, 1976]
Sec. 34
14) People v. Franco y Tianson, G.R. No. 118607, [March 4, 1997]
15) Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85423, [May 6, 1991] – 
16) Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062, [June 6, 1990]
17) People v. Java y Mercado, G.R. No. 104611, [November 10, 1993]
18) People v. Yap y Boca, G.R. No. 103517, [February 9, 1994]
19) Catuira v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105813, [September 12, 1994]
20) Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92067, [March 22, 1991]
21) Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434 (1992)
RULE 133
22) People v. Cruz, 134 SCRA