Sec 1. Examination to be done in open court
2. When the writing is a public document on record (Sec 19)
3. When it is a notarial document, acknowledged, proved and certified in accordance with Sec 30
4. When the authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly and impliedly admitted by failure to deny the same under oath (ex. Actionable documents)
Additional Ground in Beda Reviewer:
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue
Authenticity and Due Execution of a
Private Document
Proved by: Evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker
Handwriting
Proved by:
1. Testimony of the purported writer
2. A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Sec 20a)
3. A witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec 22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule
4. A comparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Sec 22)
5. Expert Evidence (Sec 49)
Note: Sec 22 merely enumerated the methods of proving handwriting but it does not give preference or priority to a particular method
Handwriting Experts – NOT Mandatory; Weight of Expert Testimony:
It depends upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics, discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimen of writings which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer
Ancient Documents
- 3 Requirements (See codal Sec 21)
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]62 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
- An ancient document is said to be in the proper custody if it is in theplace in which and under the care of the person with whom it would naturally be.
- Ratio: The fact of its coming from the natural and proper place tends to remove presumptions of fraud and strengthen the belief of its
genuineness
- By merely producing the document: it establishes prima facie its own authenticity. The burden then shifts to the adverse party to prove otherwise.
Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence.
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer:
- are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence:
- even against a third person,
- of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)
Notes:
Public documents are admissible w/o further proof of their due execution and genuineness
Ratio:
- Necessity: practical impossibility of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of his duty
- Trustworthiness: There is a presumption of regularity, legality and accuracy
Sec. 24. Proof of official record.
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced:
- by an official publication thereof or
- by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, IF the record is not kept in the RP, with:
- a certificate that such officer has the custody.
IF the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country:
- the certificate may be made BY a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the RP stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
- authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)
Whether the Record if Domestic or Foreign – It may be Evidenced By:
1. An official publication
2. A copy thereof duly attested by the proper officers
Note: Absent the attestation of the proper officer, a mere copy of the foreign document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state.
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance:
- that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation:
- must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, IF there be any, or
- IF he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record.
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence:
- must not be removed from the office in which it is kept,
- EXCEPT upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. (27a)
Irremovability of Public Record
- GR: A public record cannot be removed from the office which it is kept - EXC: It may be removed by order of the court BUT ONLY when
essential to the just determination of a pending case (ex. subpoena duces tecum)
Note: The rule however, refers only to a public record, an official copy of which could be made available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]63 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
Ratio:1. To enable others to use the record;
2. To prevent the serious risk of loss;
3. To prevent its exposure to wear and tear Sec. 27. Public record of a private document.
An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
- by the original record, or
- by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a) Note: If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document BUT that does NOT make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible w/o authentication.
Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record.
A written statement:
- signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy
- that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office,
- accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)
Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached.
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)
Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents.
Every instrument:
- duly acknowledged or proved and - certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence:
- without further proof,
- the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a)
Notes:
Notarial Document, defined: One which is duly acknowledged before a notary public. (It is a public document)
- The notary must be duly authorized and must have notarized said document in accordance with the Notarial Law.
Probative Value of a Notarial Document: It is evidence of the facts expressed therein
When a Certified True Copy is Presented It Should Comply With the FF to be Admissible:
1. The provisions that should appear in the certification or attestation of the said copy (Sec 24 & 25)
2. It must have the documentary stamp affixed unless specifically exempted as in the case of baptismal or birth certificate.
Note: It is presumed that the requisite stamps have been affixed to the original copy of a document where only the carbon copies thereof are available
Note: When a special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent officer in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence in RP courts unless it is certified as such in accordance with Sec 24.
Public Instruments do NOT Have Uniform Probative Value
- The law does not specifically provide that the contents of public instruments w/o distinction are equally evidence against 3rd parties - The probative value of public instruments depends on the kind of
document that is presented in evidence.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]64 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
Rules on Baptismal Certificates (BC)- Issued by priests during the Spanish regime: Considered public documents
- Issued after the Spanish regime: Considered private documents and cannot even be considered as prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution (it is considered hearsay unless the priest who performed the baptismal rites are produced)
Note:
- BCs are not sufficient proof of paternity or recognition of a child. It is only proof of the baptism administered but not the veracity of the statements in the certificate concerning the relationship of the person baptized. (OLD RULE)
- NOW, Art 172 of the Family Code provides: “Filiation of legitimate children is established by the record of birth in the civil registry”
Note: BCs may be used to determine the minority of the victim in statutory rape
Note: Death Certificates is not proof of the cause of death – its probative value being confined only to the fact of death
- Statements therein regarding the duration of illness and the cause of death are mere hearsay.
- However, it is admissible to prove residence of decedent at the time of death.
Sec. 31. Alteration in document, how to explain.
The party producing a document as genuine:
- which has been altered and
- appears to have been altered after its execution, - in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration.
He may show that the alteration:
- was made by another, without his concurrence, or
- was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or - was otherwise properly or innocently made, or
- that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
If he fails to do that:
- the document shall NOT be admissible in evidence. (32a) Sec. 32. Seal.
There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents:
- insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a) Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.
Documents written in an unofficial language:
- shall not be admitted as evidence,
- UNLESS accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings:
- parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (34a)
Note: Under the 1987 Constitution: “The official languages are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English, with the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the region”
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION Sec. 34. Offer of evidence.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]65 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
The court shall consider NO evidence which has not been formally offered.The purpose for which the evidence is offered:
- must be specified. (35) Notes:
GR: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
EXC: If there was repeated reference thereto in the course of the trial by adverse party’s counsel and of the court, indicating that the documents were part of the prosecution’s evidence.
- Two requisites must concur: (Pp v. Napta)
1. The document must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded.
2. The document must have been incorporated to the records of the case.
Ex. Presented and marked in the pre-trial and testified as to the details and contents and was cross examined.
Purpose Why Offer Must be Specified: To determine whether that piece of evidence should be admitted or not because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility.
You Follow What is Stated in the Offer: It must be rejected if it is inadmissible for the purpose stated even if it is admissible for another purpose.
Sec. 35. When to make offer.
As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made:
- at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered:
- AFTER the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
- Such offer shall be done orally UNLESS allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
When to Make an Offer: Depends on its form:
Testimonial/Oral Evidence Documentary and Object Evidence At the time the witness is called to
testify
After the party has presented his testimonial evidence, before he rests Oral Evidence is Always Offered 2x:
1. Before the witness testified 2. Every time a question is asked of
him (implied offer)
Offered only once
Procedure Before Documentary and Object Evidence Can be Considered by the Court
1. Marking: To facilitate their identification. May be made during pre-trial or pre-trial.
2. Identification: Proof that the document being presented is the same