Jurisprudence - Rape
Jurisprudence - Rape
Jurisprudence - Rape
Introduction
Definition – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.)
Scope of applicability – rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec 2.)
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a
judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc.
In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a general
denial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL
CASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime.
The Rules on evidence are not self-executing. So the rule is any evidence submitted will be
admitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It does
not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of the case.
Executive Privilege- members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to
disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations
or procedures of the executive branch.
Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or
persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the latter.
The evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.)
- In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law nor the rules of court. It is determined purely by
LOGIC.
Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter
probable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as
determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is not
excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995)
1.1 Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
1.2 Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means, which vitiate the
free will, shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
This right is recognized under the Rules on Evidence, which provides that, it is the right of a
witness not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4), Rule 132, ROC)
NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human body could be used as evidence without violating the
right. Mechanical acts without the use of intelligence do not fall within the scope of the protection.
Some of the acts which are not covered by the right of self-incrimination are the following:
Collateral Matters- matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue. These are not allowed
unless satisfy ALL the requirements of relevancy.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat left by the accused in the place of the crime
b. The resemblance of a child to his alleged father to prove paternity of the latter
c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the person charged with a crime
d. The destruction or fabrication of evidence
e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence)
f. Delay in the identification of victim’s assailant
Material evidence- proves a main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance
which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen
the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credibility of any
witness who testifies.
Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact without need to make inference from another fact
Example: The testimony of the prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it was actually
the deceased who attacked the accused without the latter’s provocation is a direct evidence.
Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established.
Example: The testimony of a witness that the accused was the last person seen accompanying
the victim.
Testimony of a witness that he saw the accused 10 meters away from the area where
the victim was found dead.
Cumulative v. Corroborative
Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends to prove the same fact
Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first witness claimed he
saw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative