1

Admissibility, Presentation and Weight of Evidence

(Midterm)

A. Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence - Legal Basis

Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 128, Section 3. Admissibility of evidence.-Evidence is

admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the
law or these rules.

Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 128, Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence
must have 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
to any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.

The Concept of Admissibility

It is the character or quality which any material or thing must necessarily possess for it
to be accepted and allowed to be presented or introduced as evidence in court.

It answers the question: should the court allow the material to be used as evidence by
the party?

Requirements/Conditions for Admissibility

1. Relevant
2. Competent

Not all evidence will be allowed by the court to prove the allegations or denials of the
parties to a case. To be allowed, the evidence must satisfy the two criteria of relevance
and competence.

The courts look into the characteristics of the evidence (e.g., source, connection to the
fact in issue) and check if these characteristics satisfy the criteria for admissibility. If
these do, then the court admits the evidence into the case record and will consider it
when making the judgment. Otherwise, if these characteristics are not relevant or not
competent,then the court excludes the evidence and will disregard it in determining the
ultimate facts and deciding the case

Relevant + Competent = Admissible (Material and Has Probative Value)

RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Under Rule 128, Section 4, evidence is relevant if it has "a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence”.

From this rule, we gather that there are two components of relevance.

First, relevant evidence has a relation to the fact in issue. If there is a relationship
between the evidence and the fact in issue, then the evidence is material.
 2

Second, relevant evidence can lead us to believe in the existence or non-existence of

the fact in issue. If the evidence supports our belief that the alleged fact exists, then
the evidence has probative value.

Example 1:

Pedro is charged with drunk driving. The prosecution wants to offer evidence that
Pedro is a member of a violent street gang. The evidence is irrelevant because the
crime charged has nothing to do with gang activities. The evidence would only serve to
stir up bias against Pedro.

Example 2:

Shayla Macaraig was charged for Estafa. In the Information, it was alleged that she
offered promo tours to Palawan, received money for the tours, but did not issue the
hotel reservation and the flight tickets. During the trial, the prosecution offered the
bank deposit slip for the P50,000 that the complaining witness deposited to Shayla's
bank account, and Shayla's social media photo of a new watch which costs P50,000
that she bought a day after the deposit was made.

Are the two pieces of evidence relevant?

Answer:

The bank deposit slip is relevant evidence. The offended party's inducement to part
with money because of the fraud is one element of Estafa. Thus, the fact in issue is
whether the offended party was induced to part with the P50,000. The bank deposit slip
is directly related to the fact of parting with the P50,000 in favor of Shayla, and is
therefore material. It also leads us to believe that the transfer of money to Shayla was
indeed completed, and thus has probative value. Since the bank deposit slip is material
and has probative value, it is relevant evidence.

The social media photo, on the other hand, is not relevant evidence. It is not directly
related to any element of the crime of Estafa and is thus immaterial. It also does not
lead us to believe in the existence of any fact in issue. It may lead us to believe that
Shayla bought a new watch for P50,000, but the purchase of the watch is not a fact in
issue.

COMPETENT EVIDENCE

In addition to relevance, admissible evidence must also be competent.

Under Rule 128, Section 3, evidence is competent if it "is not excluded by the law or
these rules." If a piece of evidence is disqualified by the law or the Rules of Court, then
it is not competent and will be inadmissible.

An example of evidence that is excluded by law, and is therefore inadmissible, is

evidence obtained unlawfully. Under the law even relevant evidence, if it was obtained
in violation of the rights of the accused should not be admitted by the courts.

This is called the EXCLUSIONARY Rule because the courts exclude the evidence from
admission into the records of the case and from the factual bases of the judgment.

The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained
from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a
 3

particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an application of the exclusionary rule. Under
this doctrine, if the tree (primary evidence) was obtained unlawfully, then its fruit
(derivative evidence) is also considered to have been obtained unlawfully. The tree and
the fruit are both inadmissible in evidence.

Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal

arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or violation of a particular
exclusionary law.

It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary evidence. The

doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. There must first be a primary
evidence which is determined to have been illegally obtained then secondary evidence
is obtained because of the primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is
inadmissible, any secondary evidence discovered or obtained because of it may not
also be used.

The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search or interrogation.
The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence discovered because of knowledge gained
from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation or violation of a law. It is based on
the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain
other evidence because the original illegally obtained evidence taints all those
subsequently obtained.

Example 1:

Jimmy was unlawfully arrested. During the arrest of Jimmy, the police officers also
seized an unregistered firearm which they found on his person. In court, the
prosecution offered the unregistered firearm as evidence.

Should the court admit the unregistered firearm as evidence?

Applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the court should exclude the
unregistered firearm. Since Jimmy was unlawfully arrested (the poisonous tree), then
the unregistered firearm (the fruit) is also considered unlawfully seized. The court
should therefore disallow the unregistered firearm from being entered into evidence.

Also excluded is evidence obtained in violation of the plain view doctrine. Under this
doctrine, when a law enforcement officer lawfully intrudes upon a particular area and
inadvertently discovers evidence of a crime, then the law enforcement officer may
lawfully seize the evidence. However, when the intrusion is unlawful or when the
discovery of the evidence is not in plain view, then the exclusionary rule applies. The
items seized in violation of the plain view doctrine cannot be admitted into evidence
because their seizure violates the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches
and seizures.

Example 2:

Police officers Rodriguez and Sacdalan enforced a search warrant for gambling
equipment in the resthouse of a suspected gambling lord who was being charged for
maintaining a gambling den. After completing the search, the officers made an
inventory of the items seized. In addition to the thirty video karera machines in the
 4

open area of the garage which they seized, Rodriguez included the fifteen kilos of
crystal meth, which he found on the center table in the living room Sacdalan on the
other hand, included three assault rifles which he found inside a closet in the master
bedroom.

Of the three types of evidence seized. Which will be considered competent evidence?

The video karera machines were specified in the search warrant and found in the open
area of the garage. These machines were lawfully obtained and are therefore
competent evidence.

The crystal meth, which Rodriguez found on top of the center table in the living room,
was discovered in plain view and is also competent evidence.

The assault rifles, however, were found inside a closet and were thus not in plain view.
Because the discovery of the assault rifles was deliberate, Sacdalan having opened
every cabinet in the house before finding them, the assault rifles will not be considered
competent evidence and will be excluded.

3 Kinds of Admissibility of Evidence

1. Multiple Admissibility

Evidence may be admissible for different purposes. Here are some examples:

While defending himself, Gino killed Jay. To prove self-defense, Gino testified that he
and Jay had previously had a physical altercation. The prosecution can also use the
same testimony to corroborate any evidence that shows Gino wanting to take revenge
on Jay.

In a case for illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution presented as evidence, the
Firearm seized from Candy to prove her illegal possession of it. Candy can use the very
same firearm, along with her Firearms License and License to Carry, to prove her
legitimate ownership and possession of the gun.

2. Curative Admissibility (fighting fire with fire)

This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to be presented by one
party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or present similar improper
evidence but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial effect of the opponent’s
inadmissible evidence.

The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence, for if he
did not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow him to present curative evidence.
The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are incompetent
due to an exclusionary rule

3. Conditional Admissibility
An evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily, subject to the
condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts will later be proven, or that the
party later submit evidence that it meets certain requirements of the law or rules. If the
conditions are not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the record.

Example: A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented subject to the

condition that the original be later presented
 5

B. Presentation of Evidence

Presentation of Evidence

Presentation of Evidence - Legal Basis

Offer of Evidence

When making its decision on a case, the court considers the objects, documents and
testimonies that are admitted into evidence. For the party presenting the evidence,
having the evidence presented by the court begins with making the formal offer of
evidence. To make the formal offer of evidence, counsel will identify the object,
document or testimony be offered. Counsel will then state the purpose for the evidence
or identify what fact in issue the evidence will prove or disprove. This is done orally
before the trial judge.
For testimonial evidence, the formal offer is made before the witnesses give their
testimony in open court.

For object or documentary evidence, the formal offer is made after the presentation of
testimonial evidence because witnesses must identify and authenticate the object or
documentary evidence during their testimony before these are formally offered. If
counsel fails to make a formal offer of the evidence, then the evidence will be excluded.

When an Objection is made …

As soon as the evidence appears to be irrelevant or incompetent, counsel (lawyer) must

make an objection. Evidence can appear to be irrelevant or incompetent as early as
when the formal offer is made or during the course of the testimony of the witness.
When counsel makes the objection before the court, counsel must specify the ground
for the objection, which may be the irrelevance or incompetence of evidence.

Illustration: The accused was charged for Illegal Gambling, Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, and Illegal Possession of Firearms. In the case for Illegal Possession
of Firearms,the prosecution called police officer to the stand for the purpose of proving
that he found the assault rifles when he opened the closet in the house of the accused.
The defense objected to the testimony on the ground of incompetence because the
testimony is a fruit of the poisonous tree, as it follows an illegal search and seizure that
violated the right of the accused.
 6

Ruling

Generally, the court makes the ruling immediately after the objection is raised.
However, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may also take a reasonable amount
of time to study the offer of and the objection to the evidence. In either case, the ruling
of the court is made during the trial.

After the court has allowed the testimony of witnesses, the witness will then be sworn
in. This means that the witness will take an oath or affirmation in open court. An oath is
a promise to tell the truth before a supreme being and is thus viewed as religious, while
an affirmation is a promise to tell the truth without mention of any supreme being and
is thus viewed non-religious.

Oath:I promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God.
Affirmation: I swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth.

The witness is considered to have taken the oath/affirmation when he/she said the
statement or replies with “I do” or “Opo” to the court officer.

Examination of Witnesses

In criminal cases, it is the prosecution that is typically given the first opportunity to
present a witness (unless the court orders a reverse trial, where the defense presents
evidence first).

This means that the prosecution goes first in asking its witness questions to establish
the allegations in the Information.

Direct Examination (Examination-in-Chief)

The examination of witnesses conducted by the party presenting the evidence-in-chief

is called direct examination.

In direct or re-direct examination, the presenting party can only ask NEUTRAL
questions or questions that do not suggest the desired answer to the witness.

Cross Examination

As a matter of due process, the opposing party is given the opportunity to question the
presenting party's witness. This questioning by the opposing party is called the
cross-examination.

In criminal cases, after the prosecution has completed the direct examination, the
defense will then be given the opportunity to do a cross-examination. During
 7

cross-examination, the defense can ask the witness questions to check if the witness is
qualified to be a witness, has personal knowledge of the allegations he or she has
testified about, and is saying the truth.

For example, the defense may ask an eyewitness about his or her distance from the
crime scene or the conditions at the crime scene to raise doubts about the truth of the
testimony of the witness.

Cross-examination, however, is not mandatory upon the opposing party.

Re-direct Examination

If upon cross-examination, the witness testifies about something that the presenting
party feels the need to clarify, the presenting party can take the opportunity to do a
re-direct examination after the cross-examination is concluded.

If the presenting party chooses to do away with a re-direct examination, then the
examination of the witness is completed.

Re-cross Examination

If the presenting party conducts a re-direct examination, the opposing party will also
be given the opportunity to conduct a re-cross examination. If the opposing party does
not conduct a re-cross examination, the examination of the Witness is completed.
Otherwise, the examination of the witness is completed after the re-cross examination
is finished.

After the examination of the witness is completed, can the witness still be called to the
witness stand? —-- it depends

To recall a witness, a party must ask for permission from the court (leave of
court). If the court finds that examining the witness again will serve the interests
of justice, then the court will grant the leave and allowed the witness to be
recalled for questioning. If there are not matters that can be taken up during the
witness’s testimony that can possibly change the judgment of the court, then the
court will most likely deny the application for leave, and witness cannot be
recalled for questioning.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (JAR) - 1 January 2013

● Statement of a witness given under oath, intended to take the place of their testimony
 8

in court during direct examination.

● It shall serve as the DIRECT testimonies of the parties and their witnesses when they
appear for their examination.
● The Q and A of the lawyer and witness shall be in written form.
● JAR applies to the first level courts, RTC, Sandiganbayan, CTA and other appellate
courts.
● JAR also applies to investigating officers (with the supervision of lawyer)
● If JA is submitted but the witness failed to appear, the court will NOT consider the
witness-affiant’s JA.
● In criminal cases, JA is mandatory where:
1. The maximum imposable penalty DOES NOT exceed six (6) years; and
2. Irrespective of the penalty, the accused agrees to use JA in lieu of direct
testimonies.

C. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Weight of Evidence - Legal Basis

Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law. Burden of proof never shifts.

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or

rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift from
one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of
the case.

The Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence to establish his or her
claim. In other words, the party who is making the allegations has the burden or duty
to prove his or her allegations.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof to establish the commission of the crime rests on
the prosecution, meaning the prosecution has the duty to prove that the accused
committed the felony or offense. The burden of proof never shifts-the party who makes
the allegation will always have the duty to prove his or her allegations throughout the
course of the entire proceedings. On the other hand, the Burden of evidence is the duty
of a party to present evidence to establish or rebut a fact in issue,to establish a prima
facie case.

Inevitably, while the Burden of proof always lies with the prosecution in criminal
proceedings, the Burden of evidence shifts when an affirmative defense is raised by the
accused, ie., self-defense in a homicide or murder case, or consensual sex in a rape
charge.
When the nature of the defense is one which on one hand admits the act complained of
but on the other, provides a legal justification or excuse for it, the order of the trial may
be reversed such that instead of the prosecution laying down its evidence first, the
defense must go first.

If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he
interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an
affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove
 9

such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Thus, when an affirmative defense is raised in a trial, the burden of evidence- not the
burden of proof- shifts on the defense. This means that the mere admission, ie. of killing
the victim but in the lawful act of self-defense, or of having sexual congress with the
complainant in a rape case but was consensual, already creates a prima facie case
against the accused. This would then require the defense to overthrow the prima facie
case that was mounted.

Standards of Proof

Preponderance of Evidence (Superior Weight of Evidence)

In civil cases, the court decides in favor of the party who presents preponderance of
evidence. This means that the court will consider the evidence presented by the parties
and render a decision favorable to the party whose evidence has superior weight.

For example, in an action where two parties are claiming ownership of a piece of land
the court will decide in favor of the party who presents superior evidence of the
ownership or title to the land. If the plaintiff produces the certificate of the title while
the defendant produces the contract of sale with a person whom the defendant knows
is not the owner of the property, then the court will rule in favor of the plaintiff. The
certificate of title is the better proof of ownership, and it has the superior weight of
evidence.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Highest standard of proof)

The highest standard of proof is required in criminal cases because the consequences
of finding for the prosecution are severe. When found guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
the accused could be imprisoned or required to pay heavy fines or damages.

There must moral certainty or sureness that the accused committed the crime as
judged by the person who is fair and unbiased.

Example: In a case for robbery, there can be moral certainty when the following pieces
of evidence are presented by the prosecution: the testimony of the victim that her
house was forcefully broken into, and that P50,000 was stolen from her, the CCTV
footage showing the accused breaking a window, taking money from the victim's bag,
and running out of the house, the fingerprints on the window frames and the broken
 10

glass matching those of the accused, the boot prints on the living room leading to the
garage matching the boot prints of the accused; and the testimony of a roving
barangay tanod who accosted the accused two streets away. On the other hand, should
the only evidence be the testimony of the victim that her house was forcefully broken
into, that P50,000 was stolen from her, and that she saw the accused earlier passing her
house as he walked down the street, there exists reasonable doubt as to whether there
was a robbery, and that the accused was the one who perpetrated it. There are no
pieces of evidence that corroborate that robbery has been committed, and there is no
positive identification of the perpetrator. It is important to note that in all cases,
satisfying the standard of proof does not mean presenting the greatest number of
witnesses, or object and documentary evidence. Trial courts, especially, have the duty
to consider the quality of the evidence presented. Even if a party introduces ten
witnesses as against the sole witness of the opposing party, the court can still make a
favorable judgment in favor of the party with the sole witness if the testimony of the
said witness is much more credible than the testimonies of the ten witnesses. In fact, in
cases where the testimonies are offered for the same purpose, the court can exercise
its discretion to stop the introduction of additional testimonies. Without anything new,
the court may rule that ten witnesses testifying that the accused sold them 50 units of
stolen computers does little to provide additional proof of the fact in issue and direct
that the witnesses be limited to a lesser number.

Substantial Evidence (least quantum of proof)

It is applicable in administrative actions, which, unlike judicial actions, do not include

conducting ful1-blown trials and are meant to be concluded with greater speed.

An administrative body can render a decision on the basis that the evidence presented
is evidence "which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion”. This means that the evidence can make a reasonable person believe that
the allegations have occurred.

An example of administrative action is a case for the illegal dismissal of an employee

before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a case for illegal dismissal,
the employer has the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized
cause. Therefore, it suffices that the dismissed employee provides evidence of his or her
employment and subsequent dismissal. To prove employment, the employee may
present the contract of employment and the company ID card, and to prove dismissal,
the employee may present the notice of termination. The evidence of employment and
dismissal are substantial evidence of the employee's illegal dismissal and are
considered an adequate basis for a decision unless the employer proves that the
dismissal was not illegal.

SUMMARY

1. Before allowing evidence, the courts decide on the admissibility of evidence.

2. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant and competent.
3. Relevant evidence is evidence that is material and has probative value.
4. Evidence is material when it has a relation to the fact in issue.
5. Evidence has probative value when it can induce belief into the existence or
nonexistence of the fact in issue.
6. Competent evidence is evidence that is not otherwise excluded by law, the Constitution,
or the Rules on Evidence
7. Evidence must be formally offered in court. Without a formal offer, evidence will be not
be considered.
8. The testimony of the witness must be offered before the witness testifies. Object and
 11

documentary evidence must be offered after the witness testifies.

9. The opposing party must object at the earliest opportunity to the irrelevance or
incompetence of the evidence that is formally offered.
10. The court must make its ruling on the objection immediately, pronouncing whether the
objection is overruled or sustained. If the objection was made on several grounds, the
court must specify the ground on which the ruling is based upon.
11. Witnesses are sworn in through an oath or affirmation before they are examined. The
order of the examination of witnesses is as follows: direct examination; cross-
examination; re-direct examination; and re-cross examination.
12. During cross-examination, witnesses may be asked leading questions or questions that
suggest to the witness the answer which the examining party desires.
13. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law. Burden of proof never shifts.
14. Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or
rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift from
one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of
the case.
15. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his or her case by a
preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence.
16. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his or her guilt is not
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means the evidence
produces moral certainty or conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
17. In administrative cases, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported oy
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.