CLJ5- EVIDENCE

I. RULE 128

DEFINITION:
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec.
1)
Purpose of Evidence: to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of
fact in a judicial proceeding
The truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth
but one aptly referred to as the judicial or legal truth.
The 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)
It is guided by the Principle of Uniformity. As a general policy, the rules
on evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.
Only evidence that has been formally offered shall be considered by the
court. (Rule 132, Sec. 34)

Applicability:
The Rules on evidence generally applies in a Judicial Proceedings.
It does not apply to:
1. Election cases;
2. Land Registration cases;
3. Cadastral proceedings;
4. Naturalization proceedings;
5. Labor cases;
6. Impeachment cases;
7. Insolvency proceedings;
8. Other cases not mentioned in Sec 4, Rule 1 of the ROC.

Waiver of the Rules on Evidence

The rules on evidence may be waived. When otherwise objectionable
evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of
waiver.

May the parties stipulate waiving the rules on evidence? (Art 6, CC)
As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs and public
policy are transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated, the
rules on evidence may be waived.

Kinds of Evidence
The kinds of evidence under the rules and existing law and jurisdiction
are as follows:
1. Object or Real Evidence is the kind of evidence which is directly
addressed to senses of the court and consist of tangible things
exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court. (Rule 130, Sec.
1)

2. Documentary Evidence is an evidence which consist of writing,

recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or any mode of written
expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include
still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures
or videos. (Rule 130, Sec. 2, amended)

3. Testimonial Evidence is an oral evidence given by the witness on

the witness stand or in any proceeding.

4. Direct Evidence is a kind of evidence if proves the fact in issue. It

is not only the source of the conclusion of the trial court. Direct
evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court
may draw its conclusion and findings of guilt. The rules of evidence
allow the trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support
its conclusion of guilt.

5. Circumstantial Evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or

series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by
inference.

 Four Basic Guidelines in the Appreciations of

Circumstantial Evidence:
A. It should be acted upon with caution
B. All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of
guilt
C. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
D. The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused
as to convince the judge beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused is the one who committed the offense.

 Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction

provided the following requisites concur:

A. There is more than one circumstance

B. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
C. The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
*Inferences cannot be based on other inferences (Sec.4, Rule
133, RoC)

All the circumstance proved must be considered with each other, and they
are not to be taken together a proof.
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction and such conviction
can be upheld provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and erasable conclusion that points to the
accused to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense vis-a-vis direct evidence.

6. Demonstrative Evidence is the kind of evidence which demonstrate

the real thing.

7. Corroborative Evidence is kind of evidence which merely

supplements evidence which has already been given tending to
strengthen the same. It is deemed necessary only when there are
reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the
truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.

8. Cumulative Evidence is kind of evidence in which is of the same

kind and character tending to prove the same proposition.

9. Positive Evidence (Testimony) is kind of evidence in which a

witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. In rape cases,
Positive identification of rape victim prevails over alibi/denial of the
accused if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

10. Negative Evidence is a testimony that certain fact did not

exist. Denial and alibi are negative evidence. The well-established
rule is that denial and alibi are self- serving negative evidence; they
cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and credible
testimonies of the prosecution witness who pointed to and
identified the accused-appellant as the malefactor.

11. Prima facie evidence are evidence which, if unexplained or

uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports
or establish a facts – prima facie means it is ‘’sufficient to establish
a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.’’

12. Conclusive Evidence is evidence which establishes the fact.

13. Substantial Evidence is the level of relevant evidence which a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
In proceedings before administrative and quasi-judicial agencies,
the quantum of the evidence required to establish a fact is
substantial evidence. (Sec. 6, Rule 133)

14. Preponderance of Evidence refers to the comparative weight

of the evidence presented by the opposing parties. As such, it has
been defined as “the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side,” and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater
weight of the credible evidence. It is proof that is more convincing
to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.(Republic vs. Bakunawa)

15. Proof of Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the required quantum

of evidence in order to convict an accused. A judgement of
 conviction must rest on nothing less moral certainty in
unprejudiced mind that it was the accused who committed the
crime, failing which the accused must be exonerated. If the
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing the guilt
of the accused, it is unnecessary to still pass on the accused’s
defense.

16. Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of evidence which

establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a firm belief on the
existence of the fact in issue. It is more than preponderance of
evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

17. Competent Evidence is kind of evidence which is not

otherwise excluded bylaw or by the rules. (Rule 128, Sec.3)

18. Incompetent evidence is kind of evidence which is excluded

by law or by the rule

19. Relevant Evidence is a kind of evidence which has relation to

the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Sec 3)

20. Material Evidence is one that is directed to prove a fact in

issue as determined by the rules on substantive law and pleadings.

21. Rebuttal Evidence is any component evidence to explain,

repel, counteract, or disprove adversary’s proof. It is receivable
only where new matters have been developed by the evidence of
one of the parties and is generally limited to a reply to new
matters.

22. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence are evidence in reply to or to rebut

new matter introduced in rebuttal.

23. Primary Evidence is a kind of evidence which assures the

greatest certainty of fact sought to be proved, and which does not
in itself, indicate the existence of other

24. Evidence in chief is the primary and main evidence

presented by the parties to prove their cause or defense.

25. Newly Discovered Evidence is a ground for new trial, and

requires the concurrence of the following conditions:
i. the evidence must have been discovered after trial;
ii. the evidence could not have been discovered at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
iii. the evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and
iv. the evidence must affect the merits of the case and produce
a different result if admitted.
 Civil cases Criminal Cases
No presumption as to either Accused is presumed
party innocent until proven
otherwise

Offer of compromise does NOT Offer of compromise is

amount to admission of implied admission of guilt
liability

The quantum of proof is The quantum of proof is guilt

preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt

“Patient-Physician” privilege “Patient-Physician” cannot

may or may not be applied be invoke by the Physician
or the accused

Dying declaration is not In certain cases, dying

admissible declaration is admissible

Factum Probandum vs Factum Probans

 Factum Probandum is the ultimate fact to be established
and the result of factum probans. Being the end result, it is
subject to being weight.

 Factum Probans is the evidentiary fact or facts by which

factum probandum is to be established. It is subject to the
rules of admissibility.

Admissibility of Evidence

Rule 128, Sec. 3

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the Constitution, the law or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec. 3)
REQUISITES
 It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved;
 It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by the
Constitution, the law or the rules; and
 It must be formally offered

COMPETENT EVIDENCE
 Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the
Constitution, law or rules in a particular case. The test of
competence is the laws or rules. In relation to evidence in general,
competence refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as
such.
  When applied to a witness, competence refers to the qualifications
of the witness. The objection should specify the ground for its
incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
 For purposes of trial objections, evidence is never incompetent. It
is people who are.

Test to determine admissibility:

The purpose to which the evidence is offered must be considered.
Evidence may be admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for
another.

KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. Multiple Admissibility - where the evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes, such evidence must be
admitted for any or all of the purposes for which it was offered.
 Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against
another.
 It must be remembered that the purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified because such evidence may be
admissible for several purposes.

B. Conditional Admissibility - where the evidence at the time of its

offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant, unless it is connected
with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may
be admitted on the condition that the other facts shall be proved
thereafter.

C. Curative Admissibility - this doctrine treats upon the right of a

party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the
court admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse
party.

 Does the concept of curative admissibility refer to a situation

where incompetent evidence was erroneously received by the
court despite absence of objection from the other party? The
principle of curative admissibility should not be made to
apply the evidence admitted without objection because the
failure to object constitutes a waiver of the inadmissibility of
the evidence.

Time to determine Admissibility of Evidence

 At the time it is offered to the court and must be offered
orally. (Rule 132, Sec. 35)
 In case of documentary or object evidence, when it is
presented to the court for viewing or evaluation;
 In case of testimonial evidence, at the time the witness is
called at the witness stand/ to testify;
  In case of documentary evidence, when it is formally offered
and before resting of the case.

Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from Probative weight of

Evidence:
 Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not
the circumstance is to be considered at all, on the other hand,
probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not
it proves an issue. (Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and
Editha Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, February 2011)

Admissibility of Evidence DISTINGUISHED from Credibility of

Evidence: Admissibility Refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow
the evidence, while credibility of evidence refers to the worthiness of
belief of the evidence.

Admissibility under the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200)

1. Evidence obtained in violation of RA 4200 shall not be admissible
in evidence:
a. Judicial
b. Quasi-judicial
c. Legislative
d. Administrative

A person who did not participate in tapping wire or cable or using

dictaphone may be liable under Sec 1 of RA 4200. This is because
the law also considers it unlawful to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any such record or copies.

It is also unlawful to replay the same to any other person. Even

communicate, either verbally or in writing to another. Also, the
furnishing of transcriptions of the recorded communication, whether
complete or partial, to any other person. And also, those who
willfully or knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done the act
described.

The acts mentioned as punishable would NOT constitute a violation

of the law if done by a peace officer authorized by a written order of
the court in cases involving:
a) Treason
b) Espionage
c) Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
d) Piracy
e) Mutiny in the high seas
f) Rebellion
g) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
h) Inciting to rebellion
i) Sedition
j) Conspiracy to commit sedition
k) Inciting to sedition
l) Kidnapping
m) Violations of CA 616
n) Other offenses against national security.

Surveillance of suspects, interception and recording of

communications under the Human Security Act of 2007: Sec 7,
RA 4200 notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official may
listen to, intercept and record, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or written or spoken words bet the ff:
a. Members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organizations, assoc, or group of persons
b. Any person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism

The above acts may be done only with written order of the Court.
Such written order shall be granted only upon a written application
by a police or law enforcement official who is authorized by the Anti-
Terrorism Council to file such application. It only requires an ex
parte application.

Before the written order is issued, the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce shall be examined under oath or affirmation to
establish the ff matters:
a) There is a probable cause to believe that the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is being
committed, or is about to be committed.
b) There is a probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances that evidence essential to the
conviction of the charged or suspected person, or evidence that
would solve or prevent the crime, will be obtained
c) There is no other effective means readily available for acquiring
such evidence. (Sec 8, RA 9372)

The authorization shall be effective for the length of time specified

in the written order which shall not exceed 30 days from the date of
receipt of the written order by the applicant. The period may be
renewed for a non- extendible period of 30 days from the expiration
of the original period upon proper application (Sec 10, RA 9372)

 Whether a person should be liable under RA 4200 for

listening to a conversation which he was not authorized to
listen to using a telephone extension line? No. Telephone
party lines were deleted from the final provisions of the law. It
was held that an extension telephone line cannot be placed
under the category of the enumerated devices.

 Whether or not illegally wire-tapped recordings are

admissible in impeachment proceedings? Not settled. An
impeachment proceeding is SUI GENERIS (of its own kind or
class) If an impeachment proceeding in the Philippines is a
 class of its own, there would seem to be no reason therefore, to
prevent the admissibility of illegally- procured recordings.
 It does not consider it unlawful to record open and public
communication.

 If only one party authorizes the recording and the other does
not, there is a violation of the law.

Inadmissible evidence in connection with arrests, searches and

seizures
A 1988 landmark case, People v Aminnudin demonstrates the
inadmissibility of evidence due to the legal infirmity of an arrest for
noncompliance with the requisites of the flagrante delicto
exception. The SC ruled that the accused was not, at the moment
of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was
about to do so or had just done so.

It is settled that reliable information alone, absent any overt act

indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto.

In Lagman, the Court likewise ratiocinated that illegal possession

of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent
is not an essential element, but the prosecution must prove the
intent to posses (animus possidendi)

Possession is not only actual. Constructive possession exists when

the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when
he has the right to exercise.

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS

 RELEVANT EVIDENCE
A kind of evidence which has relation to the fact in issue (Sec. 3,
Rule 128). There is no precise and universal test of relevancy
provided by law. Determination of relevancy is largely at the
discretion of the court in accordance to the teachings of logic and
every day experience.

 Collateral Evidence when it is on a “parallel or diverging line,”

merely “additional” or “auxiliary”. The term connotes a direct
connection between the evidence and the mater in dispute.

Example: Although evidence of character is generally inadmissible,

the accused may provide his good moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a witness
1. Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or the lack of it, is
always relevant.
2. The importance of the credibility of a witness in a judicial
proceeding is highlighted by rules which allow the adverse party
to test such credibility through a process called “cross-
examination”
3. Questions outside the subject matter of the direct examination
are not allowed.

II. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

(Rule 129)

What need not be Proved

A. Facts that do not need introduction of evidence.
i. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice (sec 1 &2, Rule
129);
ii. Judicial admission (ibid., sec 4);
iii. Facts which may be presumed from proven facts (sec 2&3, Rule 131)
iv. Where the facts are deemed established as a result
v. of a refusal to comply with an order to make recovery (ibid., sec 3
(a), 29)
vi. Upon failure to seasonably respond to a notice of admission (ibid.,
sec 2 (1), 26

Matters of Judicial Notice JUDICIAL NOTICE

It means what is known need not be proved.” It means no

more than the court will bring to its aid and consider without proof
of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which
are known by all well-informed persons. (People vs. Lotis, 1991-CR,
December 13, 1982)

Requisites:
1. It must be a matter of general or common knowledge;
2. In case of foreign law, it must be proved like any other fact
except when the court has actual knowledge of the foreign law or
when the court has already ruled upon in a case involving the
said foreign law.

Purpose:
1. Taking the place of proof in connection with the issue in the
case;
2. To abbreviate the proceedings.

2 kinds of JUDICIAL NOTICE

 a. Mandatory
b. Discretionary

WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE MANDATORY?

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence:
1. The geographical divisions. (Rule 129, Sec. 1)
2. The existence and territorial extent of states;
3. Their political history;
4. Forms of government and symbols of nationality;
5. The law of nations;
6. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
7. The political constitution and history of the Philippines;
8. The official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the Philippines;
9. The laws of nature;
10. The measure of time;
11. The geographical divisions. (Rule 129, Sec. 1)

COMMENT: The new rule clarifies that only the official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National
Government are those subject of mandatory judicial notice.
Consequently, the official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of local government units are generally not
subject of mandatory judicial notice. (Señga)

Other matters that the court should take judicial notice

mandatorily:
1. Amendment of the Rules of Court;
2. Decision of the Supreme Court;
3. Official acts or declaration of the President;
4. Banking practices;
5. Financial status of the Government;
6. Powers of the President;
7. Court Records. (Tan, Evidence: A Compendium for the Bench
and the Bar)

WHEN IS JUDICIAL NOTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
1. Public knowledge;
 Things of “common knowledge” of which the courts take
judicial matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in
the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or. They may be
matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and
are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.

2. Are capable of unquestionable demonstration;

 Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration pertain to
fields of professional and scientific knowledge.

3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial

 functions. (Rule 129, Sec.2)
 Judicial Notice and Knowledge of the Judge
Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to know
because of their judicial functions. But judicial notice is not judicial
knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not judicial
knowledge of the court and he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
known.

 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS; DOCTRINE OF

PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
It is well settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreign laws. It must be alleged and proved. In the
absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as
the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of
processual presumption.

Exception: However, where the foreign law is within the actual

knowledge of the court such as when the law is generally well
known, has been ruled upon in previous cases before it and none of
the parties claim otherwise, the court may take judicial notice of the
foreign law.

When the foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or

pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert in the subject, the court, it is submitted, may take judicial
notice of the treatise containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130).

 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Under the Philippine Constitution (Sec. 2, Art II). Being parts of the
law of the land, they are therefore, technically in the nature of local
laws and hence, are subject to mandatory judicial notice.

 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES

Municipal courts must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in
force in the municipality in which they sit. Likewise, with the RTC,
but only when so required by law.
 The CA may take judicial notice of. Municipal Ordinances
because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from taking
cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable
demonstration.

Judicial Admission
It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course
of the proceedings in the same case which dispenses with the need
for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be
contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (Sec 4, Rule
129)

EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

1. They do not require proof
2. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive
upon the party making it

EXCEPTIONS
1. Upon showing that the admission was made through palpable
mistake
2. When the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.