The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:

The doctrine speaks of the illegally seized documents, papers and things are inadmissible
in evidence. The exclusion of such evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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

arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or violation of exclusionary
rule.

2. 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 illegally 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.

a. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest search and seizure, or
interrogation. The fruit of the poisonous tree is evidence discovered because of
knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest or interrogation or violation
of a law.
b. 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.

Exceptions to the two (2) principles – when evidence is still admissible despite the
commission of an illegal arrest, search or interrogation, or violation of a particular
exclusionary law.

1. Under the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery: Evidence is admissible even if

obtained through an unlawful arrest, search, interrogation, or violation of
exclusionary law, if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability that
normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the
evidence.
2. Independent Source Doctrine: Evidence is admissible if knowledge of the
evidence is gained from a separate or independent source that is completely
unrelated to the illegal act of the law enforcers.
3. Attentuation Doctrine: Evidence maybe suppressed only if there is a clear causal
connection between the illegal police action and the evidence.

REMEDY: By filing a Motion to Suppress the Evidence

EVIDENCE EXCLUDED BY THE CONSTITUTION

A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are inadmissible:

1. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and

seizure;
2. Evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and
correspondence except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or
order requires otherwise;
 3. Evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounselled, or
when the confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, or
when the confession was coerced; and
4. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination.

Evidence obtained by the following are not covered by the constitutional

provisions:

1. The security personnel or house detectives of hotels or commercial

establishments or schools;
2. Private security agencies even if they are guarding public or government
buildings/offices; and
3. Employers and their agents.

Kinds of Admissibility
1. Multiple Admissibility: Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or
more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for admissibility
therefore.
2. Curative Admissibility or “fighting fire with fire” or “Opening the Door”. This
treats upon the right of the party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adversed
party.

Three theories on Curative Admissibility:

a. American Rule: The admission of such incompetent evidence, without
objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by
similar incompetent evidence.
b. English Rule: If a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party
may resort to similar inadmissible evidence.
c. Massachusetts Rule: The adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar
incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by
the admission of the other party against whom it is admitted.

3. 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 received on condition that the other
facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence given will be stricken out,
FOR EXAMPLE: A photocopy of a document may be allowed to presented subject
to the condition that the original be later presented.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Establishes the existence of a fact in Does not prove the existence of a fact
issue without the aid of any inference in issue directly, but it merely provides
or presumption. for a logical inference that such fact
really exists.
The witness testifies directly of his Each proof is given of facts and
 own knowledge as to the main facts to circumstances from which the court
be proved may infer other connected facts which
reasonably follow according to the
common experience of mankind.

When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the accused?

It is sufficient for conviction if:

1. There is more than one circumstance;

2. The facts from which inferences are derived are proven;
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 4, Rule 133: People vs. Sevilleno, G.R. No.
152954, March 11, 2004)

POSITIVE EVIDENCE NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

When the witness affirms that the fact When the witness states that he did
did or did not occur. not see or know the occurrence e of a
fact and there is total disclaimer of
personal knowledge.
It is entitled to greater weight since A DENIAL is negative evidence. It is
the witness represents, of his own considered by jurisprudence as a very
personal knowledge, the presence or weak form of defense and denial can
absence of a fact. never overcome an affirmative or
positive testimony particularly when it
comes from the mouth of a credible
witness.

Example of Case Analysis:

Question: The barangay captain of Brgy. Luciano in Trece Martires City reported to the
police that Mr. X was illegally keeping in his house an Armalite M16 Rifle. On the strength
of that information, the police conducted search and seizure of the house of Mr. X and
indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the rifle and brought him to the police
station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a sworn statement that he was in
possession of said rifle without license or authority to posses, and a waiver of right to
counsel. During his trial for illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in
evidence the rifle, sworn statement, and waiver of right to counsel. As future police officer
or lawyer, kindly individually rule on the admissibility of evidence of the following:

1. Rifle;
2. Sworn Statement;
3. Waiver of right to counsel.