Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence: Justicis Nemini Neganda Est
Evidence: Justicis Nemini Neganda Est
Evidence: Justicis Nemini Neganda Est
EVIDENCE
BASIC CONCEPTS
Applicability - The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only
to judicial proceedings. (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court)
It is a well settled procedural principle that the Rules of Court shall not
apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases, except by analogy or in suppletory
character and whenever practical and convenient. (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Rules of Court)
Also the rules on evidence does not apply to administrative, quasi-
judicial and court martial cases.
However the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to all civil actions and
proceedings as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. (Sec. 2, Rule 1,
Rules on Electronic Evidence)
Scope - The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
The rules of evidence are applicable to both civil and criminal cases because
the law does not distinguish.
EXCEPTION: When the law specifically provides the procedure in receiving
evidence. (Sec. 2, Rule 128, Rules of Court)
2 Kinds of Facts:
2. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts which are necessary for the
determination of the ultimate facts
Premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
Brought forward as a reality to convince the tribunal that the factum
probandum is also real
1. Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is
merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the
mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
2 AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
1. Axiom of Relevancy -None but facts having rational probative value are
admissible; and
2. Axiom of Competency - All facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission.
Competent Evidence
If the test of relevancy is logic and common sense, the test of competence
is the law or the rules.
The question to be asked is whether the evidence is allowed by the law or
by the rules, for if allowed, such is competent and if not, it is incompetent.
Competency when applied to a witness refers to his eligibility to take the
stand and to testify. For purposes of trial objections, it is sloppy to object to a
testimony or a document as incompetent for the term is appropriately directed to
wa witness.
As for electronic evidence, it is competent and admissible if it complies and
is authenticated in the manner prescribed. (Sec. 3, Rule 3, Rules of Electronic
Evidence)
Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible
in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its
failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it offered for
another purpose does not exclude it.
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.
2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational probative value are admissibile
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissibile unless prohibited by
some specific rule.
Kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be controverted
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts by the court w/o proof because they
are facts, which, by common experience, are of universal knowledge among
intelligent persons w/in a country or community
Atillo v CA
FACTS : Petitioner filed a collection case against L Petitioner claims that L made a
judicial admission of his personal liability in the answer.
HELD : Petitioner took the admissions out of context. The general rule is that
judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and does not require
proof. Exception to the rule is when there is palpable mistake or when no such
admission was in fact made. “Such” means that the statement is not in the sense
in which the admission is made to appear.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Object Evidence
Object (Real) Evidence – that which is addressed directly to the sense of the court
without the intervention of a witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or
touch. A.K.A autoptic proference.
Documentary Evidence
Original of a document
1. the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry
2. when a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time
with identical contents
3. when an entry is repeated in the regular course of the business
Secondary Evidence- that which shows that better or primary evidence exists
as to the proof of the fact in question.
It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue, it
being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable
To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of mistake, the
concurrence of three things is necessary:
1. mistake should be one of fact
2. mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence
2 kinds of ambiguities
1. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is unintelligible
2. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument are clear but their
application to the circumstances is doubtful
Classes of Documents
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is
a correct copy of the original copy, or a specific part thereof, and must
be under the official seal of the attesting officer or his court.
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and
testaments; and
(b) a copy thereof attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed
to be.
Interpretation of Documents
Construction is the process or the art of determining the sense, real meaning,
or proper explanation of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions in a
statute, written instrument or oral agreement, or the application of such
subject to the case in question
Interpretation is the art or process of discovering and expounding the
meaning of a statute, will, contract or other written document
Testimonial Evidence
Distinguish between the marital disqualification rule and the privileged marital
communication rule.
Privileged Communications
6. Public officers
Requisites:
a. confidential communication
b. made to or obtained by a public officer
c. obtained in the exercise of his public function
d. disclosure of the communication would be detrimental to the public interest
Parental and Filial privilege - No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children, or other direct descendants.
Notes:
• This provision does not apply to spouses.
Admission Confession
Admission Confession
Exceptions:
(3) Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant after being
apprised of such confession (People v. Narciso);
(4) If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as
corroborative evidence (People v. Linde);
(6) Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant (People v. Villanueva);
The following are not admissions of liability or guilt and are therefore not
admissible in evidence:
2. by conspirator
Requisites:
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
b. admission relates to the common object
c. that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy
3. by privies
Requisites:
1. Relation of privity between party and declarant;
2. Admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest, while holding
title to the property;
3. The admission was in relation to said property.
Distinguish :
Self-serving declaration Declaration against interest
Not admissible since introduction Admissible notwithstanding its
would open door to frauds and hearsay character
perjuries
5. Common reputation
Requisites:
(3) On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is sufficiently acquainted with
the former or if the latter is an expert witness;
(5) On ordinary matters known to all men of common perception, such as the
value of ordinary household articles (Galian v. State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
Exceptions:
(2) Prosecution may only prove accused’s bad moral character pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged during rebuttal.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
Exceptions:
(2) By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
bad;
(3) By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with
his present testimony (a.k.a. “prior inconsistent statements”)
(a) Confronting the witness with the prior inconsistent statements with the
circumstances under which they were made;
(c) Giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency. (Rule 132, Sec. 13)
1. On cross-examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness
who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble-mind, or a deaf-mute
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent
of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it be to
the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense.
Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
Objections:
- Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made.
- Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a
witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent.
- An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
- The grounds for the objections must be specified.
Ruling:
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time
as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. If the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on
one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
Striking out answer. - Should a witness answer the question before the adverse
party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt - does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.
Power of the court to stop further evidence. - The court may stop the introduction
of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with
caution.