J.

 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE?

 Primary evidence is the evidence which the law regards as affecting the greatest certainty of the fact in question. (Q: is this similar to
original evid?)
o Rule 130, sec. 3: original document must be produced – when the subject of inquiry is the conents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record.

 
 Secondary evidence – inferior or substitutionary evidence, that which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of
information.
o Rule 130, sec. 5: When original document is unavailable (lost, destroyed, cannot be produced in court)

In the case of  Eugenio San Juan Geronimo vs. Karen Santos, September 28, 2015, it was held that the concurrence of the secondary
evidence relied upon by both courts a quo does not sufficiently establish the one crucial fact in the case. If the   primary evidence  was not the
one envisioned by law, it should bar the introduction of secondary evidence.
 

K. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

 
 Direct evidence means evidence which if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption. It proves a
fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.

 
 Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established.
 

When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact. The court, thus, uses a
fact from which an assumption is drawn.

        Reference: Marlon Bacerra vs. People of the Philippines  (G.R. No. 204544  July 3, 2017)

L. DIFFERENTIATE POSITIVE FROM NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.

 
 Positive evidence is when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does not exist or that a certain event happened.

 Positive evidence is, as a general rule, more credible than negative evidence. However, the reason for this rule is that the witness who
testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed (Gomez v.
Gomez-Samson, G.R. No. 156284, February 6, 2007).

 
 Negative is when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.

Evidence that is negative is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear
and positive evidence (People v. Larranaga, supra).
M. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMPETENT AND A CREDIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
 
 Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Volume 5, 1980,
citing Porter v. Valentine, 18 Misc. Rep. 213, 41 N.Y.S. 507; Hart v. Newland, 10 N.C. 122; Ryan v. Town ofBrisol, 63 Conn., 26, 27,
Ml 309)

 Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as such. However, when applied to
a witness, the term competent refers to the qualifications of the witness.
 

 Credible piece of evidence refers to the worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of belief. It means
“believability.” (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 330). The meaning of credibility in law is exactly what it means in ordinary usage:
"believability." After the competence of a witness is allowed, the consideration of his credibility follows.

AUGUST 14:

III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

 Rule 128, sec. 3: admissible when –
o 1) relevant to the issue; and
o 2) not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the ROC. (Competent)

(Note: 2 req. must concur)

 Example: a defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a pistol first at the accused without the latter’s
provocation. The testimony of an eyewitness is competent and the matters testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. The testimony
is thus, admissible. Competent and relevant (Riano, 2006).

 Exclusionary rules of evidence: Art. 3

o Section 3
o Section 12 (1-3)
o Section 17

Note: (Heir of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa) The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers
to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the
admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence

1. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

a. RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
 Rule 128, sec. 4: must have relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
- Requires the existence of a fact in issue (disputed fact)
 Test: No precise universal test. It rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and
everyday experience (P. v. Galleno)
 b. COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE
 Determined by the applicable rules that call for repudiation of evidence due to a legal proscription (Peralta, 2020).

NOTE: evid is admissible if it can rationally influence the mind to a disputed fact and if the process of persuasion is not excluded legally (Peralta,
2020).

2. KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY

a. Multiple admissibility – admissible for a specific purpose to which it must be confined and admissible to prove a fact (Peralta, 2020).
 For appreciation of the doctrine of multiple admissibility – a specific offer of the evidence for a particular purpose
is important because evidence is admissible for one purpose BUT it may not be permitted for another goal.
 Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation v. Titan-Ikeda Construction – the purpose for which evidence is
offered must be specified.
 Otherwise, the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection

Example:
1. (Several Purpose) A birth certificate primarily proves the fact of a person's birth but it may also be offered to prove who his
parents are and where he was born.

2. (One Purpose) A statement that does not qualify as a dying declaration may be admitted as part of res gestae (things done); or
tangible evidence may be received as either documentary or object evidence or both.

b. Curative (opening-the-door rule/ invited-error rule) – permits a party to introduce incompetent evidence to equalize (neutralize) the
admission by the court of incompetent evidence presented by the adverse party (Peralta, 2020).
 A situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously received by the court despite the objection from the other
party (Riano, 2006).
 Not apply where evidence was admitted without objection because of a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence.
 Where the objection is erroneously overruled, the court must allow the party to introduce evidence to contradict the
evidence improperly admitted. (For FAIRNESS)
 Fight with fight

Example: action for damages arising from car accident: the plaintiff introduced evidence to show that on several occasions, the
defendant in the past injured pedestrians because of his negligence. – inadmissible (Rule 130, sec. 34)
 The court must give the party against whom evidence was admitted to counteract the prejudice which the improperly
admitted evidence may have caused.

c. Conditional – it happens frequently enough that the relevancy of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it was offered. The
proponent of evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to
establish its relevancy and competency at a later time. Otherwise, upon motion of the adverse party, the court may strike out from the record
the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted (Riano, 2006).

3. ADMISSIBILITY VS. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade. The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by
which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the
 truth. The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but
depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
 
 "Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the
question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue." "Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence. Reference : Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP ( G.R.
204289 dated Nov. 22, 2017)

The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of
evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a
particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
rules of evidence (Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan v. Cormoposa, 408 SCRA 692). Admissibility is one thing, weight is another. To admit
evidence and not to believe it are not incompatible with each other (Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
151857, April 28, 2005).

Stated in another way, the admissibility of evidence should not be equated with the weight of the evidence. The admissibility of the evidence
depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade. A particular item of
evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation with the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence
(Tating v. Marcella, G.R. No. 155208, March 27, 2007).

4. What are the two maxims of admissibility of evidence?

 
The Exclusionary Rule Principle – the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from the illegal arrest, unreasonable search or
coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.

The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence
proves.    

The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining
the evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence will be
admissible.
 

The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree   

1. 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.

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 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.

a. 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.

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.  

5. What are two requisites of admissibility?

Section 3, rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that an evidence is admissible when it is:
1. Relevant
2. Competent (not excluded by the law or Rules)

6. When is evidence considered relevant?

 has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
 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 in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (Rule 128
Section 4a)

Evidence to be relevant must have such a relation to the act in issue as to induce the belief in its existence or nonexistence.

Relevant is synonymous with pertinent. It can be said that the evidence is relevant if it has a rational connection or relationship to the factual
matter that a party seeks to prove. Relevancy is descriptive of the proper relationship between the factum probandum and factum probans.

7. What is the test of relevancy of evidence?

The relevance is a matter of relationship between the evidence and a fact in issue. The determination of relevance is thus, a matter of
inference and not of law. The test would therefore be one of logic, common sense and experience.

NOTE: The matter of relevance is a matter that is addressed to the Court (People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761). Accordingly, there is no
precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at
the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience

McCormick suggests the following inquiry for determining relevance: Does evidence offered tender the desired inference more probable that
it would be without the evidence? If evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue, it is admissible because it
is relevant.

8. When is evidence considered competent?

An evidence is considered competent when it is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. The test to determine its competence is
the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent.

9. What is the difference between the relevancy and competency of evidence?

        Reference : Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP ( G.R. 204289 dated Nov. 22, 2017)

(The matter discussed on this case is the difference between admissibility and weight of evidence which is letter I. Thus, this table provides
the difference of relevancy and competency from different resources)

Relevancy of evidence Competency of Evidence

Deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact to be Refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as
proved. such.

The matter of relevance requires the existence of a fact in issue. This fact in It requires the evidence to be eligible and not excluded
issue must be a disputed fact. (Its application is on facts.) by a law. Also, if applied to a witness, the term
competent refers to the qualifications of the witness.

TEST: The relevance is a matter of relationship between the evidence and a fact It is the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule
in issue. The determination of relevance is thus, a matter of inference and not of excludes the evidence, it is incompetent.
law. The test would therefore be one of logic, common sense and experience.

10. WHAT ARE RULES OF EXCLUSION IN GENERAL?

 
 Evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded
from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
  

11. WHAT IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

 
 enables courts to exclude evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in violation of a constitutional
provision, law, and the Rules of Court.
 
Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible,
then such evidence will be admissible.

 Note: The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: The exclusionary rule is also extended to exclude evidence which is derived or
directly obtained from that which was illegally seized.

12. GIVE 5 RULES OF EXCLUSION PROVIDED IN SUBSTANTIVE LAWS.

1. R.A 4200 or The Anti-wiretapping act excludes evidence obtained through any of the following ways:
 
a. By using any device to secretly eavesdrop, overhear, intercept or record any communication or spoken word

b. By the unauthorized tapping of any wire or cable as to communications used via telephone/cable, as opposed to verbal
communications
 
2. Exclusion of objects which are offensive to man’s sensibilities or repulsive objects
 
a. Waste matters, human excreta

b. Carcasses of dead animals

c. Killing of an animal to prove a substance is poison

3. Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 2, Section 3(1)(2), Section 12 (1) (2) (3) and Section 17.
 
The exclusion provided is absolute in the sense that the inadmissibility applies to all cases, whether civil, criminal or administrative, and for
all purposes. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by law enforcers or other authorized agencies of the government. It
does not apply if the evidence was obtained by private persons such as private security personnel or private detectives even if they perform
functions similar to the police.

 
13. GIVE 5 RULES OF EXCLUSION FOUND IN PROCEDURAL LAWS ASIDE FROM THE RULES OF  COURT.
 
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 uncounseled, or when the confessant was not properly informed of his
constitutional rights, or when the confession was coerced
 
4. Evidence obtained in violation of  the right against self-incrimination
 
5. Evidence obtained in violation of the Chain of Custody rule in illegal drug cases
 

14. ENUMERATE (ONLY) THE RULES OF EXCLUSION FOUND IN THE RULES OF COURT.
 
 Testimonial Evidence obtained from a witness disqualified
a. by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity
b. by reason of marriage
c. by reason of death or insanity of adverse party
d. by reason privileged communication