INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED

RULES ON EVIDENCE
(Chapter 1 – Preliminary
Considerations)
ATTY. CLARK JAY M. LIM, J.D., R.N.
1ST SEMESTER – 2021
College of Criminal Justice Education Department
Sources of Rules on Evidence

 PRIMARY SOURCES:
 Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
 A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, which introduced amendments thereto, and which took effect on May
1, 2020

 SECONDARY SOURCES:
 The 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly on Sections 2, 3, 12, 14, 17, Article III (Bill of
Rights) and Article VIII (Judicial Department).
 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, otherwise known as, the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took
effect on August 1, 2001.
 A.M. No. 004-07-SC, otherwise known as, the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness, which
took effect on December 15, 2000.
 Jurisprudence (Decisions of the Supreme Court).
Evidence, as Defined by the Rules

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting
a matter of fact (Section 1, Rule 128, Revised Rules of
Court).
 Definition of Evidence, as Explained

 “means, sanctioned by these Rules” – it means that the procedure in ascertaining the truth as a matter
of fact is provided by the Rules on Evidence.
 “of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding” – the Rules on Evidence are applicable only to controversies
which are decided upon by the regular courts of law (RTCs, MTCs, etc.) As a general rule, regular
courts of law do not include quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies but they are not precluded
from applying the Rules on Evidence in their own proceedings.
 “the truth”
 Objective of the Rules – to render justice by ascertaining the truth.
 Factual or Moral Truth – refers to the truth which the courts seek to know.
 Judicial Truth – the truth which has been proven in court by means of the evidence presented.
 Ideal or Perfect Justice – when the factual or moral truth becomes the judicial truth.
 “respecting a matter of fact” – the Rules on Evidence apply to controversies which are capable of being
ascertained in a judicial proceeding (does not include religious or political controversies).
Dual Concept of Evidence

It refers to the very materials presented in court

consisting of objects, documents, or oral narration
of witnesses.

It is a system, process or methodology of proving a

fact.
Factum Probandum vs. Factum Probans

 Factum Probandum – the ultimate fact to be proven, or the

proposition to be established (Ex. The existence of debt)

 Factum Probans – the evidentiary facts by which the factum

probandum will be proved (Ex. The existence of a contract of loan
evidencing debt.)
Evidence vs. Proof

 Evidence
 It is a medium of proof
 It is the means of ascertaining the truth
 It is brought forward as a reality to convince the court that factum probandum is
also a reality.

 Proof
 It is the effect or result of evidence
 It is the result of the probative effect of evidence
 It is the persuasion of the mind resulting from the consideration of the evidence.
 Classification of Evidence
Direct vs. Circumstantial
Direct Evidence – that which proves the disputed fact without resorting
to inference or presumptions (Ex. Witness that he saw A stabbed B with
a knife)
Circumstantial Evidence – that fact or series of facts which, taken
singly or collectively, give rise to an influence that a particular fact
indeed exists. Applies in the case where there is no eyewitness. (Ex.
Fingerprints of the accused A were found in a crime scene of murder +
Witness saw A and B arguing minutes before the time of B’s murder.)
NOTE: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (1) there is one more circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
 Classification of Evidence
Positive vs. Negative
Positive Evidence – that which affirms that a fact does exist or that a
certain a event happened (Ex. Testimony of W that he saw P fire a gun
at A.)
Negative Evidence – that which denies the occurrence of an event or
existence of a fact (Ex. Testimony of accused P that he could not have
fired the gun because he was not armed during the incident – a form of
denial.) (Another example: Testimony of W that the accused was at
their birthday party when the crime was committed – a form of alibi.)
NOTE: The defense of denial is the weakest form of defense. It cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. Denials are considered with
suspicion and received with caution because they can be easily fabricated and concocted (People vs. Salahuddin)
 Classification of Evidence

Primary vs. Secondary

Primary Evidence – that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of the fact in question (Ex. The original copy of the contract
of loan between A and B)
Secondary Evidence – that which is necessarily inferior and shows on
its face that a better evidence exists (Ex. A photocopy of the lost
original copy of the contract of loan between A and B.)
 Classification of Evidence

Conclusive vs. Prima facie (Disputable)

Conclusive Evidence – may either be (1) that which the law regards as
incontrovertible or cannot be contradicted (Ex. Judicial admissions); or
(2) that the effect of which overwhelms any evidence to the contrary
(Ex. DNA profile of a child B confirming A as father prevails over the
latter’s denial).
Prima facie Evidence – in the eyes of the law, it is that which is
sufficient to establish a fact, until disproved, rebutted, contradicted or
overcome by a contrary proof.
 Classification of Evidence
Cumulative vs. Corroborative
Cumulative Evidence – refers to additional evidence of the same kind
tending to prove the same point (Ex. Witness A testifies that he saw A
stabbed B. The testimony of two other witnesses B and C who have
seen the same thing is cumulative evidence.)
Corroborative Evidence – refers to additional evidence of a different
kind but tending to prove the same point. It is evidence which confirms
or supports (Ex. In a contract of loan which A will present to prove the
existence of debt, Z’s testimony on the existence of debt is
corroborative evidence.)
NOTE: Corroborative testimony is not always required. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.
 Classification of Evidence
Exculpatory vs. Inculpatory
Exculpatory Evidence – that evidence which will excuse a person from an
alleged fault or crime (Ex. Evidence that proves a justifying circumstance
of self-defense).
Inculpatory Evidence – that evidence which has the tendency to implicate
or incriminate a person (Ex. During custodial investigation, when asked by
a police officer, accused A immediately admits having killed B – a form of
extrajudicial confession)
NOTE: Under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
 Classification of Evidence
 Object (Real), Documentary and Testimonial Evidence
 Object Evidence – those consisting of evidence which are addressed to the senses of
the court (Ex. The exact knife used by A to slash the throat of B) (Ex. The ring actually
stolen by C) (Ex. The bullet extracted from D’s chest) (Ex. The blood splatters on the
wall of the room where B was found dead). (Ex. A photocopy of a contract of loan).
NOTE: Object evidence ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence – where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical
evidence should prevail.

 Documentary Evidence – consists of writings or any material containing letters,

words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as
proof of their contents (Ex. The contents of a written contract of loan.)
NOTE: When a contract is presented in court to show its existence, it is not offered to prove its contents. The contract, thus, is not considered a documentary evidence, but an
object or real evidence.

 Testimonial Evidence – evidence consisting the narration made under oath by a

witness. (Ex. Testimony of A that he saw B shot C using a handgun.)
 Classification of Evidence

Relevant, Material and Competent Evidence

Relevant Evidence – that evidence having any value in reason as
tending to prove any matter provable in an action.
NOTE: Object evidence ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence – where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical
evidence should prevail.

Material Evidence – that evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as

determined by the rules of substantive law and pleading.
NOTE: When a contract is presented in court to show its existence, it is not offered to prove its contents. The contract, thus, is not considered a documentary
evidence, but an object or real evidence.

Competent Evidence – that evidence that is not excluded by the Rules,

statute or the Constitution.
 Classification of Evidence
Others:
 Expert Evidence – the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular
subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by
other persons (Ex. The testimony of a psychologist on the psychological
incapacity of a spouse in an annulment proceeding.)
 Electronic Evidence – that document or information received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed or produced electronically (Ex. Soft copy of a
contract of loan in PDF format).
 Evidence aliunde or Extraneous Evidence – that evidence from outside or from
another source (Ex. The introduction of parol evidence if there is mistake in
the written agreement – to modify, explain or add the terms of the written
agreement).
 Classification of Evidence

Others:
 Self-Serving Evidence – that one made by the party to favor his own interest. It
is one made by a party out of court.
 Opinion Evidence – that evidence given by an ordinary person regarding of
what he thinks.
 Rebuttal Evidence – that evidence that will contradict the other party’s
evidence (Ex. A receipt showing that A has paid his indebtedness to B).
Scope of the Rules on Evidence

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 (Section 2, Rule 128, Revised Rules on
Evidence).
Under the Rules of Court (ROC), the rules of evidence are
specifically applicable only to judicial proceedings (Sec.
1, Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence).
NOTE: All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL. Hence, application of the rules of evidence in other proceedings is not mandatory unless provided to be so by
law or regulation (See Sec. 4, Rule 1, Revised Rules of Court).
Non-Applicability of Rules on Evidence

GENERAL RULE: The technical Rules on Evidence do not strictly apply

to administrative proceedings like:
o Election cases; o Other cases (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Revised Rules of
Court);
o Land registration cases;
o Labor dispute cases before administrative bodies
o Cadastral cases; (Manalo vs. TNS); and
o Naturalization cases o Preliminary investigations (Reyes vs. Ombudsman).
o Insolvency proceedings;

EXCEPTION: The Rules on Evidence may be applied by analogy in their

proceedings or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable
and convenient.
 Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when:

1. It is RELEVANT to the issue; and
2. It is NOT EXCLUDED by the Constitution, the law or these Rules
(Sec. 3, Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence).
NOTE: In order for an evidence to be admissible, it must be both relevant and competent.
Illustrations on Admissibility of Evidence

o In a prosecution for homicide, W testifies that A killed B because his ever honest friend H told him
so.
o The testimony, although relevant, is INADMISSIBLE, because W was not testifying based on his personal knowledge of
the event.

o If a defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun first at the
accused without the latter’s provocation.
o The testimony of the eyewitness is competent and the matters testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. Thus,
his testimony is ADMISSIBLE in evidence.

o An extrajudicial confession for the crime of murder, made during custodial investigation, without
the accused being informed of his Miranda Rights.
o Such extrajudicial confession, although relevant, is deemed INADMISSIBLE per Section 12 (1), Article III of the
Constitution*.

* Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
 Kinds of Admissibility of Evidence

o Conditional Admissibility – evidence that will be temporarily admitted, although seemingly not
admissible as it appears irrelevant, provided that the relevancy would be shown in the later stage
of the trial. (Ex. In a case for homicide, the prosecution presented W. However, W began testifying
matters not related to the killing. The defense may raise objection on grounds of irrelevance. In
the concept of conditional admissibility, the court may nonetheless grant admissibility if the
prosecution shows relevancy at the later stage of the trial) (Ex. A copy of a writing may not be
considered competent evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed.
o Multiple Admissibility – when the evidence is not admissible for one purpose but admissible for
two or more purposes. [Ex. Declaration of a dying person may be admissible as dying declaration
(Sec. 37, Rule 130, RRoE), part of res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130, RRoE), or declaration against
interest (Section 38, Rule 130, RRoE)]
o Curative Admissibility – The right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
where the court has admitted incompetent evidence previously adduced by the adverse party.
 Important Doctrines in Evidence

o Plain View Rule – Unlawful objects, which are within the plain view of an officer conducting a search who
has the right to be in that position or to have that view (as when armed by a search warrant), are subject
to confiscation and are admissible in evidence. [Ex. Police officers, armed with a search warrant and who
are looking for illegal firearms in A’s house, may confiscate illegal drugs found in the table (in plain view)
during the search. Thus, the illegal firearms and drugs found during the search are admissible in
evidence.]
o Exclusionary Rule – A rule of evidence that excludes evidence obtained in violation of one’s constitutional
rights or obtained through illegal means, such as those obtained by using force, intimidation, violence,
torture and the like [Ex. After experiencing torture from police officers, A was forced to confess the
location of illegal drugs, the illegal drugs confiscated in his house shall be inadmissible in evidence for
being in violation of A’s constitutional rights (Section 12 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution) and in the
absence of a search warrant (Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution)]
o Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – this doctrine states that once the primary source “the tree” is shown to have
been unlawfully obtained, any derivative evidence “the fruit” obtained thereat is likewise inadmissible.
(Ex. If a search warrant “the tree” was maliciously obtained, all evidence “fruits” derived from it are
likewise inadmissible.)
 Important Doctrines in Evidence
o Equiponderance Doctrine - The doctrine refers to the situation where the evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates.
In this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof (Rivera vs.
CA).
o Equipoise Rule - In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is
evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of
the accused (Malana v. People).
o Original Document Rule – As a rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document itself.
o Parol Evidence Rule – It is that rule which forbids any addition to or contradiction on the
terms of a written instrument by oral or verbal testimony to show that at or before the
signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.
 Important Doctrines in Evidence
o Hearsay Rule – As a rule, any statement other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at
a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein is inadmissible for being
hearsay, except as otherwise provided in the Rules (Sec. 37, Rule 130, RRoE)
o Good Samaritan Rule – Under this rule, an offer to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability
for the injury (Sec. 28, Rule 130, RRoE).
o Defense of Denial – this type of defense is inherently weak and must be rejected over the positive
identification of the accused. It must be buttressed by other persuasive evidence of non-culpability
to merit credibility.
o Defense of Alibi – this type of defense likewise crumbles in the light of positive identification by
truthful witnesses as it can be easily fabricated and is inherently unreliable. While it is by nature a
weak defense, it assumes significance and strength where the evidence of the prosecution is also
intrinsically weak. It may serve as basis for acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and
convincing evidence that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of
the crime at the time of commission.
 Relevancy; Collateral Matters

o When is Evidence Relevant? - When the evidence has such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence (Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence).
o GENERAL RULE: Only relevant evidence is admissible. Thus, collateral matters are not
allowed.
o EXCEPTION: Evidence on collateral matters may be allowed when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

o Collateral Matters – Those matters other than the fact in issue. (Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence) (Ex. Motive or reputation of a
accused in a prosecution for the crime of homicide)