CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In general. What the rules of evidence determine. Factum probandum and factum probans. Classes of evidence. Scope. No vested right of property in rules of evidence. Rules of evidence may be waived. Sources of evidence. PNAWAWNHE 1. In general. < C Evidence is the means sanctioned by these rules — “Rules 128-133, Rules of Court) of aceite eae a judicial the truth respecting a matter of fact.’ It is part of ac vi (that which provides the method of enforcing aati redress for their invasion) as distinguished frot substant e (that which defines and creates certain ri facts on which a party relies, wh issue. This means that era is no ca2 BASic EVIDENCE and that judges are generally precluded from acting on their knowledge of particular facts.” Although the term “evidence” is sometimes used inter changeably with “proof, there is a distinction between the two. Proof is the result, or perfection, of evidence. Evidence is the means by which proof is established. Proof the end result — evidence the means to the end.* For example, on a charge of arson, if it were shown that the accused had obtained excessive insurance upon the property burned; that he was in embarrassed circumstances: that he had made contradictory statements as to the circumstances of the fire; and had betrayed great emotion on his first arrest — anyone of these circumstances might constitute evidence tending to show his guilt, but all combined might or might not be deemed proof thereof, depending upon other facts shown in the case. 2. What the rules of evidence determine. All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise out of facts. Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the ascertaining of some right or liability. If the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain some right of property or of status, or the right of one party, and the liability of the other, to some form of relief. Consequently, the rules of evidence determine the following: (a) The relevancy of facts, or what sort of facts may be proved in order to established the existence of the right, duty, or liability defined by substantive law. (b) The proof of facts, that is what sort of proof is to be given of those facts. 2Cross & Wilkins, Outline of the Law of Evidence, pp. 20-21. 331 C.J.S. Evidence, Sec. 4, p. 820; Randal vs. Deka, 10 Ill. App. 2d 10, 134 N.E. 2d 36, quoting Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, (2nd Ed.), Vol. 1, Sec. 7. 4 Woodrofie’s, Law of Evidence, p. 14.INTRODUCTION 3 (c) The production of proof of relevant facts, that is, who is to give it and how it is to be given; and the effect of improper admission or rejection of evidence. Thus, before the rules of evidence can be understood or ap- plied to any particular case, it is necessary to know so much of the substantive law as determines what, under given state of facts, would be the rights of the parties, and so much of the law of procedure as is sufficient to determine what questions it is open to them to raise in the particular proceeding.* 3. Factum probandum and factum probans. Evidence is always a relative term. It signifies a relation be- tween facts, the factum probandum, or proposition to be estab- lished and the factum probans, or material evidencing the proposition. The former is necessarily to be conceived of as hypothetical; it is that which the one party affirms and the other denies, the tribunal being as yet not committed in either direc- tion. The latter is conceived for practical purposes as existent, and is offered as such for the consideration of the tribunal. The latter is brought forward as reality for the purpose of convincing the tribunal that the former is also a reality.° In a case,° the Supreme Court held: “This spontaneous admission of the legitimate son of the defendant publicity made in open court that the plaintiff was his brother cannot be said to be imperti- nent for the purpose of proving the plaintiffs claim; for, that admission was a conduct on his part which tends to confirm the status claimed by the alleged natural child. x x x While it is true that such admission of the defendant's only legitimate son would not, of itself, be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a compulsory recognition’ by the defendant as his natural child, yet it should have been admitted in evidence as a factum probans, which ‘Woodroffe’s, Law of Evidence, p. 14. Swigmore on Evidence, Sec. 2. De Gala vs. De Gala, 42 Phil. 771. See also People vs. Ramos, (CA) 76 0.G. 8710. 7For grounds of compulsory recognition of natural child, see Art. 283, Civil Code, formerly Art. 139, Spanish Civil Code.4 Basic EVIDENCE would help to establish the factum probandum — the uninter- rupted possession of the status of a natural child. Such status, of course, cannot be proved by a single specific act or conduct of the defendant or of his family. It must necessarily be proved by showing a series of acts, conduct, and circumstances indicative of the intention of the putative father to acknowledge his alleged natural child. Hence, to reject evidence of a single act, conduct, or circumstances as being insufficient to prove the status claimed, would be to prevent the claimant from proving it at all.” 4. Classes of evidence. Evidence may be classified as follows: Relevant: Evidence is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.’ Relevant Evidence “that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” Marcelo v. Bungubung, 552 SCRA 589 Example: A is accused of a crime. The facts that after the commis- sion of the alleged crime he absconded; or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or at- tempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant. Test of relevancy: “Relevancy is determinable by rules of logic and human experience” People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 773 Competent: Evidence is “competent” when it is not excluded by law in a particular case. Example: In an action for recovery of a sum of money, a copy of the promissory note of the defendant is relevant evidence of the debt of the defendant, yet it is not competent evidence because of the best evidence rule which re- quires the production of the original of the promissory note. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. [People vs. Combate, 638 SCRA 797 (2010)] 8] Elliot on Evidence, p. 197. 9porter vs. Valentine, 18 Misc. Rep. 213, 41 N.Y.S. 507INTRODUCTION 5 Testimonial: The testimony of a witness, usually on oath or affirmation, given by his word of mouth in the witness stand.!° Testimonial evidence commands greater weight than sworn statements because testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate. People vs. Junas, p. 120 [411 SCRA 655] Example: A, a police officer, being ques- tioned in court by counsel for B, states: “B struck me when I at- tempted to arrest him.” Documentary: Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.'! Example: Letters, instruments, books, papers, accounts and the like offered as proof of their contents. Object: Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.” It is, therefore, not limited to that which may be known by the sense of vi- sion; but it extends to that which is perceived by the senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch. [The Value of Physical Evidence, 242 SCRA 251 (1995)] Example: In any case where a weapon is used, the weapon, including, if it is a firearm, bullets, and shells; weapons other than the one used, to show intent; weapons found or near the victim, to show self- defense. Direct: Evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption."® Example: The testi- mony of X that he saw A attack B with bolo Killing him is direct evidence in the charge for homicide against A. Circumstantial: Proof of facts from which, taken collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence."* Example: The testimony of X that he saw A running away from the place where B was found dead with wounds; that the clothing of A was stained with blood, and that A had a bolo also stained with blood, all these facts are Curzon, Law of Evidence, p. 17. Mgec, 2, Rule 130, Rules of Court, as amended. 12] Jones on Evidence, Sec. 16. \3Lake Country vs. Nellon, 44 Or., 14, 21, 74, p. 212. MState vs. Avery, 113, Mo., 475, 494, 21 S.W. 193; Reynolds Trial Ev., Sec.4, p. 108BAsic EVIDENCE circumstantial evidence which taken together show that A is the one who killed B. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of col- lateral facts and circumstances from which the exis- tence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, circumstantial evi dence is sufficient for conviction if the following req- uisites concur: (a) there is more than one circum- stance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are de- rived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Verily, for circum- stantial evidence to be sufficient to support a convic- tion, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that ac- cused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Thus, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evi- dence can be sustained only when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit. [People vs. Pascual, 576 SCRA 242 (2009)] Primary: Evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question." Example: In an action on a written contract the original of the contract is primary evidence of its contents. Secondary: Evidence which is inferior to primary evidence and shows on its face that better evidence exists. “Example: In an action on a written contract, a copy of the contract or the testi- mony of a witness as to its contents constitutes secondary evi- dence. Positive: When a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.!” Example: The testimony of X that he saw A set fire the house of B. 151 Jones on Evidence, Sec. 8. ‘Ibid. Moore on Facts, p. 1326.INTRODUCTION i Negative: When a witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact." Example: The testimony of X that he was on that occasion at the place where the house of B was burned and that he did not see A set fire on said house. Corroborative: Additional evidence of a different kind and character, tending to prove the same point."® Example: Testimony of X that A died because of stab wounds inflicted by B. The death certificate is corroborative of the testimony of X. This Court has made several pronouncements on the relevance of a medico-legal certificate. It is merely corroborative in character, which could be dispensed with accordingly. [People vs. Dion, 653 SCRA 117 (2011)] Cumulative: Evidence of the same kind and character as that already given tending to prove the same proposition.” Example: On the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain paper, evi- dence of his classmates as to his capacity is cumulative to that of his teachers upon the same question. Prima facie: That which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.” Exam- ple: Entries in the course of business made by a person in his pro- fessional capacity or in the performance of duty and In the ordi- nary or regular course of business or duty, are prima facie evi- dence of the facts stated therein. Conclusive: That which is incontrovertible.” Example: A partner introducing in evidence a letter written by his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements obtained therein. Rebuttal: Evidence that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.”® Example: In a homicide case, the accused put up the de- fense of alibi and he and two witnesses testified that at the time the crime charged was committed — around 10:30 p.m. the ac- 18Ibid. 19Wyne vs. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817 Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2839. 21Sec, 1833, Code of Civil Procedure of California. 221 Jones on Evidence, Sec. 18. 23State vs. Silva, 21 Ida. 247, 120, p. 835.Basic EVIDENCE cused was attending a baptismal party in a municipality five kilometers away from the place of the crime. The prosecution in- troduced in rebuttal the testimony of two witnesses who testified that the accused had really attended said baptismal party on the day of the crime but he left the party at 7 o'clock p.m, and boarded a jeepney.* Sur-rebuttal: When plaintiff in rebuttal is permitted to in- troduce new matter, defendant should be permitted to introduce evidence in sur-rebuttal, and to decline to permit him to do so is error, especially where the evidence offered in sur-rebuttal is for the first time made competent by the evidence introduced by plaintiff in rebuttal but defendant should ask for the right to meet the new matter.” Example: From the proceeding example, the ac- cused in sur-rebuttal, may introduce the testimony of the persons who attended the party to the effect that those witnesses who tes- tified in rebuttal for the prosecution had never been in the party 2 Expert: Expert evidence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, Knowledge not usually acquired by other persons.*” Example: A handwriting expert may testify on the genuineness of a signature, identify of thumb mark and fingerprints. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psy- chiatrists and clinical psychologists. [Republic vs. Dagdag, 351 SCRA 425 (2001)] Substantial; Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.® Example: The degree of proof required un- der Presidential Decree 626 is merely substantial evidence, which means, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might ac- cept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The claimant must show at least, by substantial evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely by the conditions present in the nature 24Francisco’s Trial Technique and Practice Court, 126-127. Ibid. 2[bid. 141-142. 274j,S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530. 2Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court, as amended.INTRODUCTION 9 of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work connection and not a direct casual relation.” Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a rea- sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [Office of the Om- budsman vs. Bernardo, 692 SCRA 557(2013)] 5. 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 these rules.*° This does not mean, however, that the rules recognize no differences between civil and criminal proceedings, for there are material differences which must not be overlooked. For instance: (1) In civil proceedings the party attends by accord, while in criminal proceedings the accused attend by compulsion; (2) Im civil proceedings there is no presumption as to ei- ther party, while in criminal proceedings the presumption of in- nocence attends the accused throughout the trial until the same has been overcome by prima facie evidence of his guilt; (3) An offer to compromise in civil cases does not, as a general rule, amount to an admission of liability, whereas, in criminal cases it is an implied admission of guilt; (4) In civil cases the plaintiff must prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence; in criminal cases the government must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.*" Similarly, there are laws which provide other rules of evidence to govern certain proceedings. For instance, under Sec. 16, PD 2°Magistrado vs. Employees Comp. Com., 174 SRA 605; Rodriguez vs. ECC, 178 SCRA 30. *Sec. 2, Rule 128, Rules of Court, as amended. 31Evidence by Francisco, p. 17.y a 10 Basic EVIDENCE 946, affidavits and counter-affidavits, which are otherwise inad- missible, may be allowed and are admissible in evidence. Direct testimonies of witnesses may be in narrative form subject to cross-examination. Or, the Rules on Summary Procedure where the decision can be reached through position papers, affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties. In this connection, the rules of evidence are not strictly ap- plied in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission; Employees’ Compensation Commission;* Securities and Exchange Commission;** Com- mission on Elections;*° Agrarian cases;*° Immigration proceed- ings;*? Court of Tax Appeals; Probation Court;® Board of Transportation; Police Commission;*' Oil Industry Commis- sion; and other similar bodies. 6. No vested right of property in rules of evi- dence. art. 221, P.D. No. 442 (Labor Code); Del Rosario & Sons Logging En- terprises, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 136 SCRA 669; Tan Mfg., et al. vs. National Labor Commission, 170 SCRA 240; Rizal Workers Union vs. Galleja, G.R. No. 82759, June 8, 1990; Rapid Manpower Consultants Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 88683, October 18, 1990; Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80600, March 29, 1990. philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation vs. Min- ister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79. *Sec. 3, Rule 13, Rules of Procedure of Securities and Exchange Com- mission. 3Geromo vs. Commission on Elections, et al., 118 SCRA 165. S6Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 226. *?Moy Yoke Shue vs. Johnson , 290 Fed. 621; Chin Shee vs. White, 273 Fed. 801; Hee Suk Yuen vs. White, 273 Fed. 10; Ex parte Tomimatsu 376: The requirement of a fair hearing does not imply a meticulous enforcement of the mules of evidence, nor a slavish attention to technicalities which do not afford a substantial and reasonable protection to the interests of the immigrants. 28Sec. 8, Republic Act No. 1125. 2%Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1257 (Probation Court). Sec. 29, Public Service Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1. 4igec, 10, Executive Order No. 113 (Rules and Regulations for City and Municipal Police Agencies). “ec. 11, Republic Act No. 6173, as amended by P.D. No. 1128 (Oil In- dustry Commission).INTRODUCTION id There is no vested right of property in the rules of evidence. Hence, any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time, the action accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable.** The reason is that the rules of evidence are merely methods for ascertaining facts. It must be supposed that change of law merely makes it more likely that the fact will be truly ascer- tained, — either by admitting evidence whose former suppres- sion, or by suppressing evidence whose former admission, helped to conceal the truth. In either case no fact has been taken away from the party; it is merely that good evidence has been given the one, or bad evidence been taken from the other. 7. Rules of evidence may be waived. There are rules of evidence established merely for the pro- tection of the parties. If, according to the well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why they cannot make the waiver in a contract. For instance, a contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitnesses as the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured person, is valid.** Contract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to a physician is also valid.** However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against the disclo- sure of state secrets is void.*” 8. Sources of evidence. The sources of the rules of evidence are: “*Aaldeguer vs. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas vs. Case, 8 Phil. 197. “41 Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 7. *SConnel vs. Travelling Men’s Ass'n., 139 Ia. 444, N.W. 820. “Keeler vs. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App. 627, 69 S.W. 612. “7Rowland vs. Rowland, 40 N.J. Eq., 281.Jam a Py 12 Basic EVIDENCE (a) The 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Secs. 3(2), 12 (1, 2 and 3), 17; Art. VII, Sec. 5); (b) Rules 128 to 134 of the Revised Rules of Court, AS AMENDED PER RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON MARCH 14, 1989 (c) Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 — Bar Matter No. 411; (d) Rule 115, Sec. 1, formerly Rule 111, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court (Rights of accused); (e) Substantive and remedial statutes; and (f) Judicial decisions. (g) RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (2 Oc- tober 2007)