CHMSC –CRIMINOLOGY by: Meo J. Mallorca
Compiled Notes in CLJ 4 - Evidence |1 (culled from UP, Ateneo, San Beda, UST, FEU Notes)
RULES OF EVIDENCE
It may be ascertained in: 1. pleadings submitted by the parties 2. pre-trial order 3. issues which are tried with the express or implied consent of of the parties. (Sec. (Sec. 5, Rule 10) 10 )
RULE 128
NOTE: If NOTE: If fact is admitted, there is no more factum probandum because there is no fact in issue.
General Provisions
FACTUM PROBANS PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. proposition. It is the fact by which the factum probandum is established.
Section 1. E vidence defined defined . ? Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Factum probandum "ultimate facts" Proposition to be established Hypothetical
Section 2. S c ope. ? 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. (2a) Section 3. A dmis s ibili ib ility ty of evidenc evid ence e. ? Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a) Section 4. R eleva elevancy ncy ; collateral matters . ? 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. (4a) BASIC CONCEPTS Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. TWO PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN EVIDENCE: EVIDENCE: 1. How to determine which evidence is admissible; and 2.
Having determined that the evidence is admissible, how to present that evidence in a manner that would make the court admit it once it is offered.
SOURCES: SOURCES: Rules of Court, Rule 128-133 Constitution Special Laws (e.g.Anti-Wiretapping Act) Revised Penal Code, Civil Code, etc. Every evidential question involves the relationship between the factum probans and probans and the factum probandum. probandum . FACTUM PROBANDUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact sought to be established.
Factum probans "intermediate facts" Material evidencing the proposition Existent
Q: What are the four component elements? A: 1. Means of ascertainment – ascertainment – includes not only the procedure or manner of ascertainment but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of fact may be ascertained 2. Sanctioned by the rules – not excluded by the Rules of Court 3. In a judicial proceeding – contemplates an action or proceeding filed in a court of law 4. The truth respecting a matter of fact – refers to an issue of fact and is both substantive (determines the facts needed to be established) and procedural (governs the manner of proving said facts). Q: Why is evidence required? A: It is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 2, 2009 ed.).
ALVIN TUASON y OCHOA, O CHOA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.1995 respondents.1995 February 23 2nd Division G.R. Nos. 113779-80 D E C I S I O N PUNO, J.: The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the th e commission of the crime can be established, without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt there can be no conviction. In the case at bench, the identification of the petitioner cannot rest on an assured conscience. We rule that petitioner is entitled to a mandatory acquittal.
CHMSC –CRIMINOLOGY by: Meo J. Mallorca
Compiled Notes in CLJ 4 - Evidence |2 (culled from UP, Ateneo, San Beda, UST, FEU Notes)
Petitioner Alvin Tuason y Ochoa, John Doe, Peter Doe, and Richard Doe were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City 1 with Robbery 2 (Article 294, 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code) and Carnapping 3 (republic Act No. 6539). Of the four (4) accused, only petitioner was apprehended. apprehended. The other three (3) are still atat large. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges and was tried. We come to the facts. Complainant CIPRIANA F. TORRES is a public publi c school teacher of Kaligayahan Elementary Elementary School, Novaliches. Her work requires her to leave her maid, JOVINA J OVINA MADARAOG TORRES, alone in her house at Block 45, Lot 28, Lagro Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City. Her husband is in Australia while her children go to school. The incident transpired at around 8:45 in the morning of July 19, 1988. Somebody knocked at the gate of the Torres residence pretending to buy ice. As the t he maid Madaraog handed the ice to the buyer, one of the robbers jumped over the fence, poked a gun at her, covered her mouth, and opened opened the gate of their their house. 4 The ice buyer and his companions c ompanions barged in. Numbering four (4), they pushed her inside Torres' house and demanded the keys to the car and the safety vault. vault. 5 She She told them she did not know know where the keys were hidden. hidden. 6 They tied up her hands and dragged her to the second floor of the house. Petitioner was allegedly left downstairs as their their lookout. 7 On order of the accused, Madaraog Madaraog sat on
Torres' bed, her body facing the bedroom door with her back on the vault. They also gagged her mouth and ransacked Torres' room. One of the accused stumbled upon a box containing keys. They used the keys k eys to open drawers and in the process found the car key. Petitioner was then summoned upstairs and given the car key. He tried it on the car and succeeded in starting its engine. In twenty (20) minutes, accused were able to loot the vault and other valuable items in the house. They then tied Madaraog's hands and feet to the bed's headboard and escaped using Torres' car. Still gripped with fear, Madaraog loosened her ties with her fingers, hopped to the stairs and cried for for help. help. 8 Her Her neighbor neighbor Semia Quintal responded and untied her. They also sought the help of Angelina Garcia, another neighbor. It was Garcia who informed Torres that her house h ouse was burglarized. Torres reported the robbery to the th e police authorities at Fairview, Quezon City and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On July 25, 1988, Madaraog and Quintal described the physical features of the four (4) robbers before the NBI cartographer. One of those drawn by the artist was a person with a large mole between his eyebrows. 9 On August August 30, 1988, petitioner was arrested by the NBI agents. The next day, at the NBI headquarters, he was pointed to by Madaraog and the other prosecution witnesses witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the crimes at bench. SEMIA QUINTAL 10 averred that she saw petitioner allegedly among the three (3) men whiling away their time in front of Alabang's store some time before the crimes crim es were
