Evidence – The Bar Lecture Series by Riano (2009) CHATER ! – REL!"!#AR$ C%#S!&ERAT!%#S A' "!SCELLA#E%S "!SCELLA#E%S BAS!C R!#C!LES R!#C!LES &einition' Evidence is the means sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. ur*ose' The purpose of evidence under the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. Evidence 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 presentation of admissible evidence. Truth as the ur*ose o Evidence' hile the purpose of evidence is to !now the truth, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or legal truth. +hen Evidence is Re,uired- +hen #ot Re,uired' Evidence is needed when the court has to resolve a question of fact. here no factual issue e"ists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules of this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required. hen the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, the case is then then ripe for for judici judicial al determ determina inatio tion n throug through h a judgme judgment nt on the pleadi pleadings ngs pursuant to Rule #$ of the Rules of court. Evidence may li!ewise be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. Evidence is not also required on matters of judicial notice %Sec. % Sec. 1, Rule 129 & and on matters judicially admitted (Sec. 4, Rule 129). 129) .
A**.icabi.ity o the Ru.es o Evidence' The rules of evidence, being parts of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings. (Sec. 1, Rule 128) 'ignificantly, 'ec.$ of Rule ( provides for the non)applicability of the Rules of Court, Court, includ including ing necess necessari arily ly the rules rules of evidenc evidence, e, to certai certain n specif specified ied proceedings.
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 2 of 8
a.& Election cases* b.& +and registration* c.& Cadastral* d.& aturali-ation* e.& Insolvency proceedings* f.& ther cases not herein provided for, e/ce*t by ana.oy or in a su**.etory in character and 1henever *racticab.e and convenient . g.& /dministrative cases* h.& +abor cases* i.& ther non)judicial proceedings. /dministrative and quasi)judicial bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of the rules obtaining in a court of law. They are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of justice and substantial justice. Nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded .
A**.ication o the Ru.es on E.ectronic Evidence' hile the definition of 0evidence1 under the Rules of Court ma!es reference only to judicial proceedings, the provisions of the Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi)judicial and administrative cases. ( %2hence, inapplicable to criminal cases& Sco*e o the Ru.es o Evidence' Princile o! uni!ormit" 3 as a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all court and in all trials and hearings.4 Evidence in Civi. Cases &istinuished ro Evidence in Criina. Cases' There are certain evidentiary differences between these proceedings. #irst. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Second. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admissibility of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving $uasi%o!!enses (criminal negligence) or those allo&ed b" la& to be comromised , an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. 'hird. In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and generally there is no presumption for or against a party e"cept in 1
Sec. 2, Rule 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence Sec. 2, Rule 128, Rules of Court (ROC)
2
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 3 of 8
certain cases provided for by law. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.
&istinction Bet1een roo and Evidence' 5roof is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration. n the other hand, evidence is the medium or means by which a fact is proved or disproved. 6are allegations unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. 3a.sus in no4 3a.sus in %nibus' 07alse in one thing, false in everything.1 The doctrine means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is wilfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness8 testimony. The ma"im is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence.# It deals only with weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false as to a material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point .$
A.ibi- 3rae5u*- Se.5deense' libi is evidence negative in nature and self) serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence, especially where positive identification is credible and categorical. 7or alibi to prosper, the accused must li!ewise prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The reason is that no person can be in two places at the same time. 6y physical impossibility we refer to the distance and facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed. hile the defense of alibi is by nature a wea! one, it assumes significance and strength where the evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically wea!. /libi is not always false and without merit. 9 +i!e alibi, the defense of !rame u is viewed with disfavour as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a defense in most prosecutions arising from the violations of the :angerous :rug /ct. The legal presumption that
!eo"le v. #atin, $.R. %o. 1&&22, %ove'er 22, 200& !eo"le v. !aca"ac 28 SCR* && + !eo"le v. Cacaan, $.R. %o. 18099, -ul 9, 2008
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 4 of 8
official duty has been regularly performed e"ists. The claim of frame)up assumes importance when faced with the rather sha!y nature of the prosecution evidence. 'elf)defense, li!e alibi is inherently wea! because it can be easily fabricated.;
&e.ay and !nitia. Re.uctance in Re*ortin a Crie' :elayed reporting by witnesses of what they !now about a crime does render their testimonies false or incredible, for the delay may be e"plained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. 6ut more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community. The natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, as well as to give information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice. < :ue to fear of reprisal, it is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness8 credibility. *i!!erent eole react di!!erentl" to a given stimulus or t"e o! situation, and there is no standard !orm o! behavioural resonse &hen one is con!ronted &ith a strange, startling or !right!ul e+erience.
ositive and #eative &eenses. In 5hilippine jurisprudence, a positive testimony normally enjoys more weight and credibility than a negative testimony. In short, a testimony that a fact e"ists enjoys more weight than a testimony that the same fact does not e"ist. / denial evidence is merely a negative evidence. 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 e"isted.=
3actu robans and 3actu robandu' Evidence signifies a relationship between these two facts. 7actum probandum is the fact to be proved* the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed. n the other hand, factum probans is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue.
Ru/as v. !eo"le, 19 SCR* 99 !eo"le v. %avarro, 29& SCR* 1 8 $o'e v. $o'eSa'son, $.R. %o. 1+28, eruar , 200& &
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 5 of 8
>atters of judicial notice, conclusive presumptions, and judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of the !actum robandum of a particular case, because such matters need not be established or proven. In practical terms, the !actum robandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of a defense from the standpoint of the defendant.
"u.ti*.e adissibi.ity' There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. 'ometimes it is inadmissible for one purpose but admissible for another or vice versa. Evidence may also be admissible against one party, but not against another. The purpose for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection.
Conditiona. adissibi.ity' It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The proponent of the evidence may as! 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. Curative adissibi.ity' The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party8s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence. Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter. Conversely, the doctrine should not be invo!ed where evidence was properly admitted. It is li!ewise submitted that it is only where the objection was incorrectly overruled, that the court should allow the other party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly admitted in order to cure the prejudice caused to the other party against whom the offered evidence was erroneously admitted. Common reason suggests that where there is a waiver %no objection&, there is no defect to cure. The more logical rule should be one which will not allow a party to be heard through the offering of inadmissible evidence if he declines or fails to timely object to the other party8s inadmissible evidence.
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 6 of 8
&irect and Circustantia. Evidence' :irect evidence means evidence which if believed, proves the e"istence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established. In other words, in this type of evidence, the court uses a fact from which an assumption is drawn. Conviction by Circustantia. Evidence' In a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction provided the following requisites concur? %a& There is more than one circumstance* %b& The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven* and %c& The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. / conviction based on circumstantial evidence must e"clude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence. @ence if the totality of the circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of innocence, conviction is proper.A /s to probative value, the Court considers circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to direct evidence because no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In both types of evidence what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel conscious process of reasoning towards conviction. (B 22here the evidence admits of two interpretations one of which is consistent with guilt and the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted.(( In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, there are four basic guidelines? %(& It should be acted upon with caution* %4& /ll the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt* %#& The facts must e"clude every other theory but that of guilt* and %$& The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense. 9
3allari v. !eo"le, SCR* & #astian v. C*, $.R. %o. 10811, *"ril 18, 2008 11 !eo"le v. Cor"u, 12 SCR* &9 10
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 7 of 8
3.iht or #on5.iht o the Accused' on)flight does not signify innocence. It is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation determinative of innocence. (4 It is established in this jurisdiction that while flight indicates guilt, non) flight does not mean innocence.(# 7light alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because flight alone is inherently ambiguous.($
Cuu.ative evidence and corroborative evidence' Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same !ind and character as that already given and that tends to prove the same proposition. Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different character to the same point. Corroboration o the Testiony o a Chi.d +itness' nder the Rule on E"amination of a Child itness, corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. @is testimony if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non)criminal cases. ositive and #eative Evidence' Evidence is said to be positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does e"ist or that a certain event happened. It is negative when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to e"ist does not actually e"ist. :enial is inherently a wea! defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non)culpability* otherwise, such denial is purely self) serving and is with no evidentiary value. :enial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the witnesses who had no ill motive to testify falsely. 5ositive and forthright declarations of witnesses are often held to be worthier of credence than the self)serving denial of an accused. (9 In case of contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight is generally given to positive testimonies than to mere denials.(;
Libera. Construction o the Ru.es o Evidence' 5rocedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial justice.(< 12
!eo"le v. *'odia, $.R. %o. 1&&+, %ove'er 20, 2008 $ul'atico v. !eo"le, $.R. %o. 129, Octoer 1+, 200& 1 4alde v. !eo"le, $.R. %o. 1&0180, %ove'er 2, 200& 1+ *nilao v. !eo"le, $.R. %o. 1981, Octoer 1+, 200& 1 3arcelo v. #un/uun/, $.R. %o. 1&+201 1& 5uia'ao v. C*, + SCR* 1& 1
Evidence – Riano(2009) Page 8 of 8
@owever, to justify rela"ation, a satisfactory e"planation and a subsequent fulfilment of the requirements have always been required.(=
Absence o a 6ested Riht in the Ru.es o Evidence' There is no vested right in the rules of evidence(A because the rules of evidence are subject to change by the 'upreme Court pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure.4B The change in the rules of evidence is however, subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of e+ ost !acto laws.4( /n e+ ost !acto law includes that which alters the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than that required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused.
+aiver o the Ru.es o Evidence' The rules of evidence may be waived. hen an otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver. /s long as no law or principles of morality, good customs and public policy are transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated, the rules of evidence may be waived by the parties. @owever, it is submitted that a failure to object with respect to a privileged communication involving state secrets communicated to a public officer in official confidence should not be construed as a waiver of the privileged character of the communication because of public policy considerations as when the state secret is one involving national defense and security.
B' A&"!SS!B!L!T$ %3 E6!&E#CE 7or evidence to be admissible, two elements must concur, namely? %a& the evidence is relevant, and %b& the evidence is not e+cluded by the rules %cometent&. 22arrantless arrests, said the Court, affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person and is not in itself, a basis for acquittal. 44
18
#arcenas v. 6o'as, + SCR* +9 *ala de Ro7as v. Case, 8 !hil. 19& 20 Sec. ++, Constitution of the !hili""ines 21 *rt. :::, Sec. 22, #ill of Ri/hts, Constitution of the !hili""ines 22 4alde v. !eo"le, $.R. %o. 1&0180, %ove'er 2, 200& 19
