SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINES IN RULES ON EVIDENCE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES
Questions concerning the credibility of a witn witnes ess s are are best best addr addres esse sed d to the the sound discretion of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor and bodily movements. (Llanto vs. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288, 1/31/ 2005)
It has been held that a reliance on the techn technica icall rules rules of eviden evidence ce in labor labor cases is misplaced. Hence, the application of the concep conceptt of judici judicial al admiss admission ions s in such cases would be to exact compliance with technicalities of law that is contrary to the the dema demand nds s of subs substa tant ntia iall just justic ice. e. (Mayo (Mayon n Hotel Hotel & Resta Restaura urant nt vs. vs. Adana, Adana, G.R. No. 157634, 5/16/ 2005)
ADM ADMISS ISSIBILIT LITY VALUE
AND AND
The The fail failur ure e of a witn witnes ess s to reca recall ll each each and and every every detai detaill of an occurr occurrenc ence e may even serve to strengthen rather than weaken weaken his credibil credibility ity because because it erases erases any suspicion of a coached or rehearsed testimony. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court.
PRO PROBATIV ATIVE E
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admi Ad miss ssib ibil ilit ity y refe refers rs to the the ques questi tion on of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refe refers rs to the the ques questi tion on of whet whethe herr the the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a part partic icul ular ar item item of evid eviden ence ce may may be admi admiss ssib ible le,, but but its its evid eviden enti tiar ary y weig weight ht depends on judicial evaluation within the guide uideli lin nes prov provid ided ed by the the rule rules s of (Heirs of Lourdes Saez evidence. Sabanp banpan an vs. vs. Cor Cormoposa, G.R. .R. No. No. 152807, 812/ 2003) ADM ADMISS ISSIBILIT LITY OF EVID EVIDE ENCE NCE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
The testimony of a single witness if stra traigh ightfor tforw ward and cat categor egoriical cal is suff suffic icie ient nt to con convi vict ct.. Corr Corrob obor orat ativ ive e evidence is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observ observati ations ons had been been inaccu inaccura rate. te. (Riv (River era a vs. vs. Peop People le,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1385 138553 53,, 6/30/2005) Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of univer universa sall appli applica catio tion. n. Modern Modern trend trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corrobora corroborative tive evidence evidence presente presented d at the trial. (People vs. Negosa, G.R. No. 142856-57, 8/25/ 2003)
vs. vs.
Admiss Admi ssib ibil ilit ity y of evid eviden ence ce depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evid eviden ence ce already eady admit dmitte ted d and its its tendency to convince and persuade. (DBP Pool Pool of Accredit Accredited ed Insurance Insurance Compani Companies es vs. Radio Radio Mindan Mindanao ao Netwo Network, rk, Inc., Inc., 480 SCRA 314, January 27, 2006) BASIC TENETS OF CREDIBILITY
COLLATERAL MATTERS
Findin Findings gs of credib credibili ility ty of the trial trial cour courtt will will gene genera rall lly y be resp respec ecte ted d on appeal; even findings of facts of the Court of Appeals, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding upon the the part partie ies s and and not not revi review ewab able le by the the (Millares vs. PLDT, G.R. Supreme Supreme Court. Court. (Millares No. 154078, 5/6/2005)
Vari Variat atio ions ns in the the decl declar arat atio ions ns of witn witnes esse ses s in resp respec ectt of coll collat ater eral al or inci incide dent ntal al matt matter ers s do not not impa impair ir the the weight of their testimonies, taken in their entirety, to the prominent facts, nor per se preclude preclude the establis establishmen hmentt of the crime crime and and the the posi positi tive ve iden identi tifi fica cati tion on of the the (People vs. Acosta, Acosta, G.R. No. malefactor. (People 140386, 11/29/2001)
Factual findings of trial courts which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumst circumstance ances s which which could could substant substantiall ially y affect the outcome of the case. (Yulo vs. People, 452 SCRA 705, 3/4/2005; Mendoza vs. People, 448 SCRA 158, 1/14/ 2005)
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In a crimin criminal al case, case, circum circumsta stanti ntial al evidence may be sufficient for conviction provided provided the following following requisi requisites tes concur: concur: (1) There is more than one circumstance; (2) The The facts facts from from which which the infere inference nces s are are deri derive ved d are are prov proven en,, and and ; (3) The combin combinati ation on of all all the circu circumst mstanc ances es is such such as to produ produce ce a convic convictio tion n beyond beyond
1
(People vs. Sevillen Sevilleno, o, reasonable reasonable doubt. (People G.R. G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004; 3/11/2004; Ungsod Ungsod vs. People, 478 SCRA 282)
or are actually pending before the same judge judge.. Courts Courts may be requir required ed to take take jud judic icia iall noti notice ce of the the deci decisi sion ons s of the the coor coordi dina nate te tria triall cour courts ts,, or even even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried by the same court itself, unless the partie ties intr introd oduc uced ed the the same same in evide viden nce or the the cou court, as matter tter of conven convenien ience, ce, decide decides s to do so. Beside Besides s judicial notice of matters which ought to be know known n to judg judges es beca becaus use e of thei theirr judic judicial ial functi functions ons is only only dis discre cretio tiona nary ry upon upon the the court. court. It is not mand mandat ator ory. y. (T’boli (T’boli Agro-Indu Agro-Industri strial al Developm Development, ent, Inc. (TADI) vs. Solilapsi, Adm. Case No. 4766, 12/27/2002)
A conviction based on circ circum umst stan anti tial al evid eviden ence ce must must excl exclud ude e each and every hypothesis consistent with inno innoce cenc nce. e. Henc Hence e if the the tota totali lity ty of the the circumstances eliminates beyond reas easona onable ble dou doubt the the possi ossibi bili litty of innocence, conviction is proper (Mallari vs. People, 446 SCRA 74, 12/ 10/2004)
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis basis for conviction conviction and such conviction conviction can be upheld provided the circumstances prov proven en cons consti titu tute te an unbr unbrok oken en chai chain n which which leads leads to one fair fair and reason reasonab able le conclusion that points to the accused to the exclusio exclusion n of all others others as the guilty guilty person person.. Direct Direct evide evidence nce is not the only only matrix from which the trial court may draw the the conc conclu lusi sion ons s and and find findin ings gs of fact fact.. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Bern Bernal al,, G.R. G.R. Nos. Nos.13 1327 2791 91-140465-66, 9/2/2002)
JUD JUDIICIAL CIAL NOTI OTICE OF FINANC NANCIA IAL L CONDITION OF THE GOVERNMENT
Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and has for many years been financially strapped, to the point point that that even even the most most essent essentia iall services have suffered serious (La (La Buga Bugall-B’ B’la laan an Trib Tribal al curtailment. Ass Assoc ocia iati tion on vs. vs. Ram Ramos, os, 445 445 SCRA SCRA1, 1, 12/1/2004)
Circum Circumsta stanti ntial al eviden evidence ce is not a weaker defense vis-à-vis direct evidence. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Mati Matito to,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1444 144405 05,, 2/2/2004)
However, the allegation that there is a so-c so-cal alle led d cons consen ensu sus s to exte extend nd the the term terms s of bara barang ngay ay capt captai ains ns cann cannot ot be (Balajonda vs. subject subject of judicial judicial notice. (Balajonda Commission on Elections, 452 SCRA 643, 2/28/ 2005)
As to prob probat ativ ive e valu value, e, the the Cour Courtt consid considers ers circum circumsta stanti ntial al eviden evidence ce of a nature ture iden identi tica call to dir direct ect evi evidenc dence e because no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circum circumsta stanti ntial al than than when when it is direct direct.. In both types of evidences what is required is proof proof beyond beyond reasonab reasonable le doubt. doubt. (People vs. Bernal, Bernal, G.R. G.R. Nos. Nos. 132791-1404 132791-140465-66 65-66,, 9/ 2/ 2002)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS
Notwithstanding Notwithstanding a person’s standing in the the busi busine ness ss comm commun unit ity, y, the the cour courtt cannot take judicial notice of said person’s home address or office after his departure from the government as a cabinet member. (Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 165, 1/14/ 2005)
Direct Direct eviden evidence ce is not a condit condition ion sine sine qua qua non non to prov prove e the the guil guiltt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of direct evidence, the pros prosec ecut utio ion n may may reso resort rt to addu adduci cing ng circ circum umst stan anti tial al evid eviden ence ce.. Crim Crimes es are are usuall usually y commit committed ted in secre secrett and under under condit condition ions s where where concea concealme lment nt is highly highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under under all circumst circumstance ances, s, the prosecut prosecution ion of vici viciou ous s felo felons ns who who comm commit it hein heinou ous s crimes in secret or secluded places will be impossible to prove. (People vs. Sevilleno, G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004)
The Court takes notice that it is not unusua unusuall that that killin killings gs are perpet perpetra rated ted in (Velasco vs. People, People, front front of witnesse witnesses. s. (Velasco 483 SCRA 649, March 28, 2006)
ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
Judicial Judicial admissions admissions do not require require proof and may not be contradicted in the absence ence of a prior rior show howing ing tha that the the admi admiss ssio ions ns had had been been made made thro throug ugh h (Abarquez vs. People, People, palpable mistake. (Abarquez 479 SCRA 225)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DECISIONS
As a gene genera rall rule rule,, cour courts ts are are not not autho authoriz rized ed to take take judici judicial al notice notice in the adjudication adjudication of cases pending before them of the contents of other cases even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried
An admi admiss ssio ion n made made by a part party, y, under the rules of evidence, binds him and may be taken or used against him. If the admission was made in the course of the proceedings in the same case, it does not
2
require proof, and may be contracted only by show showin ing g that that it was was made made thro throug ugh h palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (Vesagas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142924, 12/05/2001)
knowledge, and; (e) that the fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue. (People vs. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105) Thus, in one case, despite the many opportunities given to the respondent, he refused to comment and present his side. The gravity of the charges and the weight of the evidence against him would have prompted an innocent man to come out and clear his name. However, he opted to maintain his silence. His silence can easily be interp interpret reted ed as an admiss admission ion of guilt. guilt. (Ortiz vs. De Guzman, A.M. No. P-03-1708, 2/26/2005)
ADMISSIONS BY COUNSEL
Whil While e an admi admiss ssio ion n made made on the the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and that the same is conclusive as to him, it is also a hornbook doctrine that the authority of an atto attorn rney ey to bind bind his his clie client nt as to any any admission of facts made by him is limited to matt matter ers s of judi judici cial al proc proced edur ure. e. An admis admissio sion n which which operat operates es as a waive waiver, r, surren surrender der or destru destructi ction on of the client client’s ’s cause is beyond the scope of the (People vs. attorney attorney’s ’s implied implied authorit authority. y. (People Hermanes, Hermanes, G.R. No. 139416, 03/12/2002)
UNCOUNSELED ADMISSIONS
An admi admiss ssio ion n is inad inadmi miss ssib ible le in evidence under Art. III Sec. 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution if it was given under cust custod odia iall inve invest stig igat atio ion n and and was was made made witho ithou ut the the assis ssista tan nce of cou counsel. sel. However, if the defense failed to object to its presentation during the trial, the result is that that the the defe defens nse e is deem deemed ed to have have waiv waived ed obje object ctio ion n to its its admi admiss ssib ibil ilit ity. y. (People vs. Samus, G.R. Nos. 135957-58, 09/17/2002)
Even Even the the negl neglig igen ence ce of coun counse sell (Sarra raga ga vs. vs. Banc Banco o bind binds s the the clie client nt.. (Sar Filip Filipino ino Saving Savings s & Mortga Mortgage ge Bank, Bank, G.R. G.R. No. 143783, 12/ 9/ 2002)
This This rule rule is not howeve however, r, withou withoutt exce except ptio ion. n. In case cases s wher where e reck reckle less ss or gross gross negligenc negligence e of counsel counsel derives derives the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright depr depriv ivat atio ion n of the the clie client nt’s ’s libe libert rty y or property or when the interests of justice so requir require, e, relie relieff is accor accorded ded the client client who suffe suffered red by reason reason of the lawyer lawyer’s ’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence. (Salaz (Salazar ar vs. Salaz Salazar ar,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 142920 142920,, 2/6/2002)
In Aballe vs. People, the Court held that hat the decl eclaration tion of an accus ccused ed expressl expressly y acknowled acknowledging ging his guilt guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person, otherwise competent to test testif ify y as a witn witnes ess, s, who who hear heard d the the confession, is competent to testify as to the the subs substa tanc nce e of what what he hear heard d if he heard and understood it. The said witness need need not not repea epeatt in verb verba atim tim the the oral oral conf confes essi sion on;; it suff suffic ices es if he give gives s its its substance.
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
In the the rece recent nt case case of Peop People le vs. vs. Zuela, the Court ruled that an admission made to a private person is admissible in evidence evidence against against the declara declarant nt pursuant pursuant to Sec. Sec. 26 of Rule ule 13 130 0 of the the Rule Rules s of Court, which states that the “act, declaration or omission of a party as to a releva relevant nt fact fact may may be given given in evide evidence nce against him. (People vs. De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 141162-63, 07/11/2002)
Silence is admission if there was a chan hance for for resp espond ondent ent to deny eny the the charges. (Donton vs. Loria, 484 SCRA 224, March 10, 2006)
The The rule rule on admis admissi sion on by silenc silence e appli applies es to both both crimi criminal nal and and civil civil cases cases altho although ugh must must be recei receive ved d with with cautio caution n because not every silence is an admission. For instance, the silence of a person under invest investiga igatio tion n for the commis commissio sion n of an offe offens nse e shou should ld not not be cons constr true ued d as an admission by silence because of (Crisostomo tomo vs. constitut constitutional ional reasons. reasons. (Crisos Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45, 4/15/2005)
ADMI ADMISS SSIB IBIL ILIT ITY Y CONFESSION
OF
EXTR EXTRAJ AJUD UDIC ICIA IAL L
The The Court, Court, with with its consta constant nt tryst tryst with retracting confessants, has drawn the cardinal requirements for an extra-judicial confessions to be admissible to wit: (1) the conf confes essi sion on must must be volu volunt ntar ary; y; (2) (2) the the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and indepe independe ndent nt counse counsel, l, prefe prefera rably bly to the confes confessan sant’s t’s choice choice;; (3) the confes confessio sion n must be express, and; (4) the confession
Not Not ever every y sile silenc nce e of a part party y is admissible. admissible. It is necessary that: (a) that he heard and understood the statement; (b) that he was at liberty to make a denial; (c) that that the statem statement ent was was about about a matte matterr affe affect ctin ing g his his righ rights ts or in whic which h he was was interested and which naturally calls for a response; (d) that the facts were within his
3
must be in writing. (People vs. Porio, G.R. No. 117202, 02/13/2002)
(People e vs. Ladao Ladao,, G.R. G.R. his conscienc conscience. e. (Peopl Nos. 100940-41, 11/27/2001)
Unde Underr Sec. Sec. 3 of Rule Rule 11 113 3 of the the Rules of Court, and extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Corp Corpus us deli delict ctii mean means s the the body body of the the crim crime e and, and, in its its prim primar ary y sens sense, e, that that a crim crime e has has actu actual ally ly been been comm commit itte ted. d. Appli Ap plied ed to a parti particul cular ar offens offense, e, it is the actu actual al comm commis issi sion on by some someon one e of the the (People ple vs. parti particul cular ar crime crime charge charged. d. (Peo Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, 02/06/2002)
A confession of the accused constitutes evidence of a high order since it is suppo supporte rted d by a strong strong presu presumpt mption ion that that no pers person on of norm normal al mind mind woul would d delibera deliberately tely and knowingl knowingly y confess confess to a crime crime unless unless promp prompted ted by truth truth and and his cons consci cien ence ce.. Once Once the the pros prosec ecut utio ion n has has shown that there was compliance with the cons onstitu tituti tion ona al requ requir irem emen entt on preinterrog interrogatio ation n advisori advisories, es, a confessio confession n is presumed to be voluntary, and the burden is on the accused to destroy this pres presum umpt ptio ion. n. The The decl declar aran antt bear bears s the the burden burden of provin proving g that that his confes confessio sion n is involu involunta ntary ry and untru untrue. e. A confes confessio sion n is admissible until the accused successfully prov proved ed that that it was was give given n as a resu result lt of violence violence,, intimida intimidation tion,, threat, threat, or promise promise of reward, or leniency. (People vs. Ranis, Jr., G.R. No. 129113, 09/17/2002)
The issue on the admissibility of an extrajud extrajudicia iciall confessi confession on is addresse addressed, d, in the first instance, to the judge, and since such discretion must be controlled by all the attendant circumstances, courts have wise wisely ly forb forbor orne ne to mark mark with with abso absolu lute te precision any rule limiting the admission or the exclusion of such confession. This judicial reluctance in accepting extrajudicial extrajudicial confession linking an accused to the crime, particularly when subsequently disputed, can be appr apprec ecia iate ted d when when it is show shown n that that the the conf confes essi sion on has has been been made made free freely ly and and volu olunta ntarily rily,, witho ithou ut com compuls pulsio ion n or inducement, or hope of reward of any sort. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Tabl Tablon on,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1372 137280 80,, 03/13/2002)
Wher Where e the the pros prosec ecut utio ion n fail failed ed to dischar discharge ge the State’s burden of proving proving with clear and convincing convincing evidence evidence that the accus accused ed had enjoye enjoyed d effect effectiv ive e and and vigilant counsel before the extrajudicially admi admitt tted ed his his guil guilt, t, the the extr extraj ajud udic icia iall confession cannot be given any probative (Peop ple vs. vs. Suela uela,, G.R. .R. Nos. value. (Peo 133570-71, 01/15/2002)
Conson Consonant ant with with the consti constitut tution ional al prec precep eptt that that a pers person on unde underr cust custod odia iall inve invest stig igat atio ion n shou should ld have have a righ rightt to counsel “in every phase of the inve invest stig igat atio ion, n,” ” the the cour courtt has has held held in a numb number er of case cases s that that a pers person on unde underr custodia custodiall investig investigatio ation n should should enjoy the right to counsel from its inception to its termination. Truly, the accused’s counsel of choice must be present and must be able to advise and assist his client from the the time time he answ answer ers s the the firs firstt ques questi tion on until until the time he signs the extra-judici extra-judicial al (People le vs. Felixm Felixmini inia, a, G.R. G.R. confession. (Peop No. 125333, 03/20/2002)
In ascer ascerta taini ining ng whethe whetherr or not an extrajudicial confession has been volu volunt ntar aril ily y made made,, cour courts ts reso resort rt to an examinat examination ion of the confessio confession n itself, itself, the language that is used, as well as how it is composed, and whether or not it is replete with details that could only be supplied by the accused himself and would not have been been known known to the invest investiga igatin ting g polic police e (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Tabl Tablon on,, G.R. .R. No. No. officers. (Peo 137280, 03/13/2002)
A witness, who heard the confession is competent to testify as to its substance. Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made by the testim testimony ony of a person person who who testif testifies ies that he was present, present, heard, heard, understo understood, od, and and reme rememb mber ers s the the subs substa tanc nce e of the the conv conver ersi sion on or stat statem emen entt made made by the the (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Suel Suela, a, G.R. G.R. Nos. Nos. accused. (Peo 133570-71, 01/15/2002)
It has been held that the cons consti titu tuti tion onal al prov provis isio ion n on cust custod odia iall investigation does not apply to a spon sponta tane neou ous s stat statem emen ent, t, not not elic elicit ited ed throug through h questi questioni oning ng by the author authoriti ities, es, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a susp suspec ectt in the the comm commis issi sion on of a crim crime e before before he is placed placed under under investig investigatio ation. n. What the Constitution bars is the compu compulso lsory ry dis disclo closur sure e of incri incrimin minati ating ng facts or confessions. The rights under Sec. 12 of the Constitution are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by
Having ing bee been obta obtain ined ed with ithout out infringi infringing ng the Constitut Constitutiona ionall safeguar safeguards, ds, accused-appellant’s accused-appellant’s confession constitutes evidence of the highest order since it is backed up by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would delibe delibera ratel tely y and and knowin knowingly gly confes confess s to a crime unless he is prompted by truth and
4
the state state as would lead the accus accused ed to admit something false, not to prevent him from from free freely ly and and volu volunt ntar aril ily y tell tellin ing g the the (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Balo Balolo loy, y, G.R. G.R. No. No. truth. (Peo 140740, 04/12/2002)
While a negative result on a paraffin test est is not not conc onclusi lusive ve proof oof tha that an accused did not fire a gun, such fact if consider considered ed with the other circumst circumstances ances of the case, which may be taken as an indication of his innocence. The prosecution’s evidence must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the (People le vs. vs. evid eviden ence ce of the the defe defens nse. e. (Peop Narvaez, G.R No. 140759, 01/24/2002)
CONCEPT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Phys Physic ical al evid eviden ence ce is a mute mute but but eloque eloquent nt manif manifest estat ation ion of truth, truth, and and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence. (Macalinao vs. Ong, 477 SCRA 740, December 14, 2005) For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloq eloque uent ntly ly than than a hund hundre red d witn witnes esse ses. s. (Rabanal vs. People, 483 SCRA 601, March 28, 2006; 2006; Peopl People e vs. Mark Mark Whise Whisenhu nhunt, nt, G.R. No. 123819, 11/14/2001)
BLOODSTAINED SHIRT
The fact that there was bloodstain on the accuse accused’s d’s clothing clothing could could not be taken as an indication of guilt on his part. At most most,, this this piec piece e of circ circum umst stan anti tial al evidence may lead to suspicion. But courts do not rely on circumstantial evidence that merely arises suspicion or conjecture. For circumstantial circumstantial evidence to lead conviction, it must do more than just raise the mere possibil possibility ity or even probability probability of guilt. guilt. It must engender engender moral moral certaint certainty. y. (People vs. Asis, G.R. No. 142531, 10/15/2002)
PARAFFIN TEST
Failure to conduct a paraffin test is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as scientifi scientific c experts experts agree agree that the paraffin paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive as to an accused’s complicity complicity in the crime committed. (Ungsod vs. People, 478 SCRA 282)
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
Negative results of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a person did not dischar discharge ge a firear firearm m at the time the crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person discharged of firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughl thoroughly y washed washed his hands hands thereaft thereafter. er. The absence of powder burns in a suspect’s hand is not conclusive proof that (People le vs. he has not fired a gun. (Peop Balleras, Balleras, G.R. No. 134564, 06/26/2002)
As a matter of reliability and trustworthiness, a telephone conversation must first be authenticated before it can even be received in evidence. To this end, it is critical that the person with whom the witnes witness s was conversi conversing ng on the phone phone is firs firstt sati satisf sfac acto tori rily ly iden identi tifi fied ed,, by voic voice e recognition or any other means. (Sandoval vs. Hret, G.R. No. 149380, 07/03/02)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Scientific experts concur in the view that that the the resu result lt of a para paraff ffin in test test is not not conc conclu lusi sive ve.. Whil While e it can can esta establ blis ish h the the pres presen ence ce of nitr nitrat ates es or nitr nitrit ites es on the the hand, it does not always indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by the dis discha charg rge e of firear firearm. m. The person person tested may have handled one or more of a numb number er of subs substa tanc nces es whic which h give give the the same same posi positi tive ve reac reacti tion on for for nitr nitrat ates es or nitri nitrites tes,, such such as explo explosiv sives, es, firewo fireworks rks,, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and legumino leguminous us plants plants such as peas, peas, beans, beans, and and alfal alfalfa. fa. A person person who uses uses tobac tobacco co may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tob tobacco. co. The The presen esenc ce of nitr itrates, es, ther theref efor ore, e, shou should ld be take taken n only only as an indi indica cati tion on of a poss possib ibil ilit ity y but but not not of infallibility that the person tested has fired (People vs. Pacifica Pacificador dor,, G.R. G.R. No. a gun. (People 126515, 02/06/2002)
According to American cour courts ts,, phot photog ogra raph phs s are are admi admiss ssib ible le in evid eviden ence ce in moto motorr vehi vehicl cle e case cases s when when they they appe appear ar to have have been been accu accura rate tely ly taken taken and are are proved proved to be faithful faithful and clea clearr repr repres esen enta tati tion on of the the subj subjec ect. t. (Mac Macalina linao o vs. Ong, 477 477 SCRA CRA 740, 40, December 14, 2005)
ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE An object evidence is not taken in isolation. It is weighed in relation to the test testim imon ony y of a witn witnes ess. s. Also Also,, in givi giving ng credence to a testimony, the court takes into consideration the physical evidence. If the testimony testimony bears bears a striking striking similar similarity ity with the physical evidence, the testimony (People le vs. vs. become becomes s worthy worthy of belief belief.. (Peop Larraňaga, Larraňaga, G.R. 138874-75, 7/21/ 2005)
GENUI GENUINEN NENES ESS S OF A HANDWR HANDWRITI ITING; NG; HOW PROVED
5
controversy as to the falsity of the Pacific Industria Industriall certificate. (Pan Pacific Sale Sales s Co., Co., Inc. Inc. vs. vs. CA, CA, 482 482 SCRA SCRA 164, February 10, 2006)
Sec. Sec. 22 of Rule Rule 132 132 enum enumer erat ates es how how the the genu genuin inen enes ess s of a hand handwr writ itin ing g may be proved: (a) by any witness who beli believ eves es it to be the the hand handwr writ itin ing g of a pers person on beca becaus use e (1) (1) he has has seen seen the the person write, or; (2) he has seen writing purp urporti ortin ng to be his upon pon whic which h the the witness has acted or been charged, and has has thus thus acqu acquir ired ed know knowle ledg dge e of the the handwriting of such person, or; (3) by a compa comparis rison on made made by the witne witness ss or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuin genuine e by the party party agains againstt whom whom the docu docume ment nt is offe offere red, d, or prov proved ed to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Hei (Heirs rs of Amad Amado o Cele Celest stia iall vs. vs. He Heir irs s of Edit Editha ha G. Cele Celest stia ial, l, G.R G.R. No 1426 142691 91,, 8/5/2003)
View that what is contex contextua tually lly consid considere ered d a public public document is not the private writing but the public public recor record. d. (Yuchenco vs.Sandiganbayan, vs.Sandiganbayan, 479 SCRA 1)
POLICE BLOTTERS
Although police blotters are of little probative value, they are neverthe nevertheless less admitted admitted and consider considered ed in the absen absence ce of compet competent ent evide evidence nce to (Macalinao refute the facts stated therein. vs. vs. Ong, Ong, 477 SCRA SCRA 740, 740, Decem December ber 14, 2005)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE As a rule, rule, docume documenta ntary ry eviden evidence ce should should be presente presented d to substanti substantiate ate the clai claim m for for dama damage ge for for loss loss of earn earnin ing g capacity capacity.. By way of exception, exception, damages damages for for loss oss of ear earning ing capaci pacitty may be awarded despite the absence of docu docume ment ntar ary y evid eviden ence ce,, prov provid ided ed that that there is testimony either that the minimum wage under current labor laws and and judici judicial al notice notice may be taken taken of the fact that in the victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimu minimum m daily daily wage wage under under the curren currentt (People vs. Pajotal, Pajotal, G.R. No. labor labor laws. laws. (People 142870, 11/14/01)
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS Und Under the Rules ules on Eviden idenc ce, docum document ents s are are either either public public or privat private. e. Private documents are those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in Sec. 19 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 20 of the same law in turn, provides that before any private document is received in evidence, its due execution and auth authen enti tici city ty must must be prov proved ed eith either er by anyone who saw the document executed or written or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand handwr writ itin ing g of the the make maker. r. (Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Philippine Nails and Wire Wires s Corp Corpor orat atio ion, n, G.R. .R. No. No. 1380 138084 84,, 04/10/02)
A witn witnes ess’ s’ test testim imon ony y cann cannot ot be considered as competent proof and cannot repl replac ace e the the prob probat ativ ive e valu value e of offi offici cial al rece receip ipts ts to just justif ify y the the awar award d of actu actual al damages, damages, for jurisprud jurisprudence ence instruct instructs s that the same must be duly substantiated by receipts. (Dino vs. Jardines, 481 SCRA 226, December 2006)
BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE A baptisma baptismall certifica certificate te is evidence evidence only only to prove prove the admin adminis istra tratio tion n of the sacrament on the dates therein specified, but not have veracity of the declaration therein stated with respect to a person’s kinsfo kinsfolk. lk. The same same is conclu conclusiv sive e only only of the baptism administered according to the rites rites of the Catholic Catholic Church, Church, by the priest who baptized the subject child, but it does not prove the veracity of the declarations and statements contained in the certific certificate ate concernin concerning g the relation relationship ship of the person baptized. A baptismal cert certif ific icat ate, e, a priv privat ate e docu docume ment nt,, is not not conclusive proof of filiation. More so are the entries made in an income tax return, whic which h only only show shows s that that inco income me tax tax has has been een pai paid and the the amount ount there hereof of.. (Labagala vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 132305, 12/04/2001)
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS/ EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS Where Where the requisit requisite e circumst circumstance ances s exis exist, t, a part party y may may be enti entitl tled ed to the the prod produc ucti tion on of reco record rds s for for insp inspec ecti tion on,, copying, and photocopying as a matter of right. (Santos vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 148218, 04/29/02)
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS A notarized document carr carrie ies s the the evid eviden enti tiar ary y weig weight ht conferred upon it with respect to its due due exec execut utio ion, n, and and it has has in its its favor the presumption of regularity whic which h may may only only be rebu rebutt tted ed by evid eviden ence ce,, so clea clear, r, stro strong ng and convincing as to exclude all
BIRTH CERTIFICATE
6
A birth certificate is the best evidence of a person’s date of birth and that late registration by the mother of her child’s birth does not affect its evidentiary value. (Orfila vs. Arellano, 482 SCRA 280, February 13, 2006)
One of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule is when a party puts in issue in his pleading the validity of the written document. (Aloria vs. Clemente, 483 SCRA 634, March 28, 2006)
PAROL EVIDENCE; ACKNOWLEDGMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence evidence shall be admissib admissible le other than the original document. (Ebreo vs. Ebreo, 483 SCRA 583, March 28, 2006)
An acknowledgment receipt is valid and and bind bindin ing g betw betwee een n the the part partie ies s who who executed it, as a document evidencing the loan loan agre agreem emen entt of the the part partie ies s cann cannot ot stand against the acknowledgment acknowledgment receipt presented by respondent. (Spouses Reyes vs. vs. Court Court of Appeal Appeals, s, G.R. G.R. No. No. 147758 147758,, 06/26/2002)
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
It is axiomatic that before a part party y is allo allowe wed d to addu adduce ce seco second ndar ary y evid eviden ence ce to prov prove e the the cont conten ents ts of the the original of a deed or document, the party has to prove with the requisite quantum of evid eviden ence ce,, the the loss loss or dest destru ruct ctio ion n or unav unavai aila labi bili lity ty of all all the the copi copies es of the the orig origin inal al of the the said said deed deed or docu docume ment nt.. (Ebreo (Ebreo vs. Ebreo, Ebreo, 483 SCRA SCRA 583, 583, March March 28, 2006)
QUALITY/NUMBER OF WITNESSES
It is the quality not the number, of witnes witnesses ses,, which which may may be consid considere ered d a facto factorr in the apprec apprecia iatio tion n of eviden evidence, ce, preponderance does not necessarily lie in (Jimen enez ez vs. vs. the the grea greate test st numb number er.. (Jim Commis Commission sion on Ecumenic Ecumenical al Mission Mission and Rela Relati tion ons s of the the Unit United ed Pres Presby byte teri rian an Church in the United States of America, G.R. No. 140472, 06/10/2002)
PAROL EVIDENCE
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
Sec. 9 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rule Rules s of Cour Courtt prov provid ides es that that when when the the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writi ritin ng, it is to be cons onsider idered ed as containing all the terms agreed upon and there there can can be, between between the parties parties and and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written written agreement agreement.. Simply Simply put, evidence evidence of a prio priorr or cont contem empo pora rane neou ous s verb verbal al agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of a valid valid contra contract ct while while parol parol eviden evidence ce is admis admissib sible le to explai explain n the meanin meaning g of a writ writte ten n cont contra ract ct.. It canno cannott serv serve e the the purpose of incorporating into the contract addit addition ional al contem contempor porane aneous ous condit condition ions s which are not mentioned at all in writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake. It is basi basic c that that part partie ies s are are boun bound d by the the terms of their contract which is the law between them. (MC Engineering, Inc. vs. Court urt of Appea ppealls, G.R. .R. No. No. 10404 04047, 7, 04/03/2002)
Affi Affid davits vits take taken n ex-pa -parte are gene genera rall lly y cons consid ider ered ed infe inferi rior or to the the testi estim mony ony give iven in open open cour ourt, and affid fidavits vits of reca recan ntati tation on have bee been inva invari riab ably ly rega regard rded ed as exce exceed edin ingl gly y unre unreli liab able le,, sinc since e they they can can easi easily ly be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, for moneta monetary ry consid considera eratio tion n or throug through h inti intimi mida dati tion on and and are are most most like likely ly to be (Peo (Peop ple vs. repudi repudiate ated d afterw afterwar ards. ds. Somodio, G.R. Nos. 134139-40, 02/15/2002)
An affidavit of desistance is regarded with suspicion as it can be easily obtained through intimidation and attains no probative value in light of the affiant’s (People vs. testim testimony ony to the contra contrary. ry. (People Acojedo, G.R. No. 138661, 11/19/2001) RELATIONSHIP TO ACCUSED
Relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. However, the Court takes cognizance of the facts that bloo blood d rela relati tive ves s tend tend to be natu natura rall lly y prote protecti ctive ve of each each other other and are giving giving false testimonies in favor of one another, especi especial ally ly a relati relative ve in danger danger of being being (People vs. Acojedo, Acojedo, G.R. No. convicted. (People 138661, 11/19/2001)
Under nder the the rule, ule, the the terms erms of a contract are rendered conclusive upon the partie ties and evid eviden ence ce aliun liunde de is not not admissible to vary or contradict a comp comple lete te and and enfo enforc rcea eabl ble e agre agreem emen entt embodied in a document. (Rosario Textile Mill Mills s Corp Corpor orat atio ion n vs. vs. Hom Home Bank Banker ers s Savi Saving ngs s and and Trus Trustt Comp Compan any, y, G.R. G.R. No. No. 137232, 6/29/2005)
QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES; MENTAL INCAPACITY
7
In determining the competency of a child witness, the court must consider his capac capacity ity:: (a) at the time the fact to be test testif ifie ied d occu occurr rred ed,, such such that that he coul could d receive correct impressions thereof; (b) to compr comprehe ehend nd the obliga obligatio tion n of an oath, oath, and; (c) to relate those facts truly to the cour ourt at the time time he is offe offerred as a witnes witness. s. The examin examinati ation on should should show show that the child has some understanding of the punish punishmen mentt which which may resul resultt from from false swearing. The requisite appreciation of conseq consequen uences ces is dis disclo closed sed where where the child states that he knows that it is wrong to tell a lie, and that he would be punished if he does so, or that he uses language whic which h is equi equiva vale lent nt to sayi saying ng that that he would be sent to hell for false swearing. A child can be disqualified only if it can be shown shown that his mental mental maturity maturity renders renders him incap incapab able le of percei perceivin ving g facts facts with with respec respectt to which which he is being being examin examined, ed, and of relating them truthfully.
Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness incompetent, one may mentally or metaphysically insane, yet be capab pable in law of givi givin ng com compete peten nt test testim imon ony y in the the tria triall of a case case.. The The general rule is that a lunatic or a person affected affected with insanity insanity is admissib admissible le as a witness if he has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and is capable of giving a correct account of the matters which he has been or heard with respect to the questions at issue. It is now now held held univ univer ersa sall lly y that that insa insani nity ty or inte intell llec ectu tual al weak weakne ness ss of witness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to his competency if, if, at the the time time he is test testif ifyi ying ng,, he has has mental mental capac capacity ity to dis distin tingu guish ish betwe between en righ rightt and and wron wrong, g, so far far as the the fact facts s in issu issue e and and his his test testim imon ony y ther thereo eon n are are involved, he understands the nature and obli obliga gati tion on of an oath oath,, and and he can can give give fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matters about which he testifies.
The The questi question on of compet competenc ency y of a child witness rests primarily in the sound disc discre reti tion on of the the tria triall cour court. t. This This is so because the trial judge sees the proposed witn witnes ess s and and obse observ rves es his his mann manner er of testifying, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding understanding of the obligation of an oath. Sinc Since e many many of the the witn witnes ess’ s’ mann manner ers s cannot be photographed into the record, the finding of the trial judge will not be disturbed or reversed unless from what is preserved it is clear that such finding was (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Prun Pruna, a, G.R. G.R. No. No. erroneous. (Peo 138471, 10/10/2002)
The issue of competence of witness to testify rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. (People vs. Caingat, G.R. No. 137963, 02/06/2002) QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES; CHILDREN
As a general rule, when a witness take takes s the the witn witnes ess s stan stand, d, the the law, law, on ground of public policy, presumes that he is competent. The court cannot reject the witn witnes ess s in the the abse absenc nce e of proo prooff of his his incomp incompete etency ncy.. The burden burden is upon upon the party party object objecting ing to the competen competency cy of a witness to establish the ground of incompetency.
QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES; MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICATION Under Under the marita maritall dis disqua qualif lifica icatio tion n rule, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in civil case by one against the other, or in crimi criminal nal case case for a crime crime commit committed ted by one against the other or the latter’s direct descen descenda dants nts or ascend ascendant ants. s. Howeve However, r, objections to the competency of a husband and wife to testify in a criminal pros prosec ecut utio ion n agai agains nstt the the othe otherr may may be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when hen he or she is fir first offe offere red d as a witness. ( People vs. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, 09/12/2002)
Sec. 21 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence enumerates the persons who are disqualified to be witnesses. Among those disqualified are “children whose maturity is such as to rende renderr them them incap incapab able le of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and relating them truthfully.” No precis precise e minimu minimum m age can be fixed at which children shall be excluded from testifying. testifying. The intellige intelligence, nce, not the age, of a young child is the test of his competency as a witness. It is settled that a chil child, d, rega egardles dless s of age, ge, can can be a competent witness if he can perceive and, in perc erceivi eiving ng,, can make know nown his perce ercept ptiion to oth others ers and that hat he is capable of relating truthfully the facts for which he is examined.
QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES; MARITAL PRIVILEGE RULE
8
guilt may be drawn only when it is unexplained and with an evident purpose of evading prosecution. (People vs. Monje, G.R. No. 146689, 09/27/2002)
The The marita maritall privil privilege ege rule, rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any conduct that may may be cons constr true ued d as impl implie ied d cons consen ent. t. (Lac (Lacur urom om vs. vs. Jaco Jacoba ba,, 484 484 SCRA SCRA 206, 206, March 10, 2006)
OFFER OF COMPROMISE BY ACCUSED Under Sec. 27 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (People vs. Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-3 3-35, 12/13/2001)
QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES; DEAD MAN’S STATUTE The The dead dead man’s man’s statut statute e does does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of act coming to his knowledge in any other way than through pers person onal al deal dealin ings gs with with the the dece deceas ased ed person person,, or commun communica icatio tion n made made by the (Bordlaba a vs. deceas deceased ed to the witne witness. ss. (Bordlab Court urt of Appea ppealls, G.R. .R. No. No. 11244 12443, 3, 01/25/2002)
QUALIFIED COMMUNICATION
Although the marriage of the accused in a rape case extinguishes the penal action (Alonto vs. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA SCRA 245) 245), an offer of marriage is, generally, speaking, an admission of guilt. (Peopl (People e vs. Bulos Bulos,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 123542 123542,, 6/26 /2001)
PRIVILEGED
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
Under Section Section 34, Rule Rule 130 of the the Under Revised Rules of Court, evidence that one did did a cert certai ain n thin thing g at one one time time is not not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time, although such evidence may be received to prove habit habit,, usage usage,, patter pattern, n, of conduc conductt or the intent of the parties.
A writt written en letter letter contai containin ning g libelo libelous us matte matterr cannot cannot be class classifi ified ed as privi ivileg leged when hen it is publi blished hed and (Buatis, Jr. circulat circulated ed among among the public. public. (Buatis, vs. People, 485 SCRA 275) ABILITY TO MAKE KNOWN PERCEPTION TO OTHERS
THE
Cou Courts must ust conte onten nd with ith the caveat that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of spec specif ific icit ity y and freq freque uenc ncy y of unif unifor orm m response that ensures more than a mere tenden tendency cy to act in a given given manner manner but but rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. It is only when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an inference of syste systemat matic ic conduc conductt that that exampl examples es are are (Boston Bank of the admissible. Phili Philippi ppines nes vs. Mana Manalo, lo, 482 SCRA SCRA 108, 108, February 9, 2006)
A deaf-m deaf-mute ute is not necess necessari arily ly an inco incomp mpet eten entt as a witne itness ss.. They They are are competent where they: (a) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on, and; (3) can communicate their idea ideas s thro throug ugh h a qual qualif ifie ied d inte interp rpre rete ter. r. (People vs. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, 11/ 22/ 2000) FLIGHT OF ACCUSED The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against against him. One type of act that can be given in evidence against him is flight. In Criminal Law, “flight” means an act act of evadin evading g the course course of jus justic tice e by voluntar voluntarily ily withdraw withdrawing ing oneself oneself to avoid avoid arres arrestt or detent detention ion or the ins instit tituti ution on or continuan continuance ce of criminal criminal proceedi proceeding. ng. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a gene generral rule, le, be take taken n as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt. guilt. In short, short, flight flight is an indica indicatio tion n of (Peop ple vs. Lica icayan, G.R. .R. No. No. guilt. (Peo 144422, 02/28/2002)
Like
any other fact, habits, custom customs, s, usage usage or patte patterns rns of conduc conductt (Pag-Asa Steel Steel Works, Works, must must be proved proved.. (Pag-Asa Inc. Inc. vs. vs. CA, CA, 486 486 SCRA SCRA 475, 475, Marc March h 31, 31, 2006) RECEIPT OF PROPERTY SEIZED
The The rece receip iptt of prop proper erty ty seiz seized ed is issued iss ued by the police police in accord accordan ance ce with with their their stand standard ard opera operatin ting g proce procedur dure e in a buy bust operation to show what property was was seiz seized ed.. The The rece receip iptt shou should ld not not be treate treated d as an admis admissio sion n or confes confessio sion. n. Indeed, the receipt could not be considered evidence against the accused because it was signed by him without the
Although as a general rule flight is an indication of guilt, the same should not be flip flippa pant ntly ly cons consid ider ered ed.. Flig Flight ht is a circumstance from which an inference of
9
(Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. assi assist stan ance ce of coun counse sel. l. Casimiro, Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277, 06/20/2002)
As a rule rule,, the the ina inadmis dmissi sibi bili lity ty of testimony taken by deposition is anchored on the the grou ground nd that that such such test testim imon ony y is hearsay, i.e. the party against whom it is offe offere red d has has no oppo opport rtun unit ity y to cros crosssexam examin ine e the the depo depone nent nt at the the time time his his test testim imon ony y is offe offere red. d. The The act act of cros crosssexamining the deponent during the taking of the deposition cannot, without more, be considered a waiver of the right to object to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. (Sales vs. Sabino, 477 SCRA 101, December 9, 2005)
A susp suspec ect’ t’s s conf confes essi sion on,, whet whethe herr verbal or non-verbal, when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver waiver of such assistance, assistance, regardless regardless of the absence of such coercion or the fact that that it had had been been volu volunt ntar aril ily y give given, n, is inadmissible inadmissible in evidence, even if suspect’s (People vs. confessio confession n was gospel gospel truth. truth. (People Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 11/21/2001)
HEARSAY EVIDENCE TEST TESTIMO IMONY— NY—RAP RAPE-C E-CONV ONVICT ICTION ION SOLE TESTIMONY OF VICTIM
The term “hearsay” as used in the law on evidence signifies evidence which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and which consequently does not depe depend nd whol wholly ly for for its its cred credib ibil ilit ity y and and weig weight ht upon upon the the conf confid iden ence ce whic which h the the court may have in him. Its value, if any, is meas measur ured ed by the the cred credit it to be give given n to some third person not sworn as a witness to that fact, and consequently not subject to cros crosss-ex exam amin inat atio ion. n. If one one ther theref efor ore e testifies to facts which he learned from a thir third d pers person on not not swor sworn n as a witn witnes ess s to those facts, his testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
ON
The rule is that there can be conv convic icti tion on even even if ther there e is no phys physic ical al evidence to corroborate her claim. This is on the supposition that her testimony was clear and free from serious contradictions, and and her her sinc sincer erit ity y and and cand candor or beyo beyond nd suspicion suspicion.. If the complaina complainant’s nt’s testimony testimony is not not of such such char charac acte ter, r, conv convin inci cing ng corroborative proof is required. (People vs. Benoza, G.R. No. 139470, 11/29/2001) DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT
This doctrine holds that conversa conversation tion communica communicated ted to a witness witness by a thir third d pers person on may may be admi admitt tted ed as proof that, regardless of its truth or falsity, it was actually not secondary but primary, for for in itse itself lf it: it: (a) (a) cons consti titu tute tes s a fact fact in issue, or; (b) is circumstantially relevant relevant to the existence of such fact. (Republic vs. Heir eirs of Aleja ejaga, ga, G.R. No. 1460 146030 30,, 12/03/2002)
The The reas reason on for for the the excl exclus usio ion n of hearsay evidence is that the party against whom the hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the right or opportunity to cross cross-ex -exam amine ine the person person to whom whom the statemen statements ts are attribut attributed. ed. Moreover, Moreover, the court court is witho without ut opport opportun unity ity to test test the cred credib ibil ilit ity y of hear hearsa say y stat statem emen ents ts by obser observin ving g the demean demeanor or of the person person who made them. (People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, 10/10/2002)
While it is true that the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another another person, person, if intended intended to establis establish h the trut truth h of the the fac fact asser sserte ted d in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the stat statem emen entt in the the reco record rd is mere merely ly to establish the fact that the statement was made made or the the teno tenorr of such such stat statem emen ent. t. (Comi (Comilan lang g vs. Burcen Burcena, a, 482 SCRA SCRA 342, 342, February 13, 2006)
The The reli reliab abil ilit ity y of a test testim imon ony y is based on the personal knowledge of the witness. If a witness witness testifies on the basis of what others have told him, and not on facts which he knows of his own personal know knowle ledg dge, e, the the test testim imon ony y woul would d be excl exclud uded ed as hear hearsa say y evid eviden ence ce.. This This is because the witness cannot be effectively cross-examined on the matters he testif testified ied to. His answe answers rs to quest question ions s in open court would necessarily be based on the knowledge of a person who is not in the witnes witness s stand. stand. The latte latterr calle called d the outs outsid ide e dec declar larant can cannot not be cros rossexamined because he is not in court. The reliabil reliability ity and truth truth of the perception perception of this this outsid outside e declar declarant ant canno cannott be tested tested and verified in court. Hearsay evidence if not object objected ed to is admiss admissibl ible. e. Howev However, er, even even if admi admitt tted ed,, it has has no prob probat ativ ive e value. (Mallari vs. People, 446 SCRA 74, 12/10/2004)
DYING DECLARATION
An ante mortem statement in artic articulo ulo mortis mortis is admiss admissibl ible e under under the following requisites: (1) death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause and the surrou surroundi nding ng circum circumsta stance nces s of such such death; (3) the declaration relates to a fact which the victim is competent to testify to, and; and; (4) (4) the the decl declar arat atio ion n is offe offere red d in a
10
case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.
imminence not so much is rapid occu occurr rren ence ce,, was was at hand hand.. This This may may be proven by the statement of the victim or inferred from the nature and the extent of the the vict victim im’s ’s woun wounds ds or othe otherr rele releva vant nt circumstances. (People vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 144052, 03/06/2002)
The issue of whether a declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death is a matter of evidence. It must must be shown shown that that such such decla declarat ration ion was made under a realization that one’s demise or at least its imminence, not so much its rapid occurrence, was at hand. This may be proven by the statement of the victim or inferred from the nature and exte extent nt of the the vict victim im’s ’s woun wounds ds or othe otherr (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. releva relevant nt circum circumsta stance nces. s. Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, 11/16/2001)
An ante-mortem statement or dying declaration is entitled to probative weight if: if: (1) (1) at the the time time the the decl declar arat atio ion n was was made, de, deat eath was was immi immine nent nt and the declaarnt was conscious of that fact; (2) the decla declarat ration ion refers refers to the cause cause and and surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declar declarati ation on relate relates s to the facts facts which the victim was competent to testify to; (4) the declarant thereafter died, and; (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.
The rule on dying declaration does not require that the person should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he shou should ld die die imme immedi diat atel ely, y, or with within in any any specified specified time thereaft thereafter, er, in order order to give the declara declaration tion probativ probative e force. force. Where Where a person person has been fatal fatally ly wounde wounded, d, is in sore distress distress therefrom therefrom,, and he believes believes that he will not recover and is soon to die, his statement made in this belief relating to the cause of his injury is admissible, if it appears appears that he subseque subsequently ntly died from the effects of the wound, although he may have revived after making the statements or may may have have lived lived a consid considera erable ble time time thereafter, and may have again begun to (People vs. Mendoza Mendoza,, hope for recovery recovery.. (People G.R. NO. 142654, 11/16/2001)
Th The signi ignifi fic cance nce of a victi ictim m’s realizat realization ion or conscious consciousness ness that he was on the brink of death cannot be gainsaid. Such ante-mortem statement is evidence of the the high highes estt orde orderr beca becau use at the the thres hresh hold old of dea death, th, all thou hought ghts of fabricating lies are stilled. The utterance of a victim made immediately after susta stainin ining g seri erious ous inju injuri ries es may may be considered the incident speaking through the the vict victim im.. It is enti entitl tled ed to the the high highes estt credence.
The crucial factor to consider is the contemporaneity of the moment when the statement was made and the moment of the the real realiz izat atio ion n of deat death. h. The The time time the the statement was being made must also be the time the victim was aware that he was dying. (People vs. Pena, G.R. No. 133964, 02/13/2002)
Dying declaration, also known as an ante mortem statement or a statement in artic articulo ulo mortis, mortis, is one that refers refers to the cause cause and surround surrounding ing circumst circumstance ances s of the declarant’s death and is made under the consci conscious ousnes ness s of impend impending ing death. death. Because of its necessity and tru trustwo stworrthi thines ness, it is admissi issibl ble e in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. rule. Necessit Necessity y because because the declara declarant’s nt’s death makes it impossible for him to take the witness stand, and trustworthiness, trustworthiness, for when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration consideration to speak the truth.
Apart Apart from from the statem statement ents s of the declarant, his consciousness of impending deat death h can can be prov proved ed by surr surrou ound ndin ing g circ circum umst stan ance ces, s, such such as the the natu nature re of (Peopl ple e vs. vs. injur njury y or by his con conduct duct.. (Peo Calago, G.R. No. 141122, 04/22/2002).
The rule is that a dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness who heard it may testify thereto without the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent, if he is able to give subs substa tanc nce e ther thereo eof. f. An unsi unsign gned ed dyin dying g declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Boll Boller er,, G.R. G.R. Nos Nos.. down. (Peo 144222-24, 04/03/2002)
An antemortem statement is admiss missib ible le,, prov provid ided ed the fol follow lowing ing requi equisi site tes s are pres presen entt: (1) deat eath is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause cause and surround surrounding ing circumst circumstance ances s of such death; (3) the declaration relates to a fact that the victim is competent to testify to, and; (4) the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.
RES GESTATE
It must be shown that the declaration was made under a realization that one’s demise or at least its
The The decl decla arant’s t’s utte utterrance nce are considered part of res gestae when made
11
immediat immediately ely after after a startlin startling g occurrenc occurrence. e. The The admi admiss ssio ion n of such such utte uttera ranc nces es are are base based d on the the well well foun founde ded d beli belief ef that that words spoken instinctively at the time of a specific specific transac transactiona tionall event, event, without without the opportunity for the speaker to effectively conc oncoct oct a fabr fabriicate cated d versio rsion n of the startlin startling g event can only be but credible. credible. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Cala Calago go,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1411 141122 22,, 05/22/2002)
which which are are deriv derived ed from from his perce percepti ption. on. Consequently, Consequently, a witness may not testify as to what what he merely merely learned learned from others others either because he was told, read or heard the same. same. Such testimony testimony is considere considered d hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. Such is the hearsay rule, which applies not only to oral testimony or statements but also to written evidence as well.
The term “res gestae” comprehends a situatio situation n which which presents presents a startling startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to produce a spon sponta tane neou ous s and and inst instin inct ctiv ive e reac reacti tion on,, during during which which interval interval certain certain statemen statements ts are made under such circumstances as to who who lack lack of fore foreth thou ough ghtt or deli delibe bera rate te design in the formulation of their contents.
The The hear hearsa say y rule rule is base based d upon upon serious concerns about the trustwort trustworthine hiness ss and reliabil reliability ity of hearsay hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirma affirmation tion and, more important importantly, ly, have not been subjecte subjected d to cross-ex cross-examin aminatio ation n by opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and articulateness articulateness of the out-of-court declarant declarant or actor upon whose reliability reliability on which which the worth of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the wort worth h of the the outout-of of-c -cou ourt rt stat statem emen entt depends.
Since Since res gestae gestae refers refers to those those excla exclamat mation ions s and statem statement ents s made made by eith either er the the par partici ticipa pan nts, ts, vict ictims, ims, or specta spectator tors s to a crime crime before before,, durin during, g, or immediately after the commission of the crime, they should necessarily be the ones who who must must not not have have the the oppo opport rtun unit ity y to contrive or devise a falsehood but not the person persons s to whom whom they they gave gave their their dying dying declaration or spontaneous statement. In othe otherr word words, s, the the witn witnes ess s who who mere merely ly testifies on a res geatae is not the decla eclarrant refer eferrred to in the the seco econd requ requis isit ite e whos whose e stat statem emen ents ts had had to be made before he had the time to contrive or devise devise a falsehood falsehood.. (People vs. Pena, G.R. No. 133964, 02/13/2002)
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, among which are entries in offi offici cial al reco record rds. s. To be admi admiss ssib ible le in evid eviden ence ce,, howe howeve ver, r, 3 requ requis isit ites es must must concur, to wit: (1) that the entry was made by a publi public c office officer, r, or by anthe antherr person person specially enjoined by law to do so; (2) that it was made by the public officer in the perf perfor orma manc nce e of his his duti duties es,, or by such such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined enjoined by law, and; (3) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official Country Bankers Bankers Insurance Insurance informat information. ion. (Country Corp Corp.. vs. vs. Lian Lianga ga Bay Bay And And Comm Commun unit ity y Multi lti-Pu -Purpo rpose Coop., p., Inc., nc., G.R. .R. No. 136914, 01/25/2002)
Res gestae utterances refer to those excl exclam amat atio ion n and and stat statem emen ents ts made made by eith either er the the par partici ticipa pan nts, ts, vict ictims, ims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, duri during ng,, or afte afterr the the comm commis issi sion on of the the crime crime when the circumst circumstance ances s are such that that thei theirr stat statem emen ents ts were were made made as a spon pontane taneou ous s react eactio ion n or utt uttera erance nce inspired by the excitement of the occasion and and ther there e was was no oppo opport rtun unit ity y for for the the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startlin startling g occurren occurrence; ce; (2) the statemen statements ts were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and; (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. (People vs. Cantonjos, G.R. No. 136748, 11/21/2001)
OPINION RULE Having Having testified testified on matters matters undeni undeniabl ably y within within the area area of his expertise, and having performed a thorou thorough gh autops autopsy y on the body of the victim, an expert’s findings as to the cause of death of the victim are more than just speculations of an ordinary person. (Calimutan vs. People, 482 SCRA 44, February 9, 2006)
EXPERT OPINION
Expert opinion is to be consid considere ered d or weigh weighed ed by the court court like like any other testimony, in the light of their own genera generall knowle knowledge dge and exper experien ience ce upon the subject of inquiry.
ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
A witness can testify only to those fact facts, s, whic which h he know knows s of his his pers person onal al know knowle ledg dge, e, whic which h mean means s thos those e fact facts, s,
12
increa increased sed need need to identif identify y someone someone to show the police that they, too, feel that the criminals is in the line-up, and makes the witnesse witnesses s particul particularly arly vulnera vulnerable ble to any clues conveyed by the police or other witnesses as to whom they suspect of the crime.
The The inclus inclusion ion or exclus exclusion ion by the expert of factors or elements that should or should not be considered in the dete determ rmin inat atio ion n of his his opin opinio ion n is to be considered in determining the wieht to be (People le vs. attach attached ed to his testim testimony ony.. (Peop Malejana, 479 SCRA 610)
The test is whether or not prosecution was able to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the (People vs. line line-u -up p iden identi tifi fica cati tion on.. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, 01/16/2002)
OPINIONS OF HANDWRITING EXPERTS
It is also hornbook doctrine that the opin opinio ions ns of hand handwr writ itin ing g expe expert rts, s, even even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding binding upon courts. courts. This principle principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questi questione oned d sig signat nature ures s with with those those of the currently existing ones.
While it might be easier for a witness to recognize the culprit if they are know known n to each each othe other, r, an iden identi tifi fica cati tion on made by a witness is not less credible just because the accused is a stranger.
Handw Handwri ritin ting g expert experts s are usuall usually y help helpfu full in the the exam examin inat atio ion n of forg forged ed docu docume ment nts s beca becaus use e of the the tech techni nica call procedure involved in analyzing them. But resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the (Jimenez vs. comparis comparison on of handwrit handwriting. ing. (Jimenez Commis Commission sion On Ecumenic Ecumenical al Mission Mission And Rela Relati tion ons s Of The The Unit United ed Pres Presby byte teri rian an Chur Church ch In The The USA, USA, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1404 140472 72,, 06/10/2002).
Neither can the lapse of only a few seconds in witnessing the crime diminish the witne witness’ ss’ credi credibil bility ity.. Time Time is not an accurate measure of a person’s ability to recogniz recognize e a face. face. A startlin startling g or frightful frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the mind that can be recalled vividly. (Peopl (People e vs. Punsa Punsala lan, n, G.R. G.R. No. No. 145475 145475,, 11/22/2001)
Posi Positi tive ve iden identi tifi fica cati tion on requi equire res s essential proof of identity and not per se an eyewitness account of the very act of committing the crime. Such identification form forms s part part of circ circum umst stan anti tial al evid eviden ence ce which, which, when when taken taken togeth together er with with other other piece ieces s of evid vidence ence cons onstitu tituti tin ng an unbr nbroken oken cha chain, in, leads to a fai fair and reas reason onab able le conc conclu lusi sion on that that accu accuse seddappellant is the author of the crime to the (Peopl ple e vs. vs. expl explos osio ion n of the the othe others rs.. (Peo Rubares, G.R. No. 143127, 11/29/2001)
OPINION OPINION OF ORDINARY ORDINARY WITNESS WITNESSES; ES; IDENTIFICATION OF OFFENDERS
Eyewi Eyewitne tness ss identi identific ficat ation ion is often often decisive decisive of the conviction conviction or acquitta acquittall of an accused. accused. Identificati Identification on of an accused accused through mug shots as one of the establis established hed procedur procedures es in pinning pinning down criminal criminals. s. However, However, to avoid avoid charges charges of impermissible suggestion, there should be noth nothin ing g in the the phot photog ogra raph ph that that woul would d focus attention on a single person. (People vs. Villena, G.R. No. 140066, 10/14/2002)
Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determ determina inatio tion n of wheth whether er or not an eyewitness has identified the perpetrator of a crime. crime. When When condit condition ions s of visibi visibilit lity y are are favora favorable ble and and the witnes witnesses ses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the the iden identi tity ty of the the male malefa fact ctor or shou should ld norma ormallly be acce ccepted pted.. Ill Illumin umina ation tion produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is suff suffic icie ient nt to allo allow w iden identi tifi fica cati tion on of pers person ons. s. Wick Wickla lamp mps, s, flas flashl hlig ight hts, s, even even moon moonli ligh ghtt or star starli ligh ghtt may, may, in prop proper er situ situat atio ions ns,, be cons consid ider ered ed suff suffic icie ient nt illu illumi mina nati tion on,, maki making ng the the atta attack ck on the the cred credib ibil ilit ity y of witn witnes esse ses s sole solely ly on that that (People vs. Coca, Coca, ground unmeritorious. unmeritorious. (People Jr., G.R. No. 133739, 05/19/2002)
Various social psychological factors increase the danger of suggestibility in a line-up confrontation. Witnesses, like other people, are motivated by a desire to be corre correct ct and and to avoid avoid lookin looking g foolis foolish. h. By arra arrang ngin ing g a line line-u -up, p, the the poli police ce have have evid eviden ence ced d thei theirr beli belief ef that that they they have have caught caught the criminal criminal.. Witnesse Witnesses, s, realizi realizing ng this this,, prob probab ably ly will will feel feel fool foolis ish h if they they cannot identify anyone and therefore may choose someone despite residual uncertainty. Moreover, the need to reduce psychological discomfort often motivates a victim to a crime to find likely target for feelings of hostility. Fina Finall lly, y, witn itness esses are highl ighly y motiva motivated ted to behave behave like like those those aroun around d them. This desire to conform produces an
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
13
bad bad chara characte cter. r. Other Otherwis wise, e, a defend defendant ant,, would would have have a licens license e to unscru unscrupul pulous ously ly impose a false character upon the tribunal.
Char Charac acte terr is the the poss posses essi sion on by a person person of qualit qualities ies of mind mind and and moral morals. s. Dist Distin ingu guis ishi hing ng him him from from othe others rs is the the opinion generally entertained of a person which is derived from the common report of the people people who are are acquai acquainte nted d with with him, his reputation ‘good moral character’ incl includ udes es all all the the elem elemen ents ts esse essent ntia iall to make up such a character, among these are com common mon hon honesty esty and vera eracity ity. Especially in all professional intercourse, a char charac acte terr that that meas measur ures es up as good good among people of the community in which the the per person son live ives or tha that is up to the the stan standa dard rd of the the aver averag age e citi citize zen, n, that that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
Both Both subsub-pa para ragr grap aphs hs 1 and and 2 of Sec. Sec. 51 of Rule Rule 130 130 refe referr to char charac acte terr evidence of the accused. And this evidence must be “pertinent to the moral trait trait involv involved ed in the offens offense e charg charged, ed,” ” mean meanin ing, g, that that the the char charac acte terr evid eviden ence ce must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assa assaul ult, t, char charac acte terr for for peac peacef eful ulne ness ss or violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. Subparagraph 3 of Sec. 51 of the said Rule refers refers to the chara characte cterr of the offend offended ed party. party. Characte Characterr evidence, evidence, whether whether good or bad, bad, of the the offe offend nded ed part party y may may be prov proved ed “if “if it tend tends s to esta establ blis ish h in any any reas reason onab able le degr degree ee the the prob probab abil ilit ity y or improb improbabi abilit lity y of the offens offense e charge charged.” d.” Such evidence is most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assa assaul ultt or homi homici cide de case case or a clai claim m of consent in a rape case. (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, 05/29/2002)
The The rule rule is that the charac character ter of reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that that evid eviden ence ce rela relati ting ng ther theret eto o is not not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case case were were allowe allowed d to be influe influence nced d be evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than than a factua factuall inquir inquiry y into into the merits merits of the the case case.. Afte Afterr all, all, the the busi busine ness ss of the the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause cause.. There There are except exception ions s to this this rule rule however and Sec. 51 of Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.
GOOD MORAL ACCUSED
CHARACTER
OF
It is true that the good moral character of an accused having reference to the moral trait involved in the offense charged may be proven by him. But an accu accuse sed d is not not enti entitl tled ed to an acqu acquit itta tall simply because of his previous good moral chara characte cterr and and exemp exempla lary ry conduc conductt if the Court believes he is guilty beyond reason reasonabl able e doubt doubt of the crime crime charge charged. d. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issu issue e of whet whethe herr the the pros prosec ecut utio ion n had had discha dis charge rged d its duty of provi proving ng his guilt guilt (People e vs. beyond beyond reaso reasonab nable le doubt. doubt. (Peopl Concorcio, G.R. Nos. 121201-02, 10/19/2001)
In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1 of Sec. 51 of Rule 130 provides that the accuse cused d may prove ove his his good ood mora oral character, which is pertinent to the moral trai traitt invo involv lved ed in the the offe offens nse e char charge ged. d. When When the accused accused presen presents ts proof proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the pres presum umpt ptio ion n of inno innoce cenc nce, e, and and wher where e good ood cha characte cter and reput eputa ation ion are establis established, hed, an inference inference arises arises that the accused did not commit the crime char charge ged. d. This This view view proc procee eeds ds from from the the theory theory that a person person of good good chara characte cterr and high reputation is not likely to have committed committed the act charged against against him. Su-paragraph 2 provides that the prosecution may not prove the bad moral chara characte cterr of the accus accused ed except except only only in the rebutt rebuttal al and and when when such such eviden evidence ce is pertinent to the moral that involved in the offense charged. This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty but because he is a person of bad char charac acte ter. r. The The offe offeri ring ng of cha charact racter er evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defend defendant ant,, and and the prosec prosecuti ution on cannot cannot comment on the failure of the defendant to prod produc uce e such such evid eviden ence ce.. Once Once the the defe defend ndan antt rais raises es the the issu issue e of his his good good char haracter ter, the the prose osecuti cution on may may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the defendant’s
In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency index offenses. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any pros prosec ecut utio ion n invo involv lvin ing g an unch unchas aste te act act perpet perpetra rated ted by a man again against st a woman woman wher where e the the will willin ingn gnes ess s of a woma woman n is material, the woman’s character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. The exception to this is when the woman’s act. The exception to this is when the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation. In the the crim crimes es of qual qualif ifie ied d sedu seduct ctio ion n or consente consented d abduction abduction,, the offended offended party party must be a “virgin” which is “presumed if
14
she is unmarried and of good reputation” or a “virtuous woman of good reputation.” The crime of a simple seduction involves “the seduction of a woman who is single or a wido widow w of a good good repu reputa tati tion on,, over over twelve but under eighteen years of age.” The burden of proof that the complaint is a woma woman n of good good repu reputa tati tion on lies lies in the the prose osecuti cution on,, and the the accus ccused ed may may introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation.
readily be disapproved by the production of documents or other evidence probably with within in the the defe defend ndan ant’ t’s s poss posses essi sion on or control. More Moreov over er,, wher where e the the subj subjec ecttmatt matter er of a nega negati tive ve aver averme ment nt in an indic ndictm tme ent, nt, or a fact fact reli elied upon pon by defend defendant ant as a jus justif tifica icatio tion n or excuse excuse,, relates to him personally or otherwise lies pecu peculi liar arly ly with within in his his know knowle ledg dge, e, the the general rule is that the burden of proof as to such such aver averme ment nt or fact facts s is on him. him. (Herre (Herrera ra vs. Court Court of Appea Appeals, ls, G.R. G.R. No. No. 140651, 02/19/2002)
In homi homici cide de case cases, s, a pert pertin inen entt character trait of the victim is admissible in two situatio situations: ns: (1) as eviden evidence ce of the decea eceas sed’ ed’s aggress ressio ion n, and; (2) as evid eviden ence ce of the the state tate of mind ind of the the accused. The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased of his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accu accuse sed d was was the the aggr aggres esso sor. r. When When the the evidence tends to show that it produced a reasonab reasonable le belief belief of imminent imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable convictio conviction n that a prompt prompt defense defense action was necessary.
As a rule the burden of proving the exist xiste ence nce of a trus rust is on the the part party y asser assertin ting g its existe existence nce,, and such such proof proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existe existenc nce e of the trust trust and and its elemen elements. ts. (Oco Oco vs. Limba imbarring, ng, 481 SCR SCRA 348, 348, December 2006)
TEST FOR DETERMIN RMINIING BURDEN OF PROOF LIES
WHERE HERE
The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evid eviden ence ce comp compet eten entt to show show the the fact facts s averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he bears the burden of proof as to thos those e defe defens nses es whic which h he sets sets up in answer answer to the plaintiff plaintiff’s ’s cause cause of action. action. Hence ence,, if the the defe defen ndan dant sets ets up the the affir affirma mativ tive e defens defense e of presc prescrip riptio tion, n, he must must prove prove the date date when when prescr prescript iption ion began to run. (Aznar Brothers Realty Co., vs. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, 5/16/2005)
Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and prem premed edit itat atio ion. n. Foll Follow owin ing g the the ruli ruling ng in People vs. Soliman, the presence of these aggravat aggravating ing circumst circumstance ances s negates negates the nece necess ssit ity y of prov provin ing g the the vict victim im’s ’s bad bad characte characterr to establis establish h the probabil probability ity or improbability of the offense charged and, at the same time, qualifies the killing to murder. (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, 05/29/2002)
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
BURDEN OF PROOF
When an accused’s alibi can only be confirmed by his relatives, who may not be impa impart rtia iall witn witnes esse ses, s, his his deni denial al of culpability merits scant consideration. On the other hand, accused’s identification identification by cred credib ible le pros prosec ecut utio ion n witn witnes esse ses s as the the author thor of the the crim crime e make makes s his alibi ibi indefensible. (People vs. Rubares, G.R. No. 143127, 11/29/2001)
It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral characte characterr of his/her his/her witnesse witnesses s who must (Republic lic vs. Hong, Hong, 485 be “credibl “credible.” e.” (Repub SCRA 405) It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his (Cabarrubia ubias s vs. Apostol Apostol,, 481 complaint. (Cabarr SCRA 20, December 2006)
As a defe defens nse, e, alib alibii is inhe inhere rent ntly ly weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is an evid eviden ence ce nega negati tive ve in natu nature re and and self self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than than the the test testim imon onie ies s of pros prosec ecut utio ion n witnesses who testify on clear and positive (Peop (People le vs. vs. Larra Larraňag ňaga, a, G.R. G.R. evidence. Nos. 138874-75, 7/21/2005)
The burden of proof is shifted to the defense once the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as a matter of law to a ruling in its favor. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to addu adduce ce posi positi tive ve evid eviden ence ce to supp suppor ortt a negati negative ve averm averment ent the truth truth of which which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could
It cannot cannot prevail prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetra perpetrator tor of the crime. crime. In the face face of positive positive identificati identification on of the accused accused by
15
the the prose osecuti cution on witn witne ess, ss, such uch alibi ibi crumbles like a sand fortress. (People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 158797, 7/29/2005)
prima prima facie facie case case create created d thereb thereby, y, and and which hich if no proof oof to the the con contra trary is prese presente nted d and and offere offered, d, will will preva prevail. il. The burden of proof remains where it is, but by the the pres presum umpt ptio ion n the the one one who who has has the the burden is relieved for the time being from intr introd oduc ucin ing g evid eviden ence ce in supp suppor ortt of his his aver averme ment nt,, beca becaus use e the the pres presum umpt ptio ion n stan stands ds in the the plac place e of evid eviden ence ce unle unless ss rebutted.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the following must be established: (1) The presence of the accused in another place at the the time time of the the comm commis issi sion on of the the offense, and; (2) The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at (People vs. the time time of its commis commissio sion. n. (People Larraňaga, G.R. No. 138874-75, 7/21/2005; People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 158797, 7/29/2005)
It is true that hat said rule ule is not changed by the fact that the party having the burden rden of proo roof has has intr introd oduc uced ed evidence evidence,, which which establis established hed prima prima facie facie his assertion because such evidence does not shift the burden burden of proof; proof; it merely merely puts puts the the adve advers rsar ary y to the the nece necess ssit ity y of prod produc ucin ing g evid eviden ence ce to meet meet the the prim prima a facie facie case. case. Where Where the defendant defendant merely denies, either generally or otherwise, the allegations of the plaintiffs pleadings, the burden of proof continues to rest on the plaintiff plaintiff throughout throughout the trial and does not shift to the defendant until the plaintiff’s eviden evidence ce has has been been presen presented ted and and duly duly offe offerred. ed. The The defe efenda ndant has has then then no burd urden exce except pt to produ oduce evid eviden ence ce suffi sufficie cient nt to creat create e a state state of equipo equipoise ise between his proof and that of the plaintiff to defeat the latter, whereas the plaintiff has has the burden, burden, as in the beginnin beginning, g, of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence. But where the defendant has faile iled to presen esentt mar marshal hal evid eviden ence ce suffi sufficie cient nt to creat create e a state state of equipo equipoise ise between his proof and that of plaintiff, the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff will prevail. (Lee vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117913, 01/02/2002)
Self-defense, like alibi is inherently weak because it can be easily fabricated. (Rugas vs. People, G.R. No. 147789, 1/14/ 2004)
A denia deniall eviden evidence ce is the weake weakest st defe efense nse and can can never ver over overco com me a positi positive ve testim testimony ony parti particul cular arly ly when when it come omes from from the the mouth outh of a cred credib ible le witness. (People vs. Mendoza, 1/31/2005) MOTIVE Motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential where there are affirmative, affirmative, nay, categorical declarations declarations towards towards the accused’ accused’s s accountab accountability ility for the felony. (People vs. Villamore, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, 01/15/2002)
While the motive of the accused in a crim crimin inal al case case is gene genera rall lly y held held to be immaterial, not being an element of the crime, crime, motive motive becomes becomes importan importantt when the evidence evidence on the commissi commission on of the crime is purely circumstantial. (People vs. Turtoga, G.R. No. 135536, 06/06/2002)
PRESUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE WILLFULLY WILLFULLY SUPPRESS SUPPRESSED ED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCED The presumpt presumption ion that suppress suppressed ed
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
eviden evidence ce is unfav unfavora orable ble does does not apply apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both both the defens defense e and and the prosec prosecuti ution. on. (Peo People ple vs. vs. Maz Mazo, G.R. .R. No. 1368 136869 69,, 10/17/2001)
The The effec effectt of a presum presumpti ption on upon upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail. (Lastrilla vs. Granda, 481 SCRA 324, December 2006)
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
Duri During ng the the tria triall of an acti action on,, the the party who has the burden of proof upon an issu issue e may may be aide aided d in esta establ blis ishi hing ng his his clai claim m or defe defens nse e by the the oper operat atio ion n of a presumption, or expressed differently, by the the proba obative ive value, lue, which ich the the law atta attach ches es to a spec specif ific ic stat state e of fact facts. s. A pres presum umpt ptio ion n may may oper operat ate e agai agains nstt his his adversary who has not introduced proof to rebu rebutt the the pres presum umpt ptio ion. n. The The effe effect ct of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to creat create e the necess necessity ity of prese presenti nting ng evidence to meet the legal presumption or
It should be stressed that while the court court is mindfu mindfull that that the law enforcer enforcers s enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this pres presum umpt ptio ion n cann cannot ot prev prevai aill over over the the constitu constitutiona tionall right right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reas reason onab able le doub doubt. t. The The pres presum umpt ptio ion n is precisely just that – a mere presumption. Once challenge challenged d by evidence, evidence, as in this
16
case, cannot be regarded as binding truth. The The pres presum umpt ptio ion n of regu regula lari rity ty in the the performa performance nce of official official functions functions cannot cannot prepo prepond ndera erate te over over the presu presumpt mption ion of inno innoce cenc nce e that that prev prevai ails ls over over posi positi tive ve averm averment ents s concer concernin ning g violat violation ions s of the consti constitut tution ional al right rights s of the accus accused. ed. In short, the presumption of regularity in the perfor performan mance ce of offici official al duty duty canno cannott by itse tself ove overcom rcome e the the presum esumpt ptio ion n of innocence nor can constitute proof beyond reasonable reasonable doubt. (People vs. Canete, G.R. No. 138400, 07/11/2002)
othe otherr word words, s, the the ulti ultima mate te purp purpos ose e of cross-ex cross-examin amination ation is to test the truth truth or fals falsit ity y of the the stat statem emen ents ts of a witn witnes ess s during direct examination. examination. The basic rule is that the testimony of a witness given on direct examinations shoul should d be strick stricken en off the recor record d where where there there was no adequa adequate te opport opportuni unity ty for cross-ex cross-examin amination ation.. Of course, course, there there are notab notable le modifi modificat cation ions s to the basic basic rule rule which make its application essentially on a case-to-c case-to-case ase basis. Thus, Thus, where where a partly partly had had the opport opportuni unity ty to crosscross-exa examin mine e a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he nece necess ssar aril ily y forf forfei eits ts his his righ rightt to cros crosssexamine and the testimony given by the witn witnes ess s on dire direct ct exam examin inat atio ion n will will be allowed to remain on record. But when the cros crosss-ex exam amin inat atio ion n is not not or cann cannot ot be done or completed due to causes attr attrib ibut utab able le to the the part party y offe offeri ring ng the the witn witnes ess, s, to the the witne itness ss hims himsel elf, f, the the uncompleted testimony of a witness who dies dies before before the conclu conclusio sion n of the crosscrossexamination, examination, and the absence of a witness is not enough enough to warra warrant nt striki striking ng of his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined, which is not true in the present case, or that that the matter matter on which which furthe furtherr crosscrossexamination is sought is not in controversy. (People vs. Monje, G.R. No. 146689, 09/27/2002)
REGULA REGULARIT RITY Y IN THE PERFOR PERFORMAN MANCE CE OF OFFICIAL DUTY It was was neve neverr inte intend nded ed that that the the presumption of regularity in the perf perfor orma manc nce e of offi offici cial al duty duty woul would d be applied even in cases where there is no showin showing g of substa substanti ntial al compli complian ance ce with with the requirements of the rules of (Bank of the Phil. Phil. Island Island vs. procedure. (Bank Spouses Spouses Evange Evangelist lista, a, G.R. G.R. No. 146553, 146553, 11/27/2002)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
It bears bears stress stressing ing that that the cross cross- examin examinati ation on of a witnes witness s is an absol absolute ute right, right, not a mere mere privi privileg lege, e, of the party party against whom he is called with regard to the accused, it is a right guaranteed by the fundam fundament ental al law as part of the due process. Article III Sec. 14 par. (2) of the 1987 Constitut Constitution ion specifica specifically lly mandates mandates that “the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to face” and Rule 115, Sec. 1, par (f), of the 2000 Rules of Crim Crimin inal al Proc Proced edur ure e enjo enjoin ins s that that in all all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Crossexam examin inat atio ion n serv serves es as a safe safegu guar ard d to comba combatt unreli unreliab able le testim testimony ony,, provi providin ding g means for discrediting a witness’ test testim imon ony, y, and and is in the the natu nature re of an attack attack on the truth and accur accuracy acy of his testimony. The purpose of crossexamin examinati ation, on, howeve however, r, is not limite limited d to bringing out a falsehood, since it is also a lead leadin ing g and and sear search chin ing g inqu inquir iry y of the the witness for further disclosure touching the particul particular ar matters matters detailed detailed by him in his dire direct ct exam examin inat atio ion, n, and and it serve erves s to modify, or explain what has been said, in order to develop new or old facts in a view favo favora rabl ble e to the the cros crosss-ex exam amin iner er.. The The object of cross-examination therefore is to weak weaken en or disp dispro rove ve the the case case of one’ one’s s adversary, and break down his testimony in chief, chief, test test the recol recolle lecti ction, on, verac veracity ity,, accuracy, honesty and bias or prejudice of the witness, his source of information his motives, interest and memory and exhibit the improb improbab abili ilitie ties s of his testim testimony ony.. In
LEADING QUESTIONS
As a general rule, leading questions are are not not allo allowe wed. d. Howe Howev ver, er, when when the the witn witnes ess s is a chil child d of tend tender er year years, s, it is prop proper er for for the the cour courtt to allow llow lead leadin ing g questi questions ons,, as it is usuall usually y diffic difficult ult for a child child of such such age age to state state facts facts withou withoutt sugges ggesti tion on.. Lea Leading ing ques questi tion ons s are necessary to coax the truth out of their (People vs. Cana, relu reluct ctan antt lips lips.. 04/22/2002) IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS; TESTIMONY OF CO-CONSPIRATOR
The fact that the witness may have been a co-conspi co-conspirato ratorr in the commission commission of the offense is not in itself sufficient to dilute the credibility of or, mush less, be a ground ound to disr isrega egard altog ltoget ethe herr his testimony testimony.. Indeed, Indeed, by way of exception exception,, the testi testimon mony y of a co-con co-conspi spirat rator or may, may, even even if uncorr uncorrobo obora rated ted,, be suffic sufficien ientt as when it is shown to be sincere in itself, beca becaus use e give given n unhe unhesi sita tati ting ngly ly and and in a stra straig ight htfo forw rwar ard d mann manner er,, and and is full full of details which by its nature could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought.
17
(People vs. 11/21/2001)
Sia,
HOW WITNESS EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS
G.R.
No.
137 137457,
which the record is kept, and authenticated authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the the atte attest stin ing g offi office cer. r. (Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 1366804, 02/19/2003)
IMPEACHED BY INCONSISTENT
Previous Previous extrajud extrajudicia iciall statement statements s cann cannot ot be empl employ oyed ed to impe impeac ach h the the credibility of a witness unless his attention is first directed to the discrepancies, and he must then be given an opportunity to explain them. It is only when the witness cannot give a reasonable explanation that he shall shall be deemed deemed impeache impeached. d. (People vs. Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, 01/29/2002)
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS It is recog ecogn nized ized in Phili ilippin ppine e jurisprudence and international law that a fore foreig ign n judg judgme ment nt may may be barr barred ed from from reco recogn gnit itio ion n if it runs runs coun counte terr to publ public ic policy. (Republic vs. Gingoyon, 481 SCRA 457, December 19, 2006)
INCONSISTENCIES/DISCR INCONSISTENCIES/DISCREPANCIES EPANCIES IN TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE TRIAL
Inconsistencies Inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness with respect to minor details and colla ollattera eral matt matter ers s do not affec fect the the subs substa tanc nce, e, vera veraci city ty,, or weig weight ht of the the witness’ declarations. declarations. (People vs. Condino, G.R. No. 130945, 11/19/2001)
Under Sec. 1(f) of Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, either party may utilize as part of the evidence the testimony of a witne itnes ss who who is dece eceased, sed, out out of, of, or cannot, with due diligence be found in the Phil Philip ippi pine nes, s, unav unavai aila labl ble e or othe otherw rwis ise e unable to testify, given in another case or proce proceedi eding, ng, judici judicial al or admin administ istrat rative ive,, involv involving ing the party party having having parti parties es and and subject matter, the adverse party having had had opport opportuni unity ty to crosscross-ex exami amine ne him. him. (People vs. Concorcio, G.R. Nos. 12120102, 10/19/2001)
FORGERY
A finding of forgery does not depe depend nd enti entire rely ly on the the test testim imon onie ies s of handwrit handwriting ing experts, experts, because because the judge judge must conduct an independent examination examination of the questi questione oned d sig signa natur ture e in order order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.
EVIDENCE EVIDENCES S NOT OFFERED, OFFERED, ADOPTED ADOPTED BY THE PARTY
Sec. 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court Court explicitl explicitly y authoriz authorizes es the court, court, by itse tself, lf, to mak make a com compar parison son of the the disp disput uted ed hand handwr writ itin ing g “wit “with h writ writin ings gs admi admitt tted ed or trea treate ted d as genu genuin ine e by the the part party y agai agains nstt whom whom the the evid eviden ence ce is offe offere red d or prov proved ed by the the part party y to the the (Jimenez vs. satis satisfac factio tion n of the judge. judge. (Jimenez Commis Commission sion on Ecumenic Ecumenical al Mission Mission and Rela Relati tion ons s of the the Unit United ed Pres Presby byte teri rian an Chur Church ch in the the USA, USA, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1404 140472 72,, 06/10/2002) PROOF OF OFFICIAL FOREIGN LAW
RECORD
Not Nothing hing in Sec. ec. 34 of Rule 132 requires that the evidence be offered or adopted by a specific party before it could be consid consider ered ed in his favor. favor. It is enough enough that the evidence is offered for the court’s (Supreme e Translin Transliner, er, Inc. consideration. (Suprem vs. vs. Court Court of Appeal Appeals, s, G.R. G.R. No. No. 125356 125356,, 11/21/2001) PRESENTA PRESENTATION TION OF EVIDENCE EVIDENCE AFTER AFTER JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION As a general rule, the presentation of evidence evidence after judgment of conviction conviction has already attained finality is not allowed. However, it is well within the prerogative of the Court to admit such evidence at this stage of the proceedings in the exercise of its power ower to revie eview w. Mor Moreover over,, the the exerc exercis ise e of this this dis discre cretio tion n is as much much a duty duty of the the cour courtt espe especi cial ally ly wher where e the the reception of such evidence could save the accus accused ed from from the grim grim and irrevo irrevocab cable le cons onsequ equenc ences of a dea death sente entenc nce. e. Indeed Indeed,, the rule rule on finali finality ty of judgme judgment nt canno cannott divest divest the Suprem Supreme e Court Court of its jur juris isdi dict ctio ion n to exec execut ute e and and enfo enforc rce e a judgment for such finality does not mean
OF
Unde Underr Sec. Sec. 24 of Rule Rule 13 132, 2, the the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an offici official al public publicati ation on thereo thereof, f, or; or; (2) a copy copy attest attested ed by the offic officer er having having the lega egal custo ustod dy the thereof. eof. Such uch offi offic cial ial publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the the lega egal custo ustod dy ther there eof. of. The The certif certifica icate te may may be iss issued ued by any any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
18
that that the the cour courtt has has lost lost all all its its powe powers rs.. (Peo (Peopl ple e vs. vs. Alve Alvero ro,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 1323 132364 64,, 09/27/2002)
however, whether or not such prosecution evid eviden ence ce sati satisf sfie ies s the the requ requir irem emen entt of proof beyond reasonable doubt is another (People vs. Escordia Escordial, l, matter altogether. (People G.R. No. 138934-35, 01/16/02)
WAIVER
WAIVER; ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE ON MATTERS NOT ALLEGED IN THE PLEADINGS
In Sermonia v. CA, the court ruled that as the ground raised for objecting to the evidence presented was a violation of the rule on privileged communication, the petitioner was considered to have waived his his righ rightt to make make an obje object ctio ion n on the the ground of the evidence being hearsay.
The court may admit evidence on a matte tter not alleg lleged ed in the the plead eadings ings with withou outt amen amendm dmen entt ther thereo eoff and and even even against the objection of the adverse party where the latter fails to satisfy the court that the admission of the evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his defense upon the merits. (Spouses Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144581, 07/05/02)
In Peop People le vs. vs. Comp Compet eten ente te,, the the cour courtt also also rule ruled d that that the the fail failur ure e of the the accused to object to hearsay is a waver of the the righ rightt to cros crosss-ex exam amin ine e the the actu actual al witn itness ess to the the occ occurr urrence ence,, ther thereb eby y rend render erin ing g the the evid eviden ence ce admi admiss ssib ible le.. (Mangi (Mangio o vs. Court Court of Appeal Appeals, s, G. R. No. No. 139849, 12/05/01)
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Fraud is never presumed but must be establ establish ished ed by clear clear and and convin convincin cing g evid eviden ence ce.. A mere mere prep prepon onde dera ranc nce e of eviden evidence ce is not even even adequ adequat ate e to prove prove fraud. (MC Engineering, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104047, 104047, 04/03/02)
An out-of-cou out-of-court rt identific identificatio ation n of an accused can be made in various ways in a show-u show-up, p, the accus accused ed alone alone is broug brought ht face to face with the witness for identification, identification, while in a police line-up, and the suspect is identified by a witness from a grou group p of pers person ons s gath gather ered ed for for that that purpose. purpose. During During custodia custodiall investiga investigation tion,, these these types types of identi identific ficati ation on have have been been recognized as critical confrontations of the accuse cused d by the pros prosec ecut utiion, on, which ich necessitate the presence of the presence of a coun counse sell for for the the accu accuse sed. d. This This is beca becaus use e the the resu result lt of thes these e prepre-tr tria iall proceedings might well settle the accused fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality. We have, thus, ruled that any identific identification ation of an uncounse uncounseled led accused accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for for that that matt matter er,, afte afterr the the star startt of the the custodia custodiall investig investigatio ation n is inadmiss inadmissible ible as evidence against him.
EQUI EQUIPO POIS ISE E DOCTRINE
OR
EQUI EQUIPO POND NDER ERAN ANCE CE
“Equipond “Equipondera erance nce of evidence evidence rule states: When the scales shall stand upon an equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the the othe other, r, the the cour courtt will will find find for for the the defe defend ndan ant. t. Unde Underr said said prin princi cipl ple, e, the the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his eviden evidence ce and not on the weaknes weaknesses ses of defendant’s claim. Even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause vs.Sandiganbayan, of action.” action.” (Yuchenco vs.Sandiganbayan, 479 SCRA 1)
Howeve However, r, if the defens defense e failed failed to object immediately when the prosecution presented the witnesses or when specific ques questi tion ons s rega regard rdin ing g the the matt matter er were were asked of them, as required by Sec. 36 of Rule 13 132 2 of the the Rules ules on Evide videnc nce, e, accused must be deemed to have waived his right to object to the admissibility of the testimonies.
The The doctri doctrine ne refers refers to a situa situatio tion n wher where e the the evid eviden ence ce of the the part partie ies s is even evenly ly bala balanc nced ed or ther there e is doub doubtt on which side the evidence preponderates. In this case the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof. Hence, wher here the the burd urden of proo prooff is on the the plai laintif ntifff and the the evi evidenc dence e does oes not sugge suggest st that that the scale scale of jus justic tice e shoul should d weigh in his favor the court should render a verdic verdictt for the defend defendan ant. t. (Marubeni Corp. vs. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, 8/10/2001)
Furthermore, the inadmissibility of these out- of-court identifications does not rend render er the the in-c in-cou ourt rt iden identi tifi fica cati tion on of accused-a accused-appel ppellant lant inadmiss inadmissible ible for being being the ‘fruits of the poisonous tree.’ This incourt identification formed the basis of the tri trial cour ourts con convict iction ion of accus ccused ed– – appellant as it was not derived or drawn from from the the ille llegal gal arrest rest of accus cused– ed– appellant or as a consequence thereof, it is admi admiss ssib ible le as evid eviden ence ce agai agains nstt him him
In lab labor cas cases, es, if doub oubt exis xists betwe between en the eviden evidence ce presen presented ted by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
19
(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana G.R. No. 157637, 5/16/ 2005)
administrative proceedings against judges are highly penal in character and are to be gove govern rned ed by the the rule rules s appl applic icab able le to crim crimin inal al case cases. s. The The quan quantu tum m of proo proof f required to support administrative charges against judges should thus be more than subst substant antia iall and and requi requires res proof proof beyond beyond (Duduaco vs. reas reason onab able le doub doubt. t. Laquindanum, Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601, 8/11/ 2005)
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Reaso easona nabl ble e doub doubtt is not not such such a doubt as any man may start by quest uestio ion ning ing for for the the sake of a doubt oubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts facts or testimony testimony.. Reasona Reasonable ble doubt doubt must rise from the evidence adduced or from the lack of evidence, and it should pert pertai ain n to the the fact facts s cons consti titu tuti tive ve of the the (People vs. Garcia, Garcia, G.R. crime crime charged. charged. (People No. 133489 & 143970, 01/15/02)
PREPON PREPONDE DERAN RANCE CE OF EVIDE EVIDENCE NCE vs. SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The concept of “preponderance of evidence evidence” ” refers refers to evidence evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth. On the the othe otherr hand hand,, subs substa tant ntia iall evid eviden ence ce refe refers rs to such such rele releva vant nt evid eviden ence ce as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, eve if othe otherr mind minds s equa equall lly y reas reason onab able le migh mightt conceivably opine otherwise. (Republic vs. Guerrero, 485 SCRA 424, )
CORPUS DELICTI
In murder, the corpus delicti refers to the the body body,, foun founda dati tion on or subs substa tanc nce, e, upon which the crime has been committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man. Its elements are: (1) a certain crime has been een com committ mitted ed,, and; nd; (2) som some person person is criminal criminally ly responsi responsible ble for it. It does does not not refer efer to the the auto autops psy y repor eportt evid eviden enci cing ng the the natu nature re of the the woun wounds ds sustained by the victim nor the testimony of the the phys physic icia ian n who cond onducte cted the the autopsy autopsy or medical medical examinat examination. ion. (People vs. Canno, G.R. No. 146346, 09/30/02)
OFFER OF EVIDENCE
For evidence to be considered, the same must be formally offered, and that while a document has been identified and marked as an exhibit, it does not autom automati atical cally ly mean mean that that it has has alrea already dy been offered as part of the evidence of a (Gov (Gover ernm nmen entt vs. vs. Abal Aballe le,, 485 485 party. SCRA308)
SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Substant Substantial ial evidence evidence,, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact fact in cases cases before before admin administ istra rativ tive e or quas quasii-ju judi dici cial al bodi bodies es,, is that that leve levell of rele releva vant nt evid eviden ence ce whic which h a reas reason onab able le mind might accept as adequate to justify a (Phile lemp mplo loy y Serv Servic ices es and and conclusion. (Phi Resource Resources, s, Inc. vs. Rodrigu Rodriguez, ez, 486 SCRA 302, March 31, 2006)
A form formal al offe offerr of evid eviden ence ce is not not required in certain cases: (a) in a summ summar ary y proc procee eedi ding ng beca becaus use e it is a proce proceedi eding ng where where there there is no full full blown blown trial; (b) documents judicially admitted or taken taken judici judicial al notice notice of; (c) docume documents nts,, affidavits and depositions used in rend render erin ing g a summ summar ary y judg judgme ment nt;; (d) (d) documents documents or affidavi affidavits ts used in deciding deciding quas quasii-ju judi dici cial al or admi admini nist stra rati tive ve case cases s (Banto (Bantolin lino o vs. Coca Coca Cola Cola Bottle Bottlers, rs, Inc., Inc., G.R. G.R. No. No. 153660 153660,, 6/10/2 6/10/2003 003); ); (e) lost obje object cts s prev previo ious usly ly mark marked ed,, iden identi tifi fied ed,, described in the record and testified to by witnesses who had been subjects of cross examin examinati ation on in respec respectt to said said object objects. s. (Tabuena vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650)
Substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla, but is such relevant evid eviden ence ce as a reas reason onab able le mind mind migh mightt accept as adequate to support a conclusion, suffices to hold one admin administ istrat rative ively ly liable liable,, the substa substanti ntial al evid eviden ence ce rule rule does does not not auth author oriz ize e any any finding to be made just as long as there is any any evid eviden ence ce to supp suppor ortt it. it. It does does not not excu excuse se admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agenci cies es from from tak taking ing into nto accou count cou counter tervai vailing ling evidence evidence,, which which fairly fairly detracts detracts from the evidence supporting a finding. ( Baylon vs. Fact– Finding Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 150870, 12/11/02)
The court shall consider the evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offer offered, ed, not for any other other purpos purpose. e. (Spo (Spous uses es Ragu Ragudo do vs. vs. Fabe Fabellla Esta Estate te Tena Tenan nts Assoc sociat iation ion, Inc. Inc.,, G.R. .R. No. 146823, 8/9/2005)
In a relatively recent case however, while recognizing the rule that in administrative administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving the allegations allegations in their complaints by substantial eviden evidence, ce, the Suprem Supreme e Court Court held held that that
Courts Courts are required required to resolve resolve the admis missibi sibillity ity the evid eviden ence ce offe offerred
20
immediately after the objection is made or within a reasonable time. (Deutsche Bank Manila vs. Chua Yok See, 481 SCRA 672, December 2006)
21
