Evidence

December 7, 2010
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. EVIDENCE AS DEFINED BY THE REVISED RULES ON
EVIDENCE
The rules of evidence is just a small segment of the entire
remedial law on the subject to the bar particularly the rules
of evidence which are very new provisions of the rules of
court; 128 129, 130, 131, 132 and 133. All these rules
comprise evidence as a subject.
Evidence. The rule defines evidence as a means of
ascertaining in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a
matter of fact.
Form the definition, Id like you to pay particular attention to
the following points, elements.
Take note the that evidence is just a means; just a tool to an
end; to an ultimate purpose. And the ultimate purpose is the
ascertainment of the fact which is an issue of the case. It is
not an end it is just a means. The end there is the proof.
B. EVIDENCE AND PROOF
So do not confuse evidence with proof although to layman,
they are interchangeable, but for us lawyers, technically
evidence has to distinguished from proof.
Because evidence is just a means and proof is just the end
result of evidence. But you cannot equate evidence with
proof. It does not follow that if you have evidence, you have
proof. Because before evidence can produce proof, evidence
has to go through some tests.
It is an erroneous thinking that because you already have
evidence, you automatically have proof. You may have
evidence, but that evidence does not prove anything.
So it is a means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
Take note the rules of evidence apply only in judicial
proceedings. So when we talk about evidence, what comes
to mind is a judicial proceedings. Thats the general rule,
specifically the rules of evidence intended to govern cases or
controversies filed and pending before judicial bodies.
We have EXCEPTIONS.
Number one, while the rule says that the rules of evidence
should be uniform in all cause, Rule 1 sec 4 expressly
provides that the rules of court including the rules of
evidence do not apply to the following specific cases:
1. election cases
2. naturalization cases
3. land registration cases
4. cadastral cases
5. insolvency cases

Kwin

Why? Why do rules of court for that matter not applicable in

these specific kinds of cases even if these cases are judicial
in nature?
The reason there is that these specific types of judicial
proceedings are governed by their own specific rules of
procedure.
But the rules of court including the rules of evidence are not
totally inapplicable. Because by virtue of sec 4 rule 1, it says
there that the rules of court including the rules of evidence
apply by analogy or in a suppletory character whenever
practicable or convenient.
When does suppletory application apply?
The rule is that the controversy or cases filed or governed by
the specific types of proceedings; they are governed by their
specific rules and procedure. But sometimes there may
questions or issues that may arise in the course of these
proceedings where their own rules of procedures are silent
on the matter. When these happens the rules of court
including the rules of evidence come to the rescue. There
lies the suppletory application if the rules of court including
the rules of evidence. But as a general rule, they are not
governed by the rules of court and the rules of evidence.

Second, since the rules specifically provide that the rules of

evidence apply only to judicial proceedings, it follows just as
clearly that the rules of evidence do not apply to non judicial
proceedings. But again this is not an accurate statement
because you have to distinguish 2 things.
When it comes to non judicial proceedings or proceedings in
bodies other than courts, their proceedings or cases filed
before them are also governed by their own rules of
procedure. So every quasi judicial or administrative bodies
have own rules of procedure governing cases filed and
pending before them. So their proceedings should be
governed by their own respective rules of procedure.
But two things may happen.
One, their own rules of procedure may expressly provide that
their own rules of court including the rules on evidence may
apply in suppletory character. In which case, the general rule
is in non judicial proceedings, the rules of court and the
rules on evidence do not apply except in suppletory
character. Why? Because theoir own rules of procedure say
so.
Or it could also happen that their own rules of procedure
expressly forbid the application of the rules on evidence
even in suppletory character. This is illustrated in the case of
Reyes vs Court of Appeals.
Reyes involved a dispute filed and pending in an agrarian
court. So this is an agrarian case. When the case went all
the way up to SC, one of the issues raised by the petitioner

Kwin Transcripts

Page 1

Evidence
was WON the lower court was correct in affirming the
ruling of the agrarian court which admitted in evidence the
affidavit of witnesses even if the witnesses were not
presented in court and not subjected to examination.
You will realize later on that in the regular procedure
governed by rules of court and rules of evidence, an
affidavit is a mere scrap of paper unless the affiant testified
I court and subjected to cross examination.
Thats the elemental requirement of due process. So an
affidavit is not enough. An affidavit is not admissible.
Affiant or the person executing the affidavit as a rule be
presented in the court and be subjected to cross
examination. That is the ordinary rules.
In the case of Reyes vs CA, the agrarian court and
affirmed by the appellate court admitted as evidence the
affidavits even if the witnesses or the persons who
executed them were not presented and subjected t cross
examination. So this was the very issue raised before the
SC.
SC said the lower court committed no error in admitting
the affidavits of the witnesses despite the fact that
witnesses were not presented in the court and were not
subjected to cross examination
Why? Because the proceedings before the agrarian court
were governed by their own rules of procedure and their
own rules provide that the rules of evidence shall not apply
even in suppletory character.
So by their own rules of procedure, there was no way the
rules of evidence could apply in a given case insofar as the
agrarian courts are concerned.
And second, their own rules of procedure expressly
provides that testimonies of witnesses are admissible as
evidence.
So Reyes vs CA demonstrates a case where a proceedings
in a non judicial body is governed by their own rules of
procedure, and their own rules of procedure expressly
prohibit the application of the rules of evidence even in
suppletory character.
On the contrary there are some non judicial bodies, or quasi
judicial bodies where their own rules of procedure expressly
provide that the rules of evidence apply in suppletory
character. I think in your labor courts, in their own rules of
procedure, expressly allow the application of the rules of
evidence is suppletory character.
So in short what Im saying is that insofar as non judicial
proceedings are concerned, their proceedings should be
governed primarily by their own rules of procedure. Look at
their own rules of procedure and proceed on the basis of
their own rules of procedure. It may provide for suppletory
application or it may prohibit altogether the application of
rules of evidence, even in suppletory character.

Kwin

When it comes to non judicial proceedings, what matters is

their own rules of procedure.
Next element, we have judicial proceeding a means of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth. As I have said
earlier, evidence is just a means to an end. The end there is
the truth.
But this abuse your mind of the erroneous thinking that the
truth that you have in mind now is the same as the truth
being contemplated in the definition of evidence.
Most of you are Christians in orientation, and are taught of
the values and good faith. Dont get disappointed because
the truth that we are talking here is not the truth that you
have in your mind.
The truth as an element of evidence defined in the rule refers
to LEGAL TRUTH. It does not refer to actual or real truth.
Neither does it refer to moral truth.
Our own common understanding of truth is that when
something coincides with reality; when a statement
coincides with reality, that is real truth.
That is not the case as regards legal truth. Because legal truth
as defined and as we understand in law is WHAT THE
EVIDENCE SAYS.
You will realize specially if you go into practice that what
matters in every litigation is not what you know but what
you can prove in court. So what you can prove in court,
thats the legal truth. Even if it is not the actual. So when
confronted of the ethical question of handling a client whom
you believe is guilty, dont be afraid and dont get
disappointed. When you believe that your client is guilty, do
not get disappointed for two reasons. One, it is not for you
to judge whether you client is guilty or innocent. You are just
an advocate. You are there just to protect the interest of
your client. Another, when you defend a client whom you
believe is guilty as hell, dont throw him away. Act as an
advocate. If you defend a client even if you believe he is
guilty, remember you are not there promote evil. You are
there too make sure that our system of justice works. We
adopt to the system that everyone is presumed innocent.
And this will only work if you act as an advocate, to make
sure that the system works. It doesnt matter whether in
truth and in fact he is guilty. Thats legal truth.
The fourth element. Element is just a means of ascertaining in
a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
I emphasize the word, FACT. The purpose of evidence is to
resolve a factual issue. Take away factual issue, there is no
way you can speak up evidence because evidence is
presented to prove a factual issue.
So that if in a case, no factual issue is involved because all the
parties admitted all the allegations of fact. And what is left
for determination is a legal issue.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 2

Evidence
When does evidence become RELEVANT?
You dont need evidence to be presented if there is no
factual issue in the case.
If what is left for determination is only a legal issue, then all
that you have top do is to submit the case for resolution. No
need for presentation of evidence because there is no more
factual issue. The purpose of evidence does not serve in the
case.
In your civil procedure you are taught the remedies of
summary judgment end judgment in the pleadings.
Under these remedies, these remedies can be availed of
when no genuine factual issues are withheld in a case. So
dispense with the trial because trail is a stage when the
evidence is dispensed with and the case will be submitted
directly for resolution without gong into trial. Because what
is left there is only legal issue.
Remember when you go to trial and you present evidence,
trial is all about battle of facts. Its a question of who among
the parties is telling the truth. And the truth there is that
which the evidence says.
D. CLASSIFICATIONOF EVIDENCE
There are kinds of evidence
(iii) DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
First category, we have direct and circumstantial.
DIRECT evidence is a kind of evidence which directly proves a
fact in issue with aid from other established facts. So it
directly proves an issue.
A typical example of a direct evidence is a testimony of
witness. So in the prosecution of a crime of murder, the
testimony of a witness who says that he saw the accused
killing the victim, that is a direct evidence because it doesnt
need inference from any established facts. The testimony
itself directly proves that the accused killed the victim.
On the other hand, a CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVISENCE is a kind of
evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue with the aid
or inferences from other established fact.
IOW the circumstantial evidence cannot stand independently
by itself. It needs to rest on other established facts before
that evidence can indirectly prove a fact in issue
In our jurisdiction there are three classification of
circumstantial evidence or evidence of collateral matters.
1. antecedent circumstances
2. contemporaneous circumstances
3. subsequent circumstances
All these classify various kinds of circumstantial evidence or
evidence of collateral matters. Which indirectly proves a fact
in issue.

Kwin

Lets go to the first. ANTECEDENT CIRCUMSTANCES are those

circumstances which may indirectly proves a fact in issue
because they existed before the occurrence of a fact in
issue. So that in a prosecution for murder, the antecedent
circumstances are those that were heard before the murder
took place. This is not a direct evidence because these facts
occurred before. And proof of these facts do not necessarily
establish the commission of the crime of murder. But they
can be used as circumstantial evidence which may indirectly
prove a fact.
Common example of antecedent circumstances; number one,
motive. MOTIVE is an antecedent circumstance. For example
in a crime of murder causing the death of Mr. Dalanon.
Murdered. Mutilated. 25 times. Motive can possibly be
directed toward Mr Recto because a day before the killing,
Mr Dalanon and Mr Recto had a very violent quarrel
because they competed for the attention of Miss Asuncion.
This violent quarrel took place before the actual killing. So it
is called antecedent circumstance.
The fact that they have a violent quarrel a day before the
killing does not directly prove the fact in issue which is the
killing of Mr Dalanon. But it could be a circumstantial
indirectly prove a circumstantial evidence which could
indirectly prove a fact in issue by the aid of inference on
some established fact.
What is this established fact? The violent quarrel.
So if you are the proponent of that circumstantial evidence
of motive, it is an antecedent circumstance, you need to
establish first the fact that the day before, they had a violent
quarrel. And when this antecedent fact is established, that is
from where the circumstantial evidence may be arrived that
Mr Recto could be the killer of Mr Dalanon. That will
indirectly prove the fact that the accused probably is the
killer of Mr Dalanon.
Another form an antecedent circumstance which may
constitute circumstantial evidence is HABIT.
If Mr Recto is in the habit of molesting; ten time in the past,
th
he was accused of molesting women. In the 11 time he is
prosecuted for molestation, prosecutor establish the past
incidents involving Mr Recto to establish antecedent
circumstances. These do not directly prove that Mr Recto is
th
guilty of the 11 instance of molestation. But it may serve as
a circumstantial evidence that will tend to establish the
probability that Mr Recto could be guilty of the present
incident of sexual molestation. So thats antecedent
circumstance.
Lets go to CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.
Contemporaneous circumstance may take the form of
OPPORTUNITY. Anytime you establish that the person has
the opportunity to commit the crime, thats a
contemporaneous circumstance which may constitute
circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 3

Evidence
Say for example if it can be established that the accused was
the last person with the victim and that it can be established
that the accused was present at the time the murder was
committed, that is opportunity. His presence in the place
around the same time provided him with the opportunity to
commit the crime. This fact alone does not directly prove
that he in fact commit the crime. But it may be a
circumstantial evidence that probably he did.
So if you are the proponent, before you can invoke
opportunity as a contemporaneous circumstance of
circumstantial evidence, you need to establish the fact that
he was there at the same place where the crime was
committed. You can establish that, then you can derive
circumstantial evidence that probably the accused is guilty
of a crime.
That kind of contemporaneous circumstance is one that tends
to establish the probability of a fact in issue.
Another form of contemporaneous circumstance that tends
to establish the improbability of a fact in issue is ALIBI.
If opportunity tends to prove that the accused could be
guilty, alibi, also a contemporaneous circumstance
constituting circumstantial evidence tends to establish
improbability that the accused was guilty of a crime because
he was somewhere else at the time of the commission of
the crime.
So opportunity and alibi are just examples of
contemporaneous circumstances which may constitute
circumstantial evidence which although do not directly
prove a fact in issue but may indirectly prove a fact in issue.
Third kind we have SUBSEQUENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
These circumstances took place after the occurrence of a fact
in issue.
So the crime of murder; a typical example of a subsequent
circumstance is FLIGHT. If the accused is seen leaving or
running away from the place of crime, that is evidence of
flight. That may be a circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Or for example in a crime of rape, if the accused Mr Dalanon
left his underwear in the crime scene. And his underwear
bears the embroidered name there, Brian Dalanon. That is a
subsequent circumstance which may constitute a
circumstantial evidence that probably Mr Dalanon is the
rapist.
So whether antecedent, contemporaneous or subsequent
circumstances, all these ay constitute circumstantial
evidence. But before they may serve its purpose of indirectly
proving a fact in issue; take note, you have to have proof
and establish other facts from which circumstantial evidence
is based.

Kwin

(viii) PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

Another kind of evidence is prima facie evidence and
conclusive evidence.
A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is an evidence which, standing
alone, uncontroverted, uncontradicted, unchallenged,
unshaken is sufficient to establish a proposition sufficient to
establish a fact in issue. So a prima facie evidence is
susceptible or vulnerable to be contradicted. It can be
overcome by contrary evidence. But if it is allowed to stand
uncontroverted, it is sufficient to prove a fact in issue.
For example in an action for collection of sum of money, the
plaintiff pointed out in his complaint a promissory note. In
his answer, even despite service of summons, the defendant
did not answer or he answered it but failed to deny
specifically the allegations in the comlaint. Specifically
means the guniuneness and due execution of a promissory
note. So the failure of the defendant to controvert the
allegation in the compliant renders the allegation therein as
prima facie evidence and is sufficient to prove a fact in issue.
On the other hand, a CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is an evidence
which cannot be overcome by contrary evidence because it
is conclusive. It proves a fact in issue. No possibility that it
can be controverted.
One typical example of a conclusive evidence is a DNA result
which is negative. Negative in a sense that based on the DNA
test, the purported father could not be the father of the
purported child. IOW the result of the DNA test is negative,
non paternity. The result is conclusive. So once the DNA test
yielded the result of non paternity, non paternity is deemed
established as a fact and it cannot be anymore controverted
because it is conclusive.
(ii) RELEVANT, MATERIAL, AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE
Next we have relevant evidence, material evidence and
competent evidence.
RELEVANT EVIDENCE simply is an evidence which has a
relation with the fact in issue such that it induces belief as to
the existence or non existence of a fact. Its a rational
connection between an evidence and the fact sought to be
established by the evidence. This is governed by the law of
logic, common sense and human experience. IOW in
determining whether the the evidence is relevant, the
question that the court should be concerned about is WON
it is logical that this evidence proved the fact that is sought
to be established. Or WON common sense dictates that this
evidence proves or disproves a fact in issue. Or WON it is
consistent with human experience that this evidence proved
or disproves a fact in issue.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 4

Evidence
Kwin
For example, in a prosecution fro reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, the prosecutor intends to prove that
at the time of the incident, the driver was drunk. So for
those purpose, the prosecutor presented a witness to testify
that few minutes, he was with the accused in a party and
during the party they had this drinking session and the
accused got drunk. That would be the testimony of the
witness.
Is the testimony of the witness as to the fact that the accused
was drunk relevant?
Yes. As I said the test there is logic, common sense or human
experience.
So the court now should be concerned about these questions.
Is it logical that if the driver was drunk, he probably was at
fault resulting with the accident? Is it consistent with
common sense that when the driver was drunk, he was at
fault and therefore he caused the accident? Or is it
consistent with human experience that the driver who was
drunk probably was guilty of fault resulting in the accident?
Logic, common sense and human experience would tell us
that a person who is drunk has a diminished capacity. And
therefore it is logical, it is consistent with common sense
and human experience that the driver who was drunk at the
time of the incident probably was at fault. IOW based on
loigic, based on common sense and human experience, we
can now determine that the testimony of the witness who
would establish that the driver was drunk at the time of the
incident is relevant. Its all those reason.
On the other hand, in order to prove that the driver was at
fault at the time of the incident, the prosecutor would
present a witness who would testify that the driver was
indebted to him a day before. Ah thats irrelevant! The fact
that the driver made a loan to him a day before has nothing
to do with the incident. Our logic, common sense and
human experience will tell us that it has no rational
connection at all to the fact that the driver was at fault
which is the fact in issue of the case.
So thats how to determine if the evidence is relevant or not.
When is evidence MATERIAL?
When an evidence is material it simply means that the
evidence is directed to prove a fact in issue.
Take note that the ultimate purpose of evidence is to prove
or disprove a fact in issue. So that if the evidence if the
evidence is presented to prove a fact which is not an issue,
the evidence is immaterial. You are supposed to present an
evidence to prove or disprove a fact in issue. So that if it is
not a fact in issue, that evidence is immaterial.

Example. In an action for collection of sum of money, P/N is

presented as an actionable document. An actionable
document is a document upon which the action is based. So
the rule there is, you have to attach the actionable
document with the complaint. On the part of the defendant,
the defendant is required to admit or deny the allegations in
the complaint. If he admits, he should state such. In the
other hand, if he denies the allegation, there are three ways
of the denying the allegations in the complaint:
1. denies it specifically and state what he believes to be the
truth
2. denies the allegation of the complaint for lack of sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegation
3. a special requirement-the rule when the defendant denies
the genuineness or due execution of the actionable
document is that the denial should be under oath
Take note that as a general rule, an answer need not be
verified. The defendant filing the answer need not file his
answer under oath. Unless the rules expressly provides or
requires that the pleading should be under oath or verified
as in the cases of summary procedure.
Supposed the defendant in an action for collection of sum of
money did not deny the genuineness and due execution of a
promissory note appending to the complaint. The result
there is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due
execution of the actionable document. Fast forward. The
defendant presented the evidence consisting of a report of
an NBI expert tending to prove that the P/N is a forgery. Is
the report of the NBI or the testimony of the NBI expert
relevant?
YES. It is relevant because it is connection to the fact in issue
WON the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.
The fact that a promissory note is a forgery, it tends to prove
or disprove the fact in issues.
But is it material?
NO. It is not because when the defendant failed to deny the
genuineness and due execution of the P/N under oath, the
result there is he is deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution. Therefore he cannot later
on present evidence to prove that the document was a
forgery because forgery was incompatible with genuineness
and due execution which he already admitted and failed to
deny under oath.
So therefore, forgery of the document is not an issue of the
case and therefore any evidence tending to prove the fact of
forgery is immaterial because in the first place in no longer
an issue.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 5

Evidence
Kwin
When is there a FACTUAL ISSUE?
There is a factual issue when one party alleges and the other
party denies it.
If the other party alleges and the other party admits it, there
is no factual issue. It is only when there is a denial of the
allegation of the plaintiff that there is a JOINDER OF ISSUE.
That determines the fact in issue in a particular case.
So going back to the P/N, forgery is no longer an issue
because in the first place, genuineness and due execution
were already impliedly admitted. This is an illustration of a
case where a document or an evidence may relevant but not
material.
Another example, in an action for collection of sum of money.
In his answer, the defendant interposes the defense that he
did not owe a thing to the plaintiff. So he denied of being
indebted. But during the trial, the defendant received an
acknowledgement receipt tending to prove that he already
paid his obligation to the plaintiff. Is it relevant?
YES. It is because in action for collection of sum of money
where the issue is WON the defendant is indebted to the
plaintiff, the acknowledgment receipt tending to prove
payment is relevant. Because if there was already payment,
then it follows that the plaintiff has no cause of action
against the defendant. The acknowledgment receipt has a
logical, rational connection to the fact in issue. The fact in
issue being WON the defendant if indebted to the plaintiff.
But is it material?
NO. Because in his answer he merely denied having
obtained a loan from the plaintiff. There was no issue at all
about payment. Because what is there to pay if the
defendants denied having obtained a loan. so if an
acknowledgment receipt is presented to prove that payment
is already made, that while relevant is material. Because it is
directed to prove a fact which is not an issue in the case.
COMPETENCY
An evidence is competent it is not excluded by the rules. So
while relevancy is governed by logic, common sense and
human experience, competency is simply governed by the
rules. So when confronted by the issue of WON the evidence
is competent, the only concern is whether there is specific
rule in law that specifically excludes it from admission. If
there is none, the generally the evidence is admissible. OW
it is deemed incompetent and therefore inadmissible.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 6

Evidence
December 8, 2010

Kwin

not to consider it. IOW it will be disregarded by the court.

II. ADMISIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

So if it is admitted, the court is now enjoined to consider it.

How does evidence serve its purpose as a means of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact?
Before an evidence could effectively serve its purpose, it
needs to pass through two essential tests.
1. test of admissibility
2. test of weight and sufficiency

What happens after the stage of admissibility?

You have now new evidence duly accepted by the court
because it passes through the stage of admissibility, it will
now go through the second stage and this is now the
province of weight and sufficiency.

These are two stages and for an evidence to serve

effectively it s purpose, it should pass through both tests.
IOW even if the evidence is admissible because it passed
through the tests of admissibility, it will not serve its
purpose effectively if it will not pass through the test of
weight and sufficiency. Even if the evidence is admissible
because it passes the test of admissibility doesnt mean that
it automatically passes the test of weight and sufficiency.
You may have your evidence admitted by the court but it
doesnt follow that the court will give it credence and
consider it in the resolution of the case.
What do you achieve when evidence is admitted by the
court?
Take note in the actual trial evidence should be PRESENTED
in court. It should be FORMALLY OFFERED in court. When I
say formally offered in court, it should be SYBMITTED TO
THE COURT and it should be OFFERED for the purposed for
which it is being intended.
Even if your evidence forms part of the records of the case
because it is physically attached to the records, if it is not
formally offered, then it is not admitted by the court. And if
it is not admitted by the court, the court will not consider it
in the resolution of the case.

What happens during this stage?

The court now evaluates the evidence and determines if the
evidence which it had already admitted is sufficient whether
the evidence is enough to support or establish the
proposition sought to be proved or whether the evidence is
believable, trustworthy. So that if it is sufficient, credible,
believable, then the court will give it credence and the court
will consider it in the resolution of the case. OW if your
evidence does not pass through weight and sufficiency
because although it has been admitted, it is not sufficient.
Or although it has been admitted the curt disbelieves it
because the court upon evaluation of the evidence believe
that the evidence is not credible because the witness has
been established in court to having lied in his testimony. So
the court will now determining that while the evidence has
already been admitted is not believable. So if your evidence
is not believable, then it will not be considered by the court
as effectively having proved the proposition sought to be
established.
So you have to distinguish the rules of admissibility from the
rule of weight and sufficiency. Weight and sufficiency will be
the topic that we will discuss as we go along. We are now on
admissibility.
A. RULE 128, SECS 1-4

So the first step then is that you need to formally offer the
evidence in the court. This requires the test of admissibility.

When may evidence be admissible?

Under rule 128

Suppose your evidence passes the test of admissibility, what

do you actually achieve when the evidence is admitted by
the court?
You offer you evidence formally to the court and because it
passes through the test of admissibility, the court accepts it.
What you only achieve when the evidence is admitted is the
COURT now is OBLIGED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE in the
resolution of the case.

B. TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY

On the other hand, if the evidence is formally offered but not

admitted by the court; it is excluded by the court because it
does not pass through the test of admissibility, your
evidence even if it is submitted physically to the court, even
if forms part of the records of the case, the court is enjoined

BTW, evidence is admissible when it is relevant and

competent. These are expressed in the axioms of
admissibility of Wigmore which says that first, facts having
rational probative value are relevant. This is the axiom of
RELEVANCY. And second, all facts having rational probative
value are admissible unless some specific rules forbid it. This
is the axiom of COMPETENCE.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 7

Evidence
You will note that yesterday, I placed in the same category
materiality also as a classification of evidence. I placed in the
same category as relevant, competent and material
evidence. Is materiality an element of admissibility?
Because of you look at literally our own definition of
admissibility, it would appear that materiality is not a
requirement for an evidence to be admitted.
Is it possible that evidence is relevant but not material? If
materiality is not a requirement for admissibility, does it
follow therefore that the evidence is not admissible even if it
is not material so long as it is relevant and competent?
Suppose in a contract for collection of sums of money, the
plaintiff placed with his complaint a copy of the promissory
note. As discussed earlier, the defendant now files his
answer and he is required to deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
Failure to deny it under oath results in implied execution of
the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
During the trial however, the defendant tried to present
evidence tending to prove that the signature appearing in
the promissory note is a forgery. IOW the defendant now
during the trial tries to prove that the P/N is falsified and not
genuine. Is the evidence of the defendant tending to prove
that the promissory note is a forgery relevant?
YES. Because forgery may be a defense in an action for
collection of sums of money. Because if the defendant can
prove that the P/N which is the very document evidencing
the transaction sued upon is a forgery, then it has a rational
connection to the fact in issue and that is whether the
defendant is really indebted to the plaintiff. So judging
based on logic, common sense and human experience, it
would appear that evidence that the P/N is a forgery is
relevant to the issue of WON The defendant is indebted to
the plaintiff.
But is it material?
NO. because when the defendant failed to deny under oath
the genuineness and due execution of the P/N, forgery is a
non issue of the case. Because when there is failure to deny
under oath, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the P/N and therefore he
cannot anymore during the trial introduce evidence contrary
or inconsistent with the genuineness and due execution of
the P/N. So it is not material because that specific kind of
evidence is offered to prove a fact which is no longer an issue
in the case.

Kwin

Another example. Suppose in an action for collection of sum

of money, in his answer the defendant interposes the
defense that he does not owe a thing to the plaintiff. So he
completely denies obtaining a loan from the plaintiff. But
during the trial, the defendant tries to present a copy of
acknowledgement receipt purporting to show that he
already paid his obligation to the plaintiff. Is it relevant?
YES. Because acknowledgment receipt evidencing payment
of a debt has a rational connection to the fact in issue in a
collection suit, WON the defendant is indebted to the
plaintiff. If you can show that you have already paid the
obligation to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has no cause of
action to demand payment form the defendant. So judging
on the basis of logic, common sense and experience, an
argument can be made that that piece of evidence is
relevant to the issue in that case.
But is it material?
It is not material because the only defense interposed by the
defendant in his answer is denial. He did not obtain any loan
from the plaintiff. And therefore he cannot present during
the trial evidence to prove that he paid the obligation
because payment is not an issue in the case.
So these examples demonstrate a situation where the
evidence is relevant but not material.
So if you look at our own rules, it would appear that the only
requirements of admissibility are relevancy and
competence. It is silent at all on the requirement of
materiality. Does it therefore follow that even it is
immaterial the evidence is admissible so long as it complies
with the requirement of relevancy and competency?
In the book of Herrera, he said that in foreign jurisprudence,
the trend now is to consider materiality as just one of the
components of relevancy. IOW materiality is subsumed in
the concept of relevancy.
The other component of relevancy is PROBATIVENESS.
Evidence should have a probative value to be considered as
relevant. Probativeness as defined is exactly as what is being
defined in the rules; when it has a rational connection to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non
existence.
IOW our definition of relevancy there exactly refers to
probativeness. Nothing is said about materiality. But
according to Justice Herrera, the trend now is to consider
materiality as a component of relevancy. So that if you talk
about relevancy, it should have the two elements. It should
have the probative value and it should be material. Meaning
it should not only have a rational connection to the fact in
issue, but it should be directed to prove a fact in issue. So Id
like to believe hat for an evidence to be admissible, it has to
be not only relevant and competent, but it also has to

Kwin Transcripts

Page 8

Evidence
comply with the requirement of materiality. It is basic
procedure that you cannot present evidence which is not
directed to prove a fact in issue. And that is precisely the
essence of materiality.
E. MULTIPLE, CONDITIONAL, CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
Lets go to the different classifications of admissibility. We
have three
1. multiple admissibility
2. conditional admissibility
3. curative admissibility
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
This is the rule which applies to the situation where an
evidence presented appears at first blush to be irrelevant.
But its relevance could be established the moment that
piece of evidence is connected with other evidence yet to be
presented.
It may happen in a case that you intend to present several
pieces of evidence. Of course you cannot present them lump
sum.
Conditional admissibility contemplates of a situation when
your first witness or your first evidence at that very moment
it is being offered to the court is apparently irrelevant. It has
no rational connection at all to the fact sought to be
established. Of course when your evidence is irrelevant., the
adverse party has the right to object on the ground that it is
not relevant.
What do you do if the other party objects admission of your
evidence which appears initially to be irrelevant?
Under conditional admissibility rule, a proponent of that
evidence, you can ask the court that the evidence be
conditionally be admitted by the court subject to
undertaking that you can establish its relevance the moment
you are able to connect the evidence with the rest of the
other evidence that you have to present thereafter. Thats
conditional admissibility.
What is the effect if the proponent fails to connect or fails to
establish the relevance of that evidence conditionally
admitted?
The effect there is that evidence will be striken off the
records for failure to establish its condition and therefore
failure to establish the relevance.
You have and example there; A obtained a loan from B. B in
turn assigned the credit to C. C to D and D to E. when the
obligation fell due, the P/N is now with E, the present
holder. So when the defendant fails to pay, the present
holder E goes to court and files an action against A. as his
first witness, E presented D, from whom he derived the
credit, his assignor. At first blush, when D testifies in court,

Kwin

the only thing that D can testify is the transaction between D

and E on the assignment. Insofar as the defendant is
concerned, he may find this transaction irrelevant because
his transaction is with B. he has no transaction at all with E.
When the adverse party objects to the ground that he
testimony of D is irrelevant. You can invoke conditional
admissibility and ask the court that the testimony of D be
conditionally admitted because later on you will establish its
relevance by presenting to the witness stand, C and B. you
can establish ultimately that the connection between A and
E by establishing the series of assignments. So that
illustrates a scenario where conditional admissibilityrule
applies.
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
As I said earlier, when you offer the evidence, you have to
specify the purpose for which it is being intended because
an evidence may be admissible for 2 or more purposes.
Take note that the evidence is admissible only for the
purpose for which it is being presented. It cannot be
admitted for any other purpose. So you have to specify.
How does multiple admissibility work?
This is illustrated in the case of Uniwide Sales v. Titan-Ikeda
511 SCRA 335 (20 December 2006). This is a case involving a
dispute between a contractor and an owner of the project.
There were 3 construction projects involved there, and
alleging that the owner of the project failed to pay the
contract price, the contractor sued the project owner. In the
answer, the project owner said that there was delay in
construction and therefore the defendant as by way of
counterclaim that it be awarded by way of damages arising
form the delay. In its evidence in chief, the contractor
presented project engineer to establish that the projects
were indeed completed. If the project is completed, then
the contractor is entitled to the payment of the price which
the defendant failed to do. Taking the testimony of the
project engineer, that the project was actually completed in
a certain date, but it turned out that the date of completion
was already beyond the stipulated period of the contract. so
taking advantage of his admission, the project owner argued
that while the project was already completed, there was
delay in the completion of the project based on the
admission of the project engineer.
SC rule that no; because the testimony of the project
engineer was presented in order to prove a single purpose
and that is the fact that the project was completed. It was
not offered to prove the fact of delay. And therefore
because it was offered to establish the fact of completion , it
cannot be admitted for purposes of proving the fact of
delay. Multiple admissibility.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 9

Evidence
Kwin

CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
Curative admissibility is also known as playing fire with fire.
This principle contemplates the situation where the court,
despite the objections of the adverse party erroneously
admits an otherwise inadmissible evidence. This
contemplates of a situation where the court erred in
admitting an otherwise inadmissible evidence. But the court
maybe because of ignorance or whatever admitted the
evidence nonetheless over the objection of the party against
whom the evidence is presented.

D. COMPETENCE
Lets go to the second component, competency.

How does curative admissibility principle work?

Under this principle, the adverse party against whom the
evidence was admitted, although inadmissible, is also
entitled to present an equally inadmissible evidence just to
controvert the evidence admitted by the party and which
was erroneously admitted by the court.

The sources of these exclusionary rules could be the

constitution, the legislation or the special laws and the rules
of court.

For example, in an action for collection of sums of money, in

support of his allegation that the defendant is indebted to
the plaintiff, the plaintiff offered in court a photocopy of the
P/N. the beast evidence rule says that a photocopy is
inadmissible without accounting for the original. Yet despite
the objection of the defendant, the court admitted its
admission. The defendant now has a right to present a
photocopy of an acknowledgement receipt tending to prove
that the obligation sued upon has already been extinguished
by payment. The court is obliged to admit the photocopy of
the acknowledgment receipt even he failed to account for
the original under the principle of curative admissibility.
Take note that this principle of curative admissibility applies
only if the party against whom the otherwise inadmissible
evidence is presented objects to its presentation and
admission. Objections to admissibility of evidence are not
self executing provisions. They have to be invoked in order
to work in favor of the party entitled to invoke.
Failure to object results in a waiver so that you cannot, having
failed to object, having waived that right to object, you
cannot later on complain. So curative admissibility will apply
only if there is objection and despite such objection, the
court admitted the OW inadmissible evidence nonetheless.
Thats the first component of admissibility, RELEVANCY

1. RULE 128 SEC 3

The evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the
laws or the rules.
You may note that under the jurisdiction, there are various
exclusionary rules that govern the competency or
incompetency of a piece of evidence.

2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

The exclusionary rules under the constitution relate to the bill
of rights enumerated in art 3 of the constitution.
1. exclusionary rule in relation to persons constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure.
2. exclusionary rule in relation to persons constitutional right
available during custodial investigation
3. exclusionary rule in relation to persons constitutional right
to privacy and inviolability of communication
4. exclusionary rule in relation to persons constitutional right
against self incrimination
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
The principle there is search and seizure can only be validly
conducted when there is a validly issued search warrant. But
there are recognized exceptions where search and seizure
may be recognized even without valid warrant:
1. search incident to lawful arrest
2. search under plain view doctrine
3.search in moving vehicle
4. custom search
5. search with consent
6. airport search
7. stop and frisk search
Ill call your attention specifically to search incident to a
lawful arrest.
SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST presupposes the
situation where the person searched has been first arrested.
As the name suggests, the search is just an incident to an
arrest. The lawful arrest contemplated there is a lawful
warrantless arrest.
So you consult your criminal procedure, there are instances
where valid warrantless arrest can be effected:
1. in flagrante arrest
2. hot pursuit arrest
3. arrest of a fugitive from justice.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 10

Evidence
In flagrante arrest and hot pursuit arrest both require
personal knowledge. The distinction however lies on the fact
that in in flagrante arrest, the personal knowledge should
pertain to the commission of the crime. The police officer
should have personal knowledge that a crime is about to be
committed or is being committed or has just been
committed. Without the personal knowledge of the
commission of the crime, no in flagrante arrest can be
effected.
On the other hand, arrest in a hot pursuit scenario requires
personal knowledge also. But unlike in flagrante, Personal
knowledge there does not pertain to the commission of the
crime but personal knowledge of circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed the offense. So only
personal knowledge of the facts constituting probable cause
that the person to be arrested committed the offense. But
both require personal knowledge.
In Amminudin case, the principle there is that a valid
warrantless arrest under in flagrante arrest requires that
there must be some OVERT ACTS on the part of the person
to be arrested showing that he has committed or is about to
commit a crime or offense.
Applying that in Amminudin, when the accused was arrested
when alighting from the vessel from Ozamis City. SC said
that there was nothing wrong with the person walking or
going down from the vessel. The accused was not deemed
to have committing an offense when the arrest was
effected. The search was illegal because the arrest was
illegal. So no valid search incident to lawful arrest.
Similarly in Mengote where the accused was just standing
with a bulging abdomen and he was looking at side to side.
SC said there was nothing wrong with what he was doing.
There was no overt act that Mingote is about to commit, is
committing or just had committed the crime. The search
effected after the arrest was illegal because the arrest was
illegal.
So thats the settled principle as strengthened and reinforced
by jurisprudence in a scenario when there is a search
incident to a lawful arrest.
The problem is what about if the SEARCH PRECEDES THE
ARREST? You may encounter that incident to a lawful arrest
presupposes that arrest should come first and it cannot be
reversed. But supposed it is the reverse? When the search
yields positive results, arrest is effected. Both warrantless.
Take note that for purposes of search is not required that the
searching officer has personal knowledge of the commission
of a crime. It is not a requirement that the searching officer
has personal knowledge that the person to be searched has

Kwin

committed the offense. What is only required is PROBABLE

CUSE. Facts and circumstances that would engender a well
founded belief that the person to be search has in him the
possession of an illegal effects in violation of some existing
rules. So that in this scenario, tip information coming from a
reliable source, police informants for example, at times are
considered by SC as sufficient to constitute a probable cause
to justify a warrantless search.
I will call your attention to the case of People vs Kibral. In that
case, the police operatives got a call from the PDEA saying
that based on the call from their informant, 2 men and a
woman would deliver prohibited drugs to a known drug
pusher at a particular Petron Station. The following day the
police officers had a briefing and proceeded to the area
where the delivery will be made. At 4pm, 2 men and a
woman riding a jeep arrived. Minutes later, a Toyota
Tamarraw FX arrived. The driver alighted and walked
towards the woman in the jeep. The woman handed a white
envelope to the driver. Seeing this, the operatives took the
white envelop in possession of the driver. Inside was shabu.
They were arrested and prosecuted for violation of the
dangerous drugs law. They were convicted by TC.
The main argument raised by the accused was that there
was nothing wrong with them riding a jeep and staying in
gasoline station and handing a white envelop. There were
no overt acts constitutive of a crime. They were saying they
were not committing any offense when they were arrested.
SC said, this is a case where the search precedes the arrest
(reverse). SC said that when the police confirmed the
presence of 2 men and a woman and the driver of the
notorious drug pusher at the gas station, they confirmed the
information relayed by the informant. All these facts taken
together constitutes probable cause that justifies the
warrantless search. And because the warrantless search
yielded positive results, the subsequent warrantless arrest is
also legal.
SC went on to distinguish that case from Amminudin.
1. In Amminudin, the police had 2 days from the time they
got the information from the informant. There was sufficient
time to secure the necessary judicial warrant. In Kibral, they
were briefed in the morning and the search and arrest took
place at 4pm. SC said that there was no sufficient time to
secure search warrant because of the exegiencies of the
situation.
2. Unlike in Amminudin where he name of the accused was
known, and the description of all the personal circumstances
were known, in Kibral the information they got from the
informant did not include the specific names of the persons
to be searched and arrested. So that it was practically
impossible for the police to secure a warrant where the

Kwin Transcripts

Page 11

Evidence
person to be searched is not identified by name.
Id like you also to relate this to Pp vs. Laguio, Jr. GR
No.128587 (2007). The SC there made a definitive
pronouncement, although I dont think that this is the very
lis mota of the case, but nonetheless, SC said, you have to
distinguish a situation where a search was effected as
incident to a lawful arrest from a situation where the search
preceded the arrest.
In the search incident to a lawful arrest, the requirement
there is personal knowledge as exemplified in Amminudin
and other related cases.
But if the search precedes the arrest, what is only required is
probable cause. And for this purpose, tip information from a
reliable search like that of a police informant if confirmed by
the arresting officers is sufficient to constitutes and justify a
warrantless search.
So this is now the emerging trend on the matter. My concern
is this; the ruling in Kibral could be taken advantage of by
some unscrupulous police operatives in the zeal to arrest
criminals. Theres nothing that prevents them from making
it appear that the scenario pertains to that of a search
preceding the arrest to circumvent the requirement of
personal knowledge. It would be very easy to document it
that actually, the accused was searched first before he was
arrested. The reality of the situation is that actually the
police would arrest first the person to be searched. In fact
you will be hand cuffed first before you are searched. But
there is nothing that would prevent them from making it
appear that what happened is exactly what happened in
Kibral. That would be a very dangerous policy. My concern is
if the Kibral principle will become a doctrine, it might open
the floodgates of more police abuses.
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
You take care of that.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
You take care of that.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
Basic principle on this right is that it applies and this can be
invoked in all proceeding; criminal, civil or administrative.
The only distinction there is if it is criminal or administrative
proceedings penal in nature, the person under investigation
can altogether refuse to take the witness stand. The reason
is because if the accused is called to the witness stand by the
prosecution, the presumption there is that the prosecutor
will really have to prosecute the accused. So the moment
the accused is called to the witness stand, he may altogether
refuse because it is for no other purpose that to incriminate
him.

Kwin

It is different when a person is called to a witness stand in a

civil case because in a civil case, the purpose is not to
establish a criminal liability but a civil liability which is not
covered by the right against self incrimination.
So the right is available in civil proceedings but the defendant
may invoke the right against self incrimination and refuse to
answer any incriminating question when those questions are
asked. IOW he cannot altogether refuse to take the witness
stand.
It is different when it is a criminal proceedings. For ordinary
witness, not a party, no right to refuse altogether. If called
to the stand, he should take the stand. But in any
proceeding, that witness may invoke right against self
incrimination at the precise moment that incriminating
question is asked.
The rule is, any evidence obtained in violation of any of these
constitutional rights are inadmissible for being FRUITS OF A
POISONOUS TREE.
Take note that the right to object on the admissibility of the
evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional right
belongs to the person whose right is violated and no other.
This right is PERSONAL top the person whose right is being
violated. So the objections to admissibility cannot be
invoked by the third party even if admissions to those
evidence may prejudice him. Because the right to object
belongs to the party whose right is violated.
The constitution says that any evidence obtained in violation
of his right is inadmissible for any purpose on any
proceedings. Take note that that principle applies only of
that evidence offered or presented against the person
whose right has been violated. But it can be admissible for
purposes or on any proceeding if it is presented not against
the person whose right has been violated. If it is presented
aginst any other person, it is admissible.
So that if you sue the police officer for violating your right,
theres abuse on the execution of the search warrant
excessive force. Under your criminal law, that constitutes as
a criminal offense employing unreasonable force in
implementing search warrant. The person aggrieved may file
a criminal case against the police officer. The prosecution
now may present evidence against the seized items as
evidence on the criminal prosecution against the police.
That is admissible because it is offered against the police,
not the person whose right has been violated. So disabuse
you mind of the erroneous notion of the phrase there in the
constitution that says inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding holds as an absolute principle. It is NOT. the
principle there is in so long as the it is presented against
the person whose right is violated. Because precisely, thatis

Kwin Transcripts

Page 12

Evidence
intended for his protection.
3. STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION
Lets go to exclusionary rule under some special laws.

Kwin

(D.) RA 8505 RAPE SHIELD PROTECTION RULE

This is the act providing protection and assistance to rape
victims, or the so called rape shield rule.

(C.) RA 4200 ANTI WIRETAPPING ACT

This penalizes the act of intercepting or otherwise recording
the private conversation with the use of any means specified
under the law.

It says there that in any criminal prosecution for rape, any

evidence which tends to prove the past sexual conduct of
the victim or any opinion thereof or her sexual reputation is
not admissible; except and only to the extent that the court
finds it relevant and material.

Any evidence obtained in violation of the provision of the anti

wire tapping act is inadmissible.

(F.) RA 9262 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

We have the so called sexual abuse shield rule.

Take note of the relevant jurisprudence of this act.

It says there that in any criminal prosecution involving child

and sexual abuse, evidence which would tend to prove that
the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence that
would tend to prove the victims sexual predisposition are
not admissible; except evidence of specific sexual conduct of
the victim to prove that the person other than the accuse it
the source of the semen, injury or other physical evidence.

In the case of Gaanan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112 (1986), it says

there that an extension line is not covered under the
wiretapping act so that if a private conversation is overheard
by a third party using an extension of a telephone line, that
evidence is admissible. Because according to SC, an
extension line is not among the devises contemplated by law
as being prohibited to record or intercept conversation
under the wire tapping act.
Second, Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995), the prohibition
covers recorded conversation even if the party violating the
provision is one of the parties to the conversation. Take not
that while they had this altercation, the other party allegedly
defamed, maligned the other, not knowing that the
conversation was recorded by the other, he is prosecuted
for violation of anti wire taping act, the accused raised the
defense that he cannot be punished because he is a party to
the conversation being recorded. SC said the law does not
distinguish whether the party responsible for the violation is
a party to the conversation or not. It can be anybody. The
only requirement is that the recording is done WITHOUT
THE CONSENT of the parties to the conversation.
In People vs. Navarro GR No.121087 (1999), wiretapping act
applies only if the conversation is private this case involves a
case for homicide when the police killed a reporter. The
killing was preceded by an altercation between the police
and the reporter. Unknown to both, the companion of the
victim, also a reporter secretly recorded the altercation. One
of the evidence presented by the prosecution was the
recorded altercation of the police and the victim. The
accused objected, invoking anti wiretapping act. He was
rebutted by SC saying that in the first place, the altercation
was not a private conversation. Although SC did not
endeavor to define what is a private conversation, but
according to Riano, common sense tells us that private
conversation is a conversation which is not intended to be
heard by another who is not a party to the conversation. In
this case, there were other persons present other than the
parties to the altercation.

Take note that under these rules, this can be invoke only in a
criminal prosecution for rape, insofar as rape shield rule;
and in criminal prosecution for child abuse case, insofar as
sexual abuse shield rule. So both are criminal prosecutions.
(B.) RA 1405 LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
This is the act requiring the secrecy of bank deposits.
Generally, inquiring into or disclosure of information
regarding bank deposits are prohibited. Any information
obtained in violation is inadmissible.
You take note of the exceptions.
1. impeachment
2. bribery
3. when bank deposit is subject of litgation
4. regular audit allowed by the monetary board
Etc.
(G.) RA 9327 HUMAN SECURITY ACT
Let me go back to wiretapping act.
Take note also the exception to the provisions of wiretapping
act; take not of the provisions of the human security act.
The human security act allows the act of listening to,
intercepting or recording of any communication,
conversation or messages between
1. persons who are members of judicially declared an
outlawed association, organization or group of person.
2. persons suspected or charged with a crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
So despite the prohibition of the wiretapping act, it is allowed
under the parameters in the human security act.

Kwin Transcripts

Page 13

Evidence
Kwin

Take note that the provisions of the act allowing the

recording, listening and interception of messages and other
conversation does not cover conversations between lawyers
and their clients, physicians and their patients, journalists
and their sources and confidential business correspondents.
The interception, listening or recording under this act is done
only upon order of the court of appeals which order takes
effect 30 days, extendible to another 30 days.
So just review the provisions.
(A.) SEC 201TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997
Another exclusionary rule is sec 201 of internal revenue code.
These so called taxable documents; documents requiring the
documentary stamp tax. common of these taxable
documents are deed of conveyances involving real property,
sale or lease of real property, certificate of stocks, bonds,
insurance policies, special power of attorney, will, bill of
lading, etc. look at the provisions. There are so many listed
as taxable documents.
For purposes of presenting any of these documents, the
requirement is the required documentary stamp tax should
be paid. and these should be evidenced by the stamp
affixed or appended with the document with an indication
that the stamp has been cancelled, usually with 2 parallel
lines ( to avoid recycling). If you present taxable documents,
you need to comply with the requirement of the
documentary stamp tax.

2. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Document offered in violation of parol evidence rule is
inadmissible.
3. RULE ON AUTHETICATION
Document not duly authenticated is inadmissible.
4. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
Evidence which is hearsay is inadmissible
5. OFFER OF COMPROMISES IN CIVIL CASE
6. RES INTER ALIAS ACTA RULE
The act of one cannot prejudice the other. Inadmissible.
7. RULE ON DISQUALIFAICATION OF WITNESSES
There are witnesses who are disqualified from testifying. Like
the wife is disqualified from testifying for the husband
because of marital disqualification.
8. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
Testimony between lawyer and client, priest and penitent,
physician and patient. Inadmissible.
There are so many under the rules of evidence providingfor
exclusionary rule. Any evidence like these presented are
deemed inadmissible.

This is not practiced. If you object, the non admissibility of the

taxable document for failing to comply with the
documentary stamp tax requirement exists only for as long
as the requirement is not complied with. IOW as long as the
taxable document does not contain the required
documentary stamp, it is not admissible. So that for practical
purposes, if you are the proponent of a taxable document
and you fail to comply with the requirement, you can always
comply later when the other party objects. So in the end, it
will not help you, maybe just to rattle off your opponent.
But the court will just allow compliance.
So these are all the exclusionary rules under some special
laws.
1. SEC 3 RULE 128
Lets go to exclusionary rules under the rules of court.
There are so many. Some of them will be discussed
thoroughly as we go along. But let me discuss the most
common.
1. BEST EVIDENC RULE
Evidence offered in best evidence rule is inadmissible

Kwin Transcripts

Page 14

Evidence
Kwin

Kwin Transcripts

Page 15