Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1, 2016]
Notes in red are opinions of the lecturers,1 of authors2 on the subject, or of the reviewee.
Cited provisions are from the Rules of Court unless otherwise provided.)
EVIDENCE
RULE 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Evidence: the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact (R128, S1)
Evidence the means of proving
Proof the effect of evidence
Quantum of evidence
(1) Proof beyond reasonable doubt: required in criminal cases; does not mean such degree
of proof as excluding possibility of error, and/or producing absolute certainty. Moral
certainty is only required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
(2) Preponderance of evidence: required in civil cases; evidence which is of greater weight,
or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition thereto. (R133, S2)
(3) Substantial evidence: sufficient in administrative proceedings; that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Admissibility of evidence
(1) Requisites of admissibility: The evidence must be
a. Relevant: has a logical connection with the fact in issue
b. Competent: not excluded by the Rules on Evidence, the law, and the Constitution
(2) Axioms of admissibility:
a. Axiom of relevancy: none but facts having rational probative value are
admissible.
b. Axiom of competency: all facts having rational probative value are admissible,
unless some specific rule forbids.
Collateral matters
(1) Classification of collateral matters
a. Prospectant: those preceding of the fact in issue but pointing forward to it (e.g.
moral character, motive, conspiracy)
b. Concomitant: those accompanying the fact in issue and pointing to it (e.g. alibi,
opportunity and incompatibility)
c. Retrospectant: those succeeding the fact in issue but pointing backward to it (e.g.
flight and concealment, behavior of the accused upon being arrested, fingerprints
or footprints, articles left at the scene of the crime which may identify the culprit)
1 Dean Jose Grapilon, Atty. Christian Villasis
2 Justice Alfredo Benipayo, Dean Ed Vincent Albano
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
The following facts need not be proved:
(1) Those which the court may take judicial notice of (R129)
(2) Those which are judicially admitted (ibid.)
(3) Those which are conclusively presumed (R131)
(4) Those which are disputably presumed but uncontradicted (ibid.)
SUBJECT TO MANDATORY JUDICIAL
NOTICE
1. Territorial extent of states
2. Political history of states
3. Forms of government of states
4. Symbols of nationality
5. Law of nations
6. Admiralty courts and their seals
7. Political constitution and history of the
Philippines
8. Matters relating to:
a. Our legislative department
b. Our executive department
c. The courts of justice
9. Laws of nature
10. Measure of time
11. Geographical divisions
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Object (real) evidence: objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined, or viewed by
the court.
Classification of object evidence:
2
XPN
:
Secondary evidence: admissible when the original documents were actually lost or
destroyed; but prior to the introduction of such secondary document, the proponent
must establish the former existence of the document.
The written agreement is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
This rule forbids any addition or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the
document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.
Requisites for applicability:
a. When there is a valid contract
b. When the terms of agreement are reduced to writing
c. The agreement is between the parties and their successors-in-interest
d. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement
XPN: A party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement
(Note: it must be intrinsic ambiguity, i.e. when the writing admits two or
more meanings or when it is understood in more than one way. Extrinsic
ambiguity, on the other hand, is one where the document on its face is so
unintelligible and the words used so defective that it totally fails to express
a meaning, in such case parol existence is forbidden.)
The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto
The validity of the written agreement (e.g. where the consent of one of the
parties was procured by mistake, fraud, intimidation, violence, or undue
influence)
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-ininterest after the execution of the written agreement
(Note: the term agreement includes wills.)
Qualification of witnesses
GR:
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime shall be a ground for disqualification unless
otherwise provided by law.
XPN: When a person is disqualified by reason of:
His mental condition or mental maturity
Public policy
Confidential communication
While an accused may voluntarily take the witness stand to testify on his behalf in a
criminal case filed against him and be cross-examined thereby, he cannot be compelled
to be a witness for the prosecution.
Basis: the Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. The constitutional proscription is based on two grounds
Public policy: it would place the witness against the strongest temptation to
commit perjury.
Humanity: it would be to extort a confession of truth by force and degree of which
the law abhors.
XPN: He can be compelled to do certain mechanical or physical acts as the right extends only
against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the
accused.
The rule on examination of a child witness; presumption of competency
Under the new Child Witness Rule, every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. Only when
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court,
motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child. The court
may appoint a guardian ad litem to promote the childs best interest.
Disqualification by reason of marriage (S22)
GR:
Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the other spouse during the marriage.
Requisites:
Spouses are legally married
Either spouse must be a party to the case
XPN: In a civil case by one against the other
In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.
(Note: the right to invoke the disqualification belongs to the spouse-party; therefore,
he/she alone can claim or waive it.)
Survivor disqualification rule (Dead Mans Statute; S23): if one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the
surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction.
Purpose: to guard against the temptation to give false testimony on the part of the surviving
party, and put the parties to the suit upon the terms of equality in regard to the opportunity to
produce evidence.
XPN:
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. It is
well-settled that evidence is not admissible which shows, or tends to show, that the
accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent from the
offense for which he is on trial. A man may be a notorious criminal and may have
committed many crimes and still be innocent of the crime charged on trial. (People
vs. Galo)
Previous acts may be received in evidence to prove a specific intent or knowledge,
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage, and the like.
HEARSAY
(1) By "hearsay" is meant that kind of evidence which derives its value not solely from the
credit to be attached to the witness himself but also in part because of the veracity and
competency of some other person from whom the witness may have received his
information. (Jones on Evidence, Vol. 1)
(2) Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere
repetition of what he has heard others say; that which does not derive its value solely
from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other
persons. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in
specified cases from necessity. (State vs. Ah Lee)
The only real essential objections, however, are the absence of an oath and of crossexamination, the presence of the witness being valuable mainly as a means of securing these,
and being in some cases waived without entailing the exclusion of his testimony. (Manual of the
Law of Evidence, Signey L. Phipson, p. 91)
10
These statements are admitted not as proof of the truth of the facts revealed therein but only as
to the fact that they have been made as part of the narration of a witness. (Alfonso vs. Juanson,
228 SCRA 239)
11
Dying declaration
Doctrine of completeness:
(1) The statement as offered must not be merely part of the whole as it was expressed by
the declarant; it must be complete as far as it goes. To be complete does not mean that
it should contain everything that constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his
statement, but it should express in full all that he intended to say as conveying his
meaning in respect of such fact.
12
13
Common reputation
Reputation: the common report which others make about him, the talk about him that shows the
opinion in which he is held in the community; the sum or composite of the impressions
spontaneously made by him from time to time, and in one way or another, upon his neighbors
and acquaintances.
Common reputation: the prevailing belief in the community as to the existence of a certain fact
or aggregation of facts.
Rumor: a loose talk which the community has not had an opportunity to evaluate and accept or
reject.
Matters which may be established by common reputation:
(1) Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years old;
(2) Marriage and related facts; and
(3) An individual's moral character.
Requisites respecting facts of public or general interest:
(1) The fact must be of public or general interest and more than 30 years old;
(2) The common reputation must have been ancient;
(3) The reputation must have been one formed among a class of persons who were in a
position to have some sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the
formation of the opinion; and
(4) The common reputation must have been existing previous to the controversy.
Moral character: the inherent qualities of the person impressed by nature or by habit rather than
to any opinion that may be formed or expressed of him by others on what he really is.
Requisites respecting moral character:
14
Res gestae
Res gestae (literally means "transactions" or "things done"): refers to those exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before,
during, or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that
the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of
the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
statement.
Classification of res gestae:
(1) Spontaneous exclamations; and
(2) Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts.
Spontaneous statement: a statement or exclamation made immediately after some exciting
occasion by a participant or spectator and asserting the circumstances of that occasion as it is
observed by him.
Requisites:
(1) There must be a startling occurrence;
(2) The statement is spontaneous, made immediately before, during or after a startling
occurrence; and
(3) It relates to the circumstances of such occurrence
The rule of res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify; hence, it does not
apply where the declarant took the witness stand to testify.
Verbal acts: utterances which accompany some act or conduct to which it is desired to give a
legal effect.
Requisites:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
15
(1) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the transaction, to which they refer;
(2) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(3) Entries must have been made by entrant in his professional capacity or in the
performance of his duty;
(4) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duties; and
(5) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify.
In the ordinary course of business: means that the entries have been made regularly in the
management of the business.
Reason: to afford sufficient probability that the facts are as stated in the memorandum, and
necessity, the entries being the best available evidence.
Duty to make entry: it is not essential that the entrant shall have been under an absolute duty to
make entry. It is sufficient "if the entry was the natural concomitant of the transaction to which it
relates and usually accompanies it. A duty self-imposed by the entrant has been held to satisfy
the rule."
Learned treatises
Basis: the Alabama Rule standard medical treatises and works are admissible insofar as they
are relevant to the issues in the particular case.
Requisites:
16
OPINION RULE
Opinion: an inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts, some of which are known to
him and others assumed, or drawn from facts, which although lending probability to the
inference do not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning.
GR:
The opinion of a witness is not admissible.
XPN: (1) Opinion of expert witness; (Sec. 49)
(2) Opinion of ordinary witness. (Sec. 50)
Statement of fact as distinguished from an expression of opinion: the former is susceptible of
exact knowledge while the latter is not.
17
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
GR:
The character of a person is not admissible in evidence.
XPN: (1) Criminal cases:
The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged (e.g. one charged with theft might
offer evidence of honesty, while someone accused of murder might show that
he is peaceful, but not vice versa).
Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged (i.e. unless and
until the accused gives evidence of his good moral character, the prosecution
may not introduce evidence of or otherwise seek to establish his bad character.
The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends
to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged (e.g. on a charge of rape, the character of the woman is not
ordinarily directly in issue, but evidence of previous unchastity may be
circumstantially relevant and admissible on the question of her consent, where
absence of consent is an essential element of the crime).
(2) Civil cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in a case.
Evidence of good character or reputation is not relevant in the first instance in a
civil action or where the reputation of the party has not been attacked by
evidence of bad character.
As to witnesses in civil and criminal cases, rule: evidence of the good character of a witness is
not admissible until such character has been impeached.
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called by evidence that his
general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, but not by evidence of particular
wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witnesses, that he has
been convicted of an offense. Until such moral character has been impeached, the evidence of
the good character of a witness is not admissible.
18
Rule 131
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
Proof: the establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the
facts in issue; the cumulation of evidence that persuades the trier of facts.
Burden of proof/risk of non-persuasion: the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts
in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
CRIMINAL CASES
The burden of proof is with the
prosecution by reason of the
presumption of innocence.
Upon whom burden of
proof rests
CIVIL CASES
The plaintiff has the burden of
proof to show the truth of his
allegations if the defendant
raises a negative defense.
beyond
Preponderance of evidence
Hierarchy of evidence
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Burden of evidence: logical necessity on a party during a particular time of the trial to create a
prima facie case in his favor or to destroy that created against him by presenting evidence.
In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an
affirmative allegation.
19
Presumptions
Classes of presumption juris:
(1) Conclusive presumption (jure et de jure): one which cannot be overcome by evidence to
the contrary
(2) Disputable presumption (juris tantum): one which is satisfactory if uncontradicted, but
may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Rule 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE,
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Examination to be done in open court (Sec. 1)
How oral evidence given: the usual way of presenting oral testimony is to call the witness to the
stand and ask him questions. The testimony of witnesses is elicited by interrogation or the
propounding of questions.
Purpose: to enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by
(1) The witness' way of testifying;
(2) Their intelligence; and
(3) Their appearance.
Questions propounded to a witness must:
BE relevant;
NOT be indefinite or uncertain;
NOT be argumentative;
NOT call for a conclusion of law;
NOT call for opinion or hearsay evidence;
NOT call for an illegal answer;
NOT call for self-incriminating testimony;
NOT be leading;
20
NOT be misleading;
NOT tend to degrade the reputation of the witness;
NOT be repetitious;
NOT call for a narration.
Scope or limits:
(1) English rule: when a witness is called to testify to a particular fact, he becomes a witness
for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue,
the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct
examination.
(2) American rule: restricts cross-examination to facts and circumstances which are
connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the
witness.
Note: Both rules are followed in the Philippines.
Redirect examination:
Questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court
in its discretion.
21
Misleading question
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
GR:
A misleading question is not allowed.
XPN: (1) When waived;
(2) Asking hypothetical questions to an expert witness.
Impeaching witnesses
Procedure for impeaching witness by evidence of prior inconsistent statements (laying the
predicate):
(1) The statement must be related to him with the circumstances of the times and places
and persons present;
(2) If the statement is in writing, they must be shown to the witness before any question is
put to him concerning them; and
(3) He must be asked whether he made such statements, and, if so, allowed to EXPLAIN
them.
This rule permits a witness to refresh his memory respecting a fact by anything written or
recorded by himself or under his direction. This provision applies only when it is shown
beforehand that there is need to refresh the memory of the witness.
Requisites:
(1) The entries were written or recorded by the witness himself;
(2) He made such entries at the time the events occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the facts were still fresh in his memory; and
(3) The writer must assure the court that when the entries were made, those entries
reflected the truth.
23
24