Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128).
NOTE: Evidence is only the means of ascertaining the truth. This truth would depend upon the
evidence admitted in Court.
Applicability of the Rules on Evidence
The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings
(Sec. 1, Rule 128)
NOTE: The Rules of Court shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (Sec. 4, Rule 1).
Principle of Uniformity
As a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be same in all courts and in all trials and
hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 128).
Relevancy Formula
FACT A
FACT B
Probative of/
Tends to prove
Fact of
Consequence
Attack on Relevancy
1. Not Probative of FACT B, a Fact of Consequence
2. Probative of FACT C, but FACT C Not a Fact of Consequence
Facts offered into Evidence
1. Ed has blue eyes.
2. Ed has a skull and cross bones tattooed on his left arm and a smoking gun tattooed in his
right arm.
3. Eds father was a German guard in a Nazi death camp, where Ed was born in 1942.
4. Ed is a member of the skin heads.
5. Ed purchased a car radio with a police ban three months prior to Johns murder.
Fact of Consequence/Interference/Conclusion
Ed murdered John.
Facts offered into Evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
John was found dead in his apartment, with a bullet wound in his chest.
A week earlier, Ed has threatened John.
Eds hat was found in Johns apartment.
Ed had written a love letter to Johns wife three months prior to Johns murder.
The murder weapon was found buried in Eds backyard.
Police Officer Smith testifies that Sam, Johns neighbor, told him that he saw Ed driving
away from the apartment building the night of the shooting.
Want jury to infer/conclude
Ed murdered John.
3. A man who loves a married woman probably wishes to get rid of her husband.
4. A man who wishes to get rid of the husband of the woman he loves probably makes some
plan to do so.
5. A man who plans to get rid of the husband of the woman he loves probably kills him.
Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
1. Direct Evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact
(Riano, 2013).
2. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence that evidence which indirectly proves a
fact in issue through an interference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established (People v. Matito, 423 SCRA 617).
2 Kinds of Evidence
1. Words
2. Things
a. Writings/Documents
b. Tangible objects
Court Decision Making
Evidence
Interference
Decision
Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence
Deduction v. Induction
Deduction/Direct Evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Induction/Circumstantial Evidence
1. Sammy on trial for robbing a bank.
2. No surveillance film due to a technical problem.
3. Maggie, Sammys girlfriend, testifies that Sammy told her that he was low on funds and,
unless his ship came in, would have to rob the bank near his house.
4. Court induces that Sammy is the robber.
5. Court decided to convict.
Positive v. Negative Evidence
Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, while it is
negative when the witness states he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact
(Regalado, 2008).
NOTE: When a witness declares of his personal knowledge that a fact did not take place that is
actually positive testimony since it is an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact.
Denial as Negative Evidence
A denial is negative evidence. It is considered by the court to be a very weak form of defense
and can never overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when the latter
comes from the mouth of a credible witness (People v. Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328, as cited in
Riano, 2013).
d.
e.
f.
g.
Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules of evidence must be liberally
construed (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court).
Rules of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment
of justice.
A strict and rigid application must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary
objective of enhancing substantial justice.
Preponderance of Evidence
In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.
The court may also consider the number of witnesses, through the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number (Rule 133, Sec. 1, Rules of Court).
Substantial Evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Rule 133, Sec. 5,
Rules of Court).
Clear and Convincing Evidence
Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of a fact a firm belief
or conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
It is intermediate; being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is
required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases (Blacks Law Dicitionary, 5 th Ed.,
227).
Those of which the courts may take judicial notice (Rule 129);
Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131);
Those that are disputably presumed but uncontradicted (Rule 131);
Immaterial allegations;
Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently alleged (Sec. 1, Rule
8); and
7. Res ipsa loquitur
Judicial Notice
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without
proof because they are supposed to be known to them.
It is based on considerations of expediency and convenience.
It displaces evidence, being equivalent to proof.
Judicial Notice dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the
evidence is designed to fulfill.
Its function is to abbreviate litigation by admission of matters that need no evidence because
judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence.
When the matter is subject to discretionary judicial notice, a hearing is necessary before
judicial notice is taken of a matter.
1. Matters which are of public knowledge;
NOTE: Public knowledge are those matters coming to the knowledge of men generally
in the course of ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration
NOTE: Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration are facts, theories
and conclusions which have come to be established and accepted by the specialists in the
areas of natural science, natural phenomena, chronology, technology, geography,
statistical facts and other fields of professional and scientific knowledge (Francisco,
1996).
3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129).
NOTE: Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere persona knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his
action.
Judicial Admission
These are admissions, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case, which does not require proof. (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
1. Written admission file a motion to withdraw such pleading, or any other written
instrument containing such admission.
2. Oral admission the counsel may move for the exclusion of such admission.
QUESTION:
Anna and Badong were accused of killing Cathy. However, only Anna was arrested since
Badong went into hiding.
After trial, Anna was acquitted of the charge in a decision rendered by Judge Santos.
Subsequently, Badong was arrested and brought to trial. After trial, Badong was found guilty
of homicide in a decision rendered by Judge Yantok, the judge who replaced Judge Santos
after the latter retired.
On appeal, Badong argues that Judge Yantok should have taken judicial notice of the
acquittal of Anna rendered by Judge Santos.
Is Badong correct?
ANSWER:
No. the appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness is not binding on
another judge who heard the testimony of the same witness on the same matter.
Each magistrate who hears the testimony of a witness is called upon to make his own
appreciation of the evidence. It is, therefore, illogical to argue that because one judge made a
conclusion in a certain way with respect to one or more of the accused; it necessarily dictates
that the succeeding judge who heard the same against the other accused should automatically
make the same conclusion (People v. Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58, Aug. 4, 2000).
Object Evidence
Object 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 (Sec. 1, Rule
130).
Object evidence, also known as real evidence, demonstrative evidence, autoptic preference
and physical evidence.
Evidence, is that evidence which is addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130). It
is not limited to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and
olfactory.
NOTE: When the physical evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence, conclusion as to
physical evidence must prevail (People v. Aguinaldo, 316 SCRA 819).
Examples of Object Evidence:
1. Any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of the senses;
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom;
In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence, a photograph showing the
accused mauling the victim with several of the latters companions.
The person who took the photograph was not presented as a witness.
Be that as it may, the prosecution presented the companions of the victim who testifies that
they were the ones in the photographs.
The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs because the person who took the
photographs was not presented as witness.
Is the contention of the defense tenable?
ANSWER: