Evidence Day 1

1. Explain the concept of evidence

Concept of "Evidence
1.Theterm"evidence"isdennedbySec.1ofRule128oftheRulesofCourtasfollows:
"SECTION 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Theverytenorofthedefinitionclearlyindicatesthatnoteverycircumstancewhichaffordsaninferenceas
tothetruthorfalsityofamatterallegedisconsideredevidence.Tobeconsideredevidence,thesamemust
be"sanctioned"orallowedbytheRulesofCourt.ItisnotevidenceifitisexcludedbylaworbytheRules
evenifitprovestheexistenceornonexistenceofafactinissue.Thus,ahearsayevidence,acoerced
extrajudicialconfessionoftheaccusedandanevidenceobtainedinviolationofconstitutionalrightsevenif
ultimatelyshowntocorrespondtothetruth,donotfallwithinthedefinitionofSec.1ofRule128.
ThedefinitionprovidedforunderSec.1ofRule128,significantlyconsiders"evidence"notasanendin
itselfbutmerelyasa"means"ofascertainingthetruthofamatteroffact.Equallysignificantisthe
observationthat"evidence"asdefinedintheRulesofCourtisameansofascertainmentofthetruthnotin
alltypesofproceedingsbutspecificallyina"judicialproceeding."(Riano,page1)

2. scope of the rules on evidence

TherulesofevidenceintheRulesofCourtareguidedbytheprincipleofuniformity.Asageneralpolicy,
therulesofevidenceshallbethesameinallcourtsandinalltrialsandhearings(Sec.2,Rule128,Rulesof
Court).
"Sec. 2.Scope. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, ex- cept as otherwise provided by law or by these rules."
(Riano, Evidence, page 8)

3. Distinction between the rules of Evidence in Civil Casees versus evidence in Criminal
cases
1.Section2ofRule128declaresthattherulesofevidenceshallbethesameinalltrialsandhearings,
exceptasotherwiseprovidedbylawortheserules.Todeclarethattherulesofevidenceshallbethesame
inallcourtsandinalltrialsandhearings,isnottosayhowever,thatthereareabsolutelynodistinctions
betweenacivilandacriminalproceeding.Indeed,therearecertainevidentiarydifferencesbetweenthese
proceedings.
2.Incivilcases,thepartyhavingtheburdenofproofmustprovehisclaimbyapreponderanceofevidence
(Sec.1,Rule133,RulesofCourt).Incriminalcases,theguiltoftheaccusedhastobeprovenbeyond
reasonabledoubt(Sec.2,Rule133,RulesofCourt).
Incivilcases,anofferofcompromiseisnotanadmissionofanyliability,andisnotadmissiblein
evidenceagainsttheofferor(Sec.27,Rule130,RulesofCourt).Incriminalcases,exceptthoseinvolving
quasioffenses(criminalnegligence)orthoseallowedbylawtobecompromised,anofferofcompromise
bytheaccusedmaybereceivedinevidenceasanimpliedadmissionofguilt(Sec.27,Rule130,Rulesof
Court).
4.Incivilcases,theconceptofpresumptionofinnocencedoesnotapplyandgenerallythereisno
presumptionfororagainstapartyexceptincertaincasesprovidedforbylaw.Example:Acommoncarrier
ispresumedtohavebeenatfaultornegligentincaseapassengerisinjuredinthecourseofhis
transportationbythecarrier(Art.1756,CivilCodeofthePhilippines).
Incriminalcases,theaccusedenjoystheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence(Sec.14,Art.Ill,
ConstitutionofthePhilippines).

4. Proof versus evidence

1."Proofisnottheevidenceitself.Thereisproofonlybecauseofevidence.Itismerelytheprobativeeffect
ofevidenceandistheconvictionorpersuasionofthemindresultingfromaconsiderationofthe
evidence(29AmJur2d,Evidence,2).

2.Evidenceisthemediumormeansbywhichafactis_provedordisproved.Proofistheeffectofevidence
becausewithoutevidencethereisnoproof(Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.,1094;1JonesonEvidence,
4).Bareallegationsunsubstantiatedbyevidence,arenotequivalenttoproof(Domingov.Robles,453
SCRA812).

(Page 8-9)

5. Factum probans versus Factum Probandum

1.Evidencesignifiesarelationshipbetweentwofacts,
namely:
(a)thefactorpropositiontobeestablished(factumprobandum);and
(b)thefactsormaterialevidencingthefactorpropositiontobeestablished(factumprobans)(Wigmore,
PrinciplesofJudicialProof,5).
2.Statedinanotherway,thefactumprobandumisthefacttobeproved;thefactwhichisinissueandto
whichthe
evidenceisdirected.Ontheotherhand,factumjprobansprobativeorevidentiaryfarttendingtoprovethe
factinissue(Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.,533).
Thus,ifPclaimstohavebeeninjuredbythenegligenceofDwhodenieshavingbeennegligent,the
negligenceofDandthecausalconnectionbetweensuchnegligence,andtheinjuriesofPtakenasawhole,
constitutethefactumprobandumofthesuit.TheevidenceofferedbyP,whetheritbeobject,
documentaryortestimonial,constitutethematerialstoprovetheliabilityofD.Thetotalityoftheevidence
toprovetheliabilityreferstothefactumprobans.
3.Thefactumprobanduminacertaincasemaybeaffectedbythejudicialadmissionsofaparty.For
instance,ifthedefendantinasuitbasedonaculpaaquilianatheoryadmitshisnegligenceinhisanswer
tothecomplaint,thereisnomoreneedtoprovenegligence.Hence,negligenceceasestobe
afactumprobanduminthecase.

Ifthefactumprobandum"signifiesthefactorpropositiontobeestablished,"thenmattersofjudicialnotice,
conclusivepresumptionsandjudicialadmissionscannotqualifyaspartsofthefactumprobandumofa
particularcase,becausesuch
mattersneednotbeestablishedorproven.
4.Inpracticalterms,thefactumprobanduminacivilcasereferstotheelementsofacauseofactionfrom
thepointofviewoftheplaintiffandtheelementsofthedefensefromthestandpointofthedefendant.
Inasuitforinstance,forcollectionofasumofmoney,intheabsenceofanyadmissionbythedefendant,
thefactum
probandumoftheplaintiffwouldbe:
(i)theexistenceofthedebtofthedefendant;
(ii)thematurityofthedebt;
(iii)thedemandmadebytheplaintiffuponthedefendanttopay;and
(iv)thefailuretopaydespitethedemand.
Fromthesideofthedefendant,thefactofpaymentoftheobligationortheprescriptionofthedebtorthe
elementsofanydefensehemayinterposewouldconstitutethefactum
probandum.
IneverytortcasefiledunderArt.2176oftheCivilCode,plaintiffhastoprove(a)thedamagessufferedby
theplaintiff;(b)thefaultornegligenceofthedefendantorsomeotherpersonforwhoseacthemust
respond;and(c)theconnectionofcauseandeffectbetweenthefaultornegligenceandthedamages
incurred(CorinthianGardensAssociation,Inc.v.Tanjangco,G.R.No.160795,June27,2008).
5.Inacriminalcase,thefactumprobandumincludesallmattersthattheprosecutionmustprovebeyond
reasonabledoubtinordertojustifyaconviction.
(a)Thus,inaprosecutionforrobbery,theprosecutionhastheburdentoprovethefollowingmattersbe
yondreasonabledoubt:
(i)thattherebepersonalpropertybelongingtoanother;
(ii)thatthereisunlawfultakingofthatproperty;

(iii)thatthetakingiswithintenttogain;and
(iv)thatthereisviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsorforceuponthings(Art.293,Revised
PenalCode;Peoplev.Sandoval,254SCRA436).
(b)Toconvictanaccusedforillegalpossessionoffirearmsandexplosives,thefactumprobandumwould
bethetwo(2)essentialelementswhichmustbeindubitably
established,viz
(i)theexistenceofthesubjectfirearmorexplosivewhichmaybeprovedbythepresentationofthe
subjectfirearmorexplosiveorbythetestimonyofwitnesseswhosawaccusedinpossessionofthesame,
and;
(ii)thenegativefactthattheaccusedhadnolicenseorpermittoownorpossessthefirearmorexplosive
whichfactmaybeestablishedbythetestimonyorcertificationofarepresentativeofthePNPFirearms
andExplosivesUnitthattheaccusedhasnolicenseorpermittopossessthesubjectfirearmorexplosive.
Evenifthefirearmorexplosiveispresentedincourt,thefailureoftheprosecutiontoprovetheabsenceof
apermittoownorpossessthefirearmorexplosiveisfataltoitscause.Theessenceofthecrimepenalized
isprimarilythelackoflicenseorpermittocarryorpossessthefirearm,ammunitionorexplosiveas
possessionbyit
selfisnotprohibitedbylaw(Peoplev.Cortez,324SCRA335).
(c)Inaprosecutionforillegalsaleofprohibitedordangerousdrugs,whatdeterminesiftherewasasaleof
dangerousdrugsisproofoftheconcurrenceofalltheelementsoftheoffense.Convictionisproperifthe
followingelementsconcur:
(i)theidentityofthebuyerandtheseller,theobject,andtheconsideration;and
(ii)thedeliveryofthethingsoldandthepaymenttherefor(Peoplev.Rivera,G.R.No.182347,

October17,2008

6. Admissibility of Evidence
a. Requisites for admissibility of evidence

1.Section3ofRule128provides:
"SECTION 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evi- dence is admissible when it is relevant to
the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules."
Evidence is admissible when it is
(1) relevant to the issue AND
(2) not excluded by law or the ROC. [Rule128,Sec.3]
ThesetwoelementscorrespondtoWigmore'stwoaxiomsofadmissibility,namely:(a)Thatnonebutfacts
havingrationalprobativevalueareadmissible;and(b)Thatallfactshavingrationalprobativevalueare
admissibleunlesssomespecificruleforbidsthem(IWigmore,910,289295).Thefirstaxiomis,in
substance,theaxiomofrelevancewhilethesecondistheaxiomofcompetence.
2.Noevidenceisadmissibleunlessitisrelevant.However,relevancyalonedoesnotmaketheevidence
admissible.
Anitemofevidencemayberelevantbutnotadmissible.Itisnotadmissiblebecausealthoughrelevant,it
maybeincompetent,i.e.,itisexcludedbylaworbyaparticularruleorbyboth.Neitherisevidence
admissiblemerelybecauseitiscompetent.Althoughevidenceiscompetent,itisstillinadmissibleifitis
notrelevant.Theformulaforadmissibilityisasimpleone.Tobeadmissible,theevidencemustbeboth
relevantandcompetent.

b. Relevance of evidence and collateral matters. GIVE EXAMPLE

Relevanceofevidenceandcollateralmatters(page65)
Relevancy
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non- existence. [Sec.4,Rule128]

Collateral matters matters other than the fact in issue which are offered as a basis for
inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
GeneralRule: Evidence on collateral matters is NOT allowed. [Sec.4,Rule128]
Exception: When it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the im/probability of fact in
issue. [Sec.4,Rule128]
NOTE: What is prohibited by the Rules is not evidence of all collateral matters, but evidence of
irrelevantcollateral facts.
Competence
Evidence not excluded by (i) law or (ii) the ROC.
Exclusionary rules of evidence by law are either constitutional or statutory.
Under the ROC, Rule 130 is the applicable rule in determining the admissibility of
evidence.As distinguished from credibility of evidence

Relevant Evidence
1.UnderSec.4ofRule128,evidencetoberelevant
musthavesucharelationtothefactinissueastoinducebeliefinitsexistenceornonexistence.The
conceptofrelevanceisclearlyoneoflogic.Itdealswiththerationalrelationshipbetweentheevidence
andthefacttobeproved.Inotherwords,theevidenceadducedshouldbedirectedtothemattersindis
puteandanyevidencewhichhasneitherdirectnorindirectrelationshiptosuchmattersmustbesetasideas
irrelevant.
2.ThematterofrelevanceundertheRulesofCourtrequirestheexistenceofafactinissue.Necessarily,
thisfactinissuemustbeadisputedfact.Sincerelevantevidencenecessarilyrelatestoadisputedfact,itis
obviousthatevidenceofferedtoproveanundisputedfactisirrelevant,and,assuch,isinadmissible.Where
thereisnoissueastoamatteroffact,thereexistsnopurposeforanitemofevidence.
3.Itistherelationtothefactinissuewhichmakesevidenceeitherrelevantorirrelevant.Iftheevidence
inducesbeliefastotheexistenceorthenonexistenceofthefactinissue,theevidenceisrelevant.Ifit
doesnotinducesuchbelief,itisirrelevant.
4.Althoughcompetencyoftheevidenceisanecessarycomponentofadmissibleevidence,thequestionthat
mostoftenarisesincourtistherelevanceoftheevidence.Whenanadvocateoffersapieceofevidencefor

thecourt'sconsid
eration,heofferstheevidencetoproveafact.Thisfactmayeitherbetheimmediatefactinissueorthe
ultimatefactinissue.
Takethestandardcaraccidentasexample.Counselfortheplaintiffpresentsthetestimonyofanothercar
drivertotestifytothefollowing:thatthedefendantwasdrivingataspeedofonehundredtwenty(120)
kilometersperhourinasixty(60)kilometerlimitzoneatthetimeplaintiffwassideswipedandinjuredby
thedefendant.Thewitnessclaimsheknowswhereofhespeaksbecausehesaweverythingthattranspired.
Whetherornotsuchtestimonymeetsthetestofrelevancewilldependuponwhatcounselwantstoprove
bythetestimony.Initiallyofcourse,counselwouldwanttoprovethatatthetimeoftheaccident,the
defendantwasdrivingwaybeyondthespeedlimit.Thisistheimmediatefactsoughttobeestablished.
Sincethereisatraceableconnectionbetweenthesubstanceofthetestimonyandthefacttobeproven,the
testimonyisrelevant.Ontheotherhand,ifthetestimonyisofferedtoprovethatthedefendantisathief,
thetestimonyhasnologicalconnectionatalltothefactsoughttobeproven.Certainly,thereisno
connectionbetweendrivingataveryfastpaceandthedefendant'sbeingathief.Thetestimonyishence,
irrelevant.
Relevancefurtherrequiresthattheimmediatefactprovenmusthaveaconnectiontotheultimateissue.In
thecaraccidentcasejustillustrated,assumethatcounselhasestablishedthroughthewitnessthatthe
defendantwasdrivingwaybeyondthespeedlimitatthetimeoftheaccident.Establishingsuchafactis
nothowever,sufficient.Thisfactmust
beshowntoberelatedtotheultimateissueinthecase.Now,theusualultimateissueineveryautomobile
accidentcaseiswhetherornotthedamagecausedtotheplaintiffaroseoutofthedefendant'snegligent
operationofhiscar.Thequestionthatshouldnecessarilybeaskedis:Istheimmediatefactproven,i.e.,
defendant'sdrivingbeyondthespeedlimit,relatedtotheissueofnegligence?Ifitis,thenthefactproven
isrelevantevidence.Ifitisnotrelatedtotheissueofnegligence,
itisirrelevant.

Bar1981
M

S"isindebtedtoabank.Whentheobligationfallsdue,hefailstopayandthebanksuesforcollection.As
partoftheevidenceofthebank,theaccountantof"S"isplacedonthestandandinthecourseofhis

examinationheisaskedifhe,inturn,isalsoindebtedtothebank.
Thelawyerof"S"interposestwoobjectionstothequestion:(a)thatitisimpertinent;(b)xxx
Ifyouwerethejudge,howwouldyouruleontheobjections.
Suggestedanswer:
(a)Theobjectionof"S"thatthe_questionisimpertinentorirrelevantshouldbesustained.Thejssug.inthe
caseistheindebtednessofthedefendanttothebankandnottheindebtednessoftheaccountantof"S"to
the

bank
Collateral Matters ( 68-69)
1.Amatteriscollateralwhenitisona"parallelordivergingline,"merely"additional"or"auxiliary"
(Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.,237).Thistermconnotesanabsenceofadirectconnectionbetweenthe
evidenceandthematterindispute.
2.Forinstance,themotiveofapersonandinsomeinstances,hisreputationaremattersthatmaybe
consideredcollateraltothesubjectofacontroversy.Averystrongmotivetokillthevictimdoesnotipso
factomakemotiverelevanttotheissueofguiltorinnocencebecausethepersonwithabsolutelyno
motivetokillcouldbetheculprit.Evidenceofthebadreputationoftheaccusedforbeingtroublesomeand
aggressivedoesnotmaketheevidenceadmissibletoprovehisguilt.Afterall,theculpritcouldhavebeen
thepersonwiththemostendearingreputation.
When Collateral Matters are Allowed
1.Asarule,evidenceonacollateralmatterisnotallowed(Sec.4,Rule128,RulesofCourt).Itisnot
allowedbecauseitdoesnothavedirectrelevancetotheissueofthecase.Thisrulehowever,isnotan
absoluterule.Thereexistsanoccasionwhenevidenceonacollateralmattermaybeallowed.Underthe
RulesofCourt,acollateralmattermaybeadmittedifittendsinanyreasonabledegreetoestablishthe
probabilityorimprobabilityofthefactinissue(Sec.4,Rule128,RulesofCourt).Inotherwords,whilethe
evidencemaynotbeardirectlyontheissue,itwillbeadmittedifithasthetendencytoinducebeliefasto
theprobabilityorimprobabilityoftheissuesofthecaseaswhenitwouldhavetheeffectofcorroborating
orsupplementingfactspreviouslyestablishedbydirectevidence.
Toillustrate:Althoughevidenceofcharacterisgenerallyinadmissible(Sec.51,Rule130,RulesofCourt),
theaccusedmayprovehisgoodmoralcharacterwhichispertinenttothe

moraltraitinvolvedintheoffensecharged(Sec.51[a][l],130,RulesofCourt).
Incivilcases,evidenceofthemoralcharacterofapartyisadmissiblewhenpertinenttotheissueof
characterinvolvedinthecase(Sec.51[b],Rule130,RulesofCourt).Also,evidenceofthegoodcharacter
ofawitnessisadmissibleifhischaracterhasbeenpreviouslyimpeached(Sec.14,Rule132,Rulesof
Court).

c. What is Multiply admissibility means?

Multiple Admissibility (page 26)
1.Therearetimeswhenaprofferedevidenceisadmissiblefortwoormorepurposes.Thus,depending
uponthecircumstances,thedeclarationofadyingpersonmaybeadmissibleforseveralpurposes.Itmay
beofferedasadyingdeclaration(Sec.37,Rule130,RulesofCourt),aspartoftheresgestae(Sec.42,Rule
130,RulesofCourt)orasadeclarationagainstinterest(Sec.38,Rule130,RulesofCourt).Thestatement
byabusdriverimmediatelyafterthecollisionthathedozedoffinthewheelwhiledrivingmaybe
admissibleasanadmissionunderSec.26ofRule130oraspartoftheresgestaepursuanttoSec.42of
Rule130.
2.Sometimesitisinadmissibleforonepurposebutadmissibleforanotherorviceversa.Forinstance,
evidenceofaperson'sbadgeneralreputationfortruth,honesty,orintegrityisobjectionableifofferedto
provethathecommittedthecrime
chargedbutitmaybeadmissibletoimpeachthecredibilityofawitnessundertheauthorityofSec.11of
Rule132.
3.Evidencemayalsobeadmissibleagainstonepartybutnotagainstanother.Anextrajudicialstatementof
arobberysuspectisnotadmissibleagainsthiscoaccusedundertheresinteraliosactarulebutmaybe
admissibleagainstthedeclaranthimselfasanadmissionpursuanttoSec.26ofRule130.
Thevarioussituationsabovementionedillustratetheconceptofmultipleadmissibility.
4.Iftestimonyisofferedtoprovethattheprojectwascompletedpursuanttothecontract,itcannotbe
offeredtoprovethattheprojectwasdelayed.Itmustberememberedthatthepurposeforwhichevidenceis

offeredmustbespecifiedbecausesuchevidencemaybeadmissibleforseveralpurposesunderthe
doctrineofmultipleadmissibility,ormaybeadmissibleforonepurposeandnotforanother,otherwisethe
adversepartycannotinterposetheproperobjection(UniwideSalesRealtyandResourcesCorporationv.
TitanIkedaCon

structionandDevelopmentCorporation,cember20,2006).

d. What is Conditional admissibility?

Conditional Admissibility (page 30)

Ithappensfrequentlyenoughthattherelevanceofapieceofevidenceisnotapparentatthetimeitis
offered,buttherelevanceofwhichwillreadilybeseenwhenconnectedtoo^herpiecesofevidencenotyet
offered.Theproponentoftheevidencemayaskthattheevidencebeconditionallyadmittedinthe
meantimesubjecttotheconditionthatheisgoingtoestablishitsrelevancyandcompetencyatalatertime.
If
theconnectionisnotshownaspromised,thecourtmay,uponmotionoftheadverseparty,strikeoutfrom
therecordtheevidencethatwaspreviouslyconditionallyadmitted.
Forinstance,Mr.PfilesanactionforrecoveryofownershipofaparceloflandagainstMr.D.The
complaintallegesthatMr.Pistheowneroftheproperty.Duringthetrial,Mr.Ptestifiesandadduces
evidencethatsometimein1995,thepropertysubjectoftheactionwasboughtbyMr.OfromacertainMr.
M.Thedefendant,Mr.D,objectsonthegroundthattheevidenceisirrelevanttosupporttheclaimof
ownershipofMr.P.Theproblempresentedinsuchasituationiswhetherornottointerruptthe
examinationofthewitnesstofirstpresenttheconnectingevidenceortoadmitthetestimonyconditionally,
subjecttopresentationofthesaidconnectingevidence
laterinthetrial.Mr.Pmayaskthecourttoconditionallyallowthetestimonywiththeundertakingtoshow
laterthatheboughtthepropertyfromMr.OwhointurnboughtitfromMr.M.
Conditionaladmissibility
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is
connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received,
providedthat the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already given
shall be stricken out.

e. Direct and Circumstancial evidence (page 33)

1.Directevidencemeansevidencewhichifbelieved,provestheexistenceofafactin
isue_wjthpjitinferenceorpresumption(Statev.Mclure,Mo.App.504S.W.2d664,668ascitedin
Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.p.413414).Inshort,directevidenceprovesafactwithouttheneedto
makeaninferencefromanotherfact.Thus,thetestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessclaimingthathe
personallywitnessedtheattackbytheaccusedonthevictimwithoutthelatter'sprovocation
isajdirecJ,..tstirnonial^videne
2.JCircumstantialevidenceisthatevidencethatindirectlyprovesafactinissuethroughaninference
whichthefactfinderdrawsfromtheevidenceestablished(Peoplev.
Matito,423SCRA617)
3.JCircumstantialorindirectevidenceistheexactoppositeofdirectevidence.Whentheevidenceis
circumstantial,afactisestablishedbymakinganinferencefromapreviouslyestablishedfact.Inother
words,inthistypeofevidence,thecourtusesafactfromwhichanassumptionisdrawn.When
thecourtdoesnothavetomakeaninferencefromonefacttoarriveataconclusion,theevidenceisdirect.
Forinstance,thetestimonyofthevictimthathedreadsthemerepresenceoftheaccusedisdirectevidence
thatthestatementwasmade.However,itisalsocircumstantialevidencetoshowthatthisfearprevented
thevictimfromattackingtheaccusedwithoutprovocation.

f.

Positive an Negative Evidence (44)

Positive and Negative Evidence

1.Thesecategoriesofevidencehavebeennormallyassociatedwithtestimonialevidencebutthereisno
rulewhichprecludestheirapplicationtootherformsofevidence.Thus,evidenceissaidtobepositive
whenawitness.affirmsjnthestandthatacertainstateoffactsdoesexistorthatacertaineventhappjened.
Itisnegativewhenthewitnessstatesthataneventdidnotoccurorthatthestateoffactsallegedtoexist

doesnotactuallyexist.Thus,thetestimonyofWthathesawPfireagunatthevictimisapositive
evidence.ThetestimonyofWthathecouldnothavefiredthegunbecausehewasnotarmedduringthe
incident,isanegativeevidence.
Positiveandnegativeevidencemaylikewiserefertothepresenceorabsenceofsomething.Thus,the
presenceoffingerprintsofapersoninaparticularplaceispositiveevidenceofhishavingbeeninsaid
placealthoughabsenceofhisfingerprintsdoesnotnecessarilymeanhewasnotinthesameplace.
Anegativefindingonaparaffintestisnotaconclusiveevidencethatonehasnotfiredagunbecauseitis
possibleforapersontofireagunandyetbearnotracesofnitratesorgunpowder,aswhentheculprit
washeshishandsorwearsgloves(Peoplev.Cerilla,G.R.No.177147,November28,2007).
2.Adenialisanegativeevidence.ItisconsideredbytheCourttobeaveryweakformofdefenseandcan
neverovercomeanaffirmativeorpositivetestimonyparticularlywhenthelattercomesfromthemouthofa
crediblewitness(Peoplev.Mendoza,450SCRA328).Itisnegativeandselfservingwhichcannotbe
givengreaterweightthanthetestimonyofcrediblewitnesseswhotestifiedonaffirmativematters
(Peoplev.Malicsi,G.R.No.175833,January29,2008).
Alreadybeyondcavilistheevidentiaryrulethatmeredenialdoesnotoverturntherelativeweightand
probativevalueofanaffirmativeassertion.Denialisinherentlyaweakdefense.Tobebelieved,itmustbe
buttressedbystrongevidenceofnonculpability;otherwise,suchdenialispurelyselfservingandiswith
noevidentiaryvalue.Likethedefenseof
alibi,denialcrumblesinthelightofpositivedeclarations.Denialcannotprevailoverthepositive
identificationoftheaccusedbythewitnesseswhohadnoillmotivetotestifyfalsely(Tanv.Pacuribot,
A.M.No.RTJ061982,December14,2007;

Villafranca2007).

v.Pacuribot,A.M.No.RTJ061983,December14,
Ameredenial,withoutanystrongevidencetosupportit,canscarcelyovercomethepositivedeclarationby
theothervictimoftheidentityandinvolvementoftheaccusedinthecrimeattributedtohim(Peoplev.
Nieto,547SCRA511).De
nial,whenunsubstantiatedbyclearandconvincingevidence,isnegativeandselfserving,whichdeserves
nogreaterevidentiaryvaluethanthetestimonyofcrediblewitnesseswhotestifyonaffirmativematters
(Peoplev.Maglente,G.R.No.179712,June27,2008;Peoplev.Montesa,G.R.No.181899,
November27,2008).

3.Greaterprobativevalueisgiventoevidencethatispositiveinnaturethanthatwhichisaccordedto
evidencethatisnegativeincharacter.Denialisaselfservingnegativeevidencethatcannotbegiven
greaterweightthanthedeclarationofcrediblewitnesswhotestifiedonaffirmativematters
(Republicv.Bautista,G.R.No.169801,September11,2007;Peoplev.Malicsi,G.R.No.175833,January
29,2008).
4.Meredenialbyanaccused,particularlywhennotproperlycorroboratedorsubstantiatedbyclearand
convincingevidence,cannotprevailoverthetestimonyofcrediblewitnesseswhotestifyonaffirmative
matters.Denialpartakesofthenatureofnegativeandselfservingevidenceandisseldomgivenweightin
law.Positiveandforthrightdeclarationsofwitnessesareoftenheldtobeworthierofcredencethantheself
servingdenialofanaccused(Anilaov.People,G.R.No.149681,October15,2007).
5.Incaseofcontradictorydeclarationsandstatements,greaterweightisgenerallygiventopositive
testimoniesthantomeredenials(Marcelov.Bungubung,G.R.No.175201,April23,2008).

g. Competence and credible evidence

Competent Evidence
1.Competentevidenceisonethatisnotexcludedbylawinaparticularcase
2.Ifthetestofrelevanceislogicandcommonsense,thetestofcompetenceisthelawortherules.Ifthe
lawora particularruleexcludestheevidence,itisincompetent.Competenceisprimarilytherefore,a
matteroflaworamatterofrule.Thequestionastocompetenceis:Istheevidenceallowedbythelaworby
therules?Ifitisallowed,theevidenceiscompetent.Ifitisnotallowed,itisincompetent.
Imagineandassumeforthesakeofillustrationthataruleofevidenceshasjustbeenadoptedmandating
thatonlydocumentaryevidencestowhichhavebeenattachedayellowribbononthebottomrightcorner
maybemarkedandadmittedinevidence.Iftheadversecounselpresentsforidentificationandmarking
adocumenttowhichhadbeenattachedaredribbon,thedocumentistobeexcludedbecauseitisnot
competent.Itisincompetentbecausetherulesayssoregardlessofitsdemonstrablelogicalrelationtothe
factinissue.
3.Competence,inrelationtoevidenceingeneral,referstotheeligibilityofanevidencetobereceivedas
such.However,whenappliedtoawitness,thetermcompetentreferstothequalificationsofthewitness.

Inotherwords,competencereferstohiseligibilitytotakethestandandtotestify.Itisinthiscontextthat
thetermisnormallyassociatedwith.Thus,atrialobjectionemployingthegroundincompetentisusually
usedinrelationtotheineligibilityofawitnesstotestifybecauseofthepresenceofadisabilitythat
rendershimunfitto
sitonthestand
Ifevidenceofferedisobjectionableonthegroundthatitisincompetent,anobjectionthatitisincompetent
isnotanacceptedformofobjectionbecauseitisageneralobjection.Theobjectionshouldspecifythe
groundforitsincompetence
suchasleading,hearsayorparol.Althoughevidenceisincompetentifexcludedbylaworbytherules,
evidenceisnotobjectedtoonthegroundthatitisincompetent.Itissogeneralatermandcannotbe
appreciatedincourt.Courtsneitherneednorappreciategeneralities.Generalobjectionsareviewedwith
disfavorbecausespecificobjectionsarerequiredbySec.36,Rule132oftheRulesofCourt.Thus,for
purposesoftrialobjections,evidenceisneverincompetent.Itispeoplewhoare.Itissloppyusagetoobject
toatestimonyoradocument.
mentasincompetent.Suchtermmoreappropriatelydescribesawitnesswhounderevidentiaryrules,does
notpossessthequalificationsofawitnessorsuffersfromadisqualificationtobeone.
(page69)

2.Theterm"credibility"referstoworthinessofbelief,thatqualitywhichrendersawitnessworthyofbelief
(Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.,330).Themeaningofcredibilityinlawisexactlywhatitmeansin
ordinaryusage:"believability."Afterthecompetenceofawitnessisallowed,theconsiderationofhis
credibilityfollows.
Also,thecompetencyofawitnessdiffersfromhiscredibility.Awitnessmaybecompetent,andyetgive
incredibletestimony;hemaybeincompetent,andyethisevidence,ifreceived,isperfectlycredible
(Black'sLawDictionary,5thEd.,257).