Notes on Evidence

Arellano University EEC

Rule 128
a. Definition of evidence
b. Proof vs. Evidence
c. What do you mean that law of evidence liberally construed.
d. Kinds of evidence
e. Hierarchy of evidentiary values
f. Scope of rules of evidence (Sec .2)
g. Admissibility of evidence (Sec.3)
h. Relevancy of evidence (Sec.4)

A. Nature of Evidence

Rules of Evidence Cover Rule 128 133.

Introduction:

Substantive and Procedural laws

Laws may be divided into substantive and procedural laws. The laws by which rights, duties and liabilities are
defined are called substantive laws. (which defines several offences and also lays down the punishment for such
offences). The laws which prescribe the mode by which the application of the substantive law is regulated are called
procedural laws.

The procedural laws can be further divided into two parts: firstly, there are rules dealing with various
procedures to be followed in a court of law. Secondly, there are rules dealing with the mode of the proof of the
existence or otherwise of rights, duties and liabilities e.g. Evidence Act.

Law of evidence is a system of rules for ascertaining the controverted questions of facts in judicial inquiries. The
substantive law merely defines what facts go to constitute a right or liability. The laws of evidence inquire into these
facts; it is a procedural law which provides, inter alia, how a fact is to be proved.

The word 'evidence' is derived from the Latin word evident or evidere, which means "to show clearly, to
discover clearly, to ascertain, to prove". The object of rules of evidence is to help the courts to ascertain the truth, to
prevent protracted inquiries, and to avoid confusion in the minds of judges, which may result from the admission of
evidence in excess.

Sec. 1 Evidence defined Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact.

Component Elements of Evidence

1. MEANS OF ASCERTAINMENT includes not only the procedure or manner of ascertainment but also the
evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of fact may be ascertained.
2. SANCTIONED BY RULES not excluded by the Rules of Court.
3. IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - contemplates an action or proceedings filed in a court of law.
4. THE TRUTH RESPECTING A MATTER OF FACT refers to an issue of fact and is both substantive (determines the
facts needed to be established) and procedural (governs the manner of proving said facts.)

Proof vs. Evidence

The word 'evidence' includes all the legal means, exclusive of mere argument, which tend to prove or disprove
any matter or fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.

'Proof is the establishment of fact in issue by proper legal means to the satisfaction of the court. It is the result
of evidence, while evidence is only the medium of proof.
 Every evidential question involves the relationship between factum probandum and the factum probans.

Factum probandum (Issue) - refers to the ultimate facts sought to be established. It refers to the proposition.it is also
hypothetical (theoretical)
However, there are cases where there is no more factum probandum.
Example:
In criminal case, for instance, even if the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the court must order a
summary hearing to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea and for the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. (RULE 116 Sec. 3 RoC)

Factum Probans the material evidencing the proposition. It is the fact by which the factum probandum is established.
It is Existent. (Evidence)

Rules of Evidence liberally construed.

Liberal construction means such equitable construction as will enlarge the letter of the rule to accomplish its
intended purpose, carry out its intent, or to promote justice.
Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice.
(Quiambao vs. CA, March 28, 2005)

Hierarchy of evidentiary values

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt it required for conviction of an accused in a criminal case. Means that which is
the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any other consideration, of moral
certainty of the guilt of the accused or the degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.it
does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required. ( People vs. Bacalso)

2. Clear and convincing evidence refers to that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established; it is more than
preponderance but not to extent of such moral certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
case. Ex. To overcome a disputable presumption of law, such as presumption of validity and regularity in favor of
notarial or public document; regularly performed of the duties of a government employee, self -defense cases.

3. Preponderance of evidence required in civil cases, means that which is the greater weight or more convincing
than that which is offered in position to it.

4. Substantial evidence required to reach a conclusion in Administrative proceedings or to establish a fact before
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies. It means relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on
record, direct or circumstantial.

5. Prima Facie evidence- is that proof which, if unexplained or contradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition
it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the presumption of innocence to warrant conviction.

What are the types or classification of evidence?

Read and digest the case of PEOPLE v. BELARMINO, 133 SCRA 461 (1984)
Kinds of evidence

General classification of evidence

1. Real evidence (autoptic evidence) - refers to knowledge acquired by the court from INSPECTION or by self-
perception or autopsy of the evidence. It refers to the thing or fact or material or corporate object which can be
reviewed or inspect by the court, which party may present as evidence.

2. Circumstantial evidence it is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The fact-finder must draw an
inference or reason from the circumstantial evidence. However, the rules make no distinction between direct
evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. (for
instance , in criminal cases, no greater degree of certainty is required when evidence is circumstantial than when
it is direct, for either case, the trier of facts must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused.

3. Testimonial evidence it refers to oral evidence or that which a witness testified in court. It includes oral or
written evidence, such as document evidence, deposition and affidavits. (There must be an opportunity for cross
examination for purposes of fair trial.)

Other Classification of evidence

a. Depending on its ability to established the fact in dispute

1. Direct Evidence - evidence which proves the fact in dispute WITHOUT the aid of any interference or
presumption. (Eye witness)
2. Circumstantial Evidence proof of facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.

b. Depending on the degree of its values in establishing a disputed fact, evidence

1. Prima Facie Evidence evidence which serves for the proof of a particular fact UNTIL contradicted and
overcome by other evidence.
2. Conclusive Evidence - Evidence which controvertible or one which the law does not allow to be
contradicted. It is impossible evidence. (Age of Majority Birth Cerftificate)
3. Corroborative Evidence - evidence which is of a different kind and character as that already given and tends
to prove the same proposition (suggest).
4. Cumulative Evidence evidence which is of the same kind and character as that already given and character
as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition.

c. Depending on its weight and acceptability

1. Primary or Best Evidence evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question
2. Secondary or substitutionary Evidence evidence which is inferior to primary evidence and admissible only
in the absence of the latter.

d. Depending on its nature

1. Object evidence evidence addressed to the senses of the court and is capable of being exhibited to
examined or reviewed by the court.
2. Documentary Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols by which
ideas are represented on material substances.
3. Testimonial Evidence is verbal or oral evidence. It is evidence which consists of the narration or deposition
by one who has observed or has personal knowledge of that to which he is testifying.
a. Positive Evidence when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, it is entitled to greater
weight since the witness represents of his presents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence
of a fact.
b. Negative Evidence when the witness states that he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact
and there is the total disclaimer of personal knowledge.
 e. Depending on its quality
1. Relevant Evidence if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce to the fact in issue as to induce belief
in its existence or non-existence.
2. Material Evidence evidence which tends to prove the fact in issue, and determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleading.
3. Admissible Evidence if it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the Rules of Court
4. Credible Evidence if it is not only admissible evidence but also believable and used by court in deciding a
case. Evidence is credible if worthy of belief.

Rebuttal Evidence is that kind which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given evidence by the
adverse party. It is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove.

Sur-rebuttal Evidence - is a reply to rebuttal evidence. When the plaintiff in rebuttal is permitted to introduce new
matter, defendants should permitted to introduce evidence in sur-rebuttal.

Scope of rules of evidence

Sec 2 of Rule 128 Scope The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as
otherwise provided by law or these rules.

General Rule: These Rules shall govern in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (Civil, Criminal
and special proceedings)

Exemption: Sec. 4 of Rule 1

These Rules shall not apply to the following;
1. Election cases
2. Land registration
3. Cadastral
4. Naturalization
5. Insolvency proceedings
6. And other case not herein provided for except by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable
and convenient. (administrative bodies, or quasi-judicial tribunals, the technical rules of pleading, procedure
and evidence are not strictly adhere to.

PEOPLE v. BELARMINO, 133 SCRA 461 (1984)

FACTS:
In G.R. Nos. 93808-09, accused BELARMINO DIVINA alias "Bejar" and MECRITO BAGA y HIYOG appealed from the judgment
** rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 35 of Dumaguete City convicting both accused for murder and
frustrated murder for the death of Concepcion Baillo and the gunshot wounds sustained by Jaime Baillo. Accused-appellants contend
that the court a quo erred in finding that their guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and in convicting them of the crime
charged. Accused-appellants, Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga interpose the defense of denial and alibi by stating that it is
impossible for them to commit the crime since they were drinking tuba with the relatives of the former at the time the incident had
happened. They also alleged that the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Jaime Baillo, is far from credible for being conflicting,
uncorroborated, unreliable and inconclusive. In support of this contention, accused-appellants point out that Jaime Baillo upon
admission in the hospital on the night of the incident allegedly told Dr. Calumpang that he (Jaime) was shot by an unknown assailant.
The defense also makes a big issue of the fact that the prosecution witnesses Ambrocio Baillo, Jaime Baillo and Rogelio Baillo reported
the identities of the accused only after one month and nine days have elapsed despite the fact that the accused's identities were
already known to them on the very night of the incident. Accused Belarmino Divina further argues that as stated in the police blotter, the
shooting incident happened at around 7:40 o'clock in the evening of June 17, 1988 and not 6:30 o'clock as claimed by the prosecution
witnesses. It was therefore, not possible for the victim Jaime Baillo to have seen the accused without the aid of a lighted torch.

ISSUES:
Is the police blotter conclusive evidence?

RULING:
No. A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police
blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not conclusive. It is undisputed that the alleged time of the
commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither
present when the shooting incident happened nor presented as a witness during the trial. The information supplied is therefore hearsay
and does not have any probative value.

PEOPLE v. PADERO, 226 SCRA 810 (1993)

Sec.3 Rule 128: Admissibility of evidence

Requisites for admissibility of evidence. the evidence must be:

1. Relevant has a logical connection with the fact in issue or if it establishes directly or indirectly the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue. It is determined by logic and common sense.

2. Competent if not excluded by the law or the rules. Evidence on the credibility or lack of it of a witness is always
relevant. In every proceeding, the creativity of the witness is always an issue.

Ex. Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest or its consequences should be made BEFORE an entry of
plea in the arraignment; otherwise, the objection would be deemed waived.

Interviewed by media it should be in writing and there should be an assistance of a competent and independent
counsel of his choice. R.A. 7438 sec. 2

Rules of exclusion these are governed by the rules on evidence.

Exclusionary Rules these are commonly used for evidence excluded by the constitution.
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure (Art. III sec 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication (Art. III sec 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Art. III Sec 12)
4. Right against self incrimination (Art. III sec. 17)

Doctrine of the Fruit of the poisonous tree

It is a doctrine that states that all evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal search (the poisonous tree) must be
suppressed. Not infrequently, the challenged, evidence is secondary or derivative

Example: The accused claimed that information about his bank accounts i.e. trust
funds, was obtained in violation of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law ( R.A. 1405) and
moved to have them be excluded as evidence. HELD: R.A. 1405 nowhere provides that an
unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence there from
inadmissible in evidence. If Congress has both established a right and provided
exclusive remedies for its violation, the court would encroaching upon the
prerogatives of congress if it authorizes a remedy not provided for by statute.
Absent a specific reference to an exclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the
courts to read such a provision into the act. ( Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA
190, Nov. 30, 2006).

Kinds of admissibility

1. Multiple admissibility may mean either (i) the evidence is admissible for several purposes or (ii) an evidence is
not admissible for one purpose but may be admitted for a different purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of
the other purpose

1. Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be admitted to prove the accused
was armed with a deadly weapon; to prove the weapon is far deadlier than the weapon
of the victim; to prove it was the weapon of the accused which cause the wounds and
not some other instrument; to corroborate the statement of a witness who claims he
saw the accused holding a bladed instrument.

2. Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial confession of one of
several accused may not be admitted to prove there was conspiracy among them or to
prove the guilt of the other co-accused but it maybe admitted to prove the guilt of
the confessant (b) the statement of the victim may not be admitted as a dying
declaration but as part of the res gestae.
 2. Conditional evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its
connection with another or other facts subsequently to be proved will be established.

Evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily, subject to the condition that its relevancy or
connection to other facts will later be proven, or that the party later submit evidence that it meets certain requirements
of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the record.

1. Example: A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented subject to the

condition that the original be later presented

2. Example: P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P presents a document that the land
belonged to X. If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P can state that he will alter
show that X sold the land to Y who in turn sold it to Z and then to P. The Court
may admit the document conditionally.

3. fighting fire with fire or Opening the Door - This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to
be presented by one party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or present similar improper evidence
but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial effect of the opponents inadmissible evidence.

The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence, for if he did not, then it is discretionary
for the court to allow him to present curative evidence

The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are incompetent due to an exclusionary rule

Example: P vs. D for sum of money. P was allowed to introduce evidence that D did not
pay his debt as shown by his refusal to pay his indebtedness to X, Y and Z. Defendant
may introduce evidence that he paid his debts to A, B and C.

Sec.4 Relevancy; Collateral matters - evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, EXCEPT when it tends in any reasonable
degree to established the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Types of collateral matters

1. Prospectant evidence - refers to evidence suggesting that a person might or might not do a particular act even
before someone does an act. Prospectant evidence typically falls into any of the five categories :
1. Moral character or disposition;
2. Physical and mental capacity;
3. Habit or custom;
4. Emotion or motive; and
5. Plan, design or intention.

Prospectant evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence whereby past event from which a fact in issue can be
inferred in order to establish motive or plan.

2. Concomitant evidence - refers to evidence that is presented to show the alleged suspect did the alleged crime.
Concomitant evidence shows that, at the time of the act, the alleged wrong doer was physically present at the crime
scene, and she/he actually did it. E.g. alibi, incompatibility etc.

3. Retrospectant those succeeding the facts in issue but pointing backward to it. Discoveries such as concealment.
PEOPLE v. PADERO, 226 SCRA 810 (1993)

FACTS:
In a complaint filed on 21 January 1992 with Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros
Oriental and docketed therein Criminal Case No. 741-B, Jocelyn Cadelia, a sixteen-year-old lass and a
resident of sitio Amalao, barangay Tagpo of Bais City, charged Henry Padero, her uncle-in-law, with the crime
of rape committed. A plea of not guilty having been entered by the accused. The prosecution presented as its
witnesses complainant Jocelyn Cadelia and Cherryl Palacios for its evidence in chief, and Clara Cadelia,
Rev. Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana Cadelia on rebuttal. The accused took the witness stand in his defense
and presented Loreta Samane, Elsa Garcia, Macrina Padero, and Marietta Padero as his witnesses.

Despite the positive testimony of the accused which squarely traversed the complainant's version of
force or intimidation by stating that he and the complainant had an intimate relationship, with the latter as the
more aggressive partner, and that their first sexual encounter in August of 1991 was followed by fifteen more
encounters at the same place during week-ends when the complainant was alone, all of which were new facts,
the complainant was never recalled to the witness stand to rebut these obviously damaging revelations of the
accused. The trial court convicted the accused giving full faith and credit to the version of the complainant who
it said testified "with sincerity, honesty and candidness and with answers direct to the point, in a logical and
straightforward manner, and free from inconsistencies." The accused seasonably appealed from the judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the act of the prosecution of not recalling the private complainant to rebut the testimonies of
the accused engenders doubt as to the credibility of said private complainant?

RULING:
Yes. The function of the rebuttal evidence is to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the
adversary. Its office is "to meet the new facts put in by the opponent in his case in reply" and is "necessary only
because, on a plea in denial, new subordinate evidential facts have been offered, or because, on an affirmative
plea, its substantive facts have been put forward, or because, on any issue whatever, facts discrediting the
proponent's witnesses have been offered." While the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the
prosecution in a criminal action, in the instant case, the overwhelming import of the new facts disclosed by the
accused which have a damaging effect on the complainant's version made it imperative for the prosecution to
present rebuttal evidence. Relegating the complainant to the background and presenting other witnesses to
rebut minor or trivial matters brought out in the evidence in chief for the defense engender serious doubts on
the integrity of her story.
Rule 129: What need not be proved

A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege (Non Alegata Non Proba).

The following facts need not to prove:

1. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice

2. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission
3. Matters or facts which are legally presumed
4. Matters or facts stipulated upon
5. Matters or facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the opposing party
6. Matters or facts which are irrelevant .
7. Matters or facts in the nature of negative allegations subject to certain exceptions

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without proof. They are
based on considerations of expediency (practicality) and convenience for it displaces the necessary for evidence on a
settled matter. It may be mandatory or discretionary.

Purpose: To save time, labor and expenses. It is based on expediency and convenience.
The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.

The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence,
of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history
of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

Judicial notice, when mandatory

It is mandatory for the court to take judicial notice, without introduction of evidence, of the following:
1. The existence and territorial extent of states;
2. The states political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality;
3. The law of nations
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. The political constitutions and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines;
6. The laws of nature;
7. The measure of time;
8. The geographical divisions of the country.

SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge,
or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.