Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence
is the means sanctioned by Rules 128-133 of the Rules of Court of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
It is part of adjective law ( that which provides the method of enforcing rights or obtaining
redress for their invasion) as distinguished from substantive law (that which defines and
create certain rights).
Classes of Evidence
1. Relevant – evidence is relevant when it has tendency in reason to establish the probability
or improbability of a fact in issue. Relevant evidence “that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion”.
2. Competent – Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case.
(production of the original copy of document because of the best evidence rule).
3. Testimonial – the testimony of a witness, usually on oath or affirmation, given by his word
of mouth in the witness stand. Testimonial evidence commands greater weight than sworn
statements because testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate. (ex. B
struck me when I attempted to arrest him)
4. Documentary – documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents. (ex. Books, letters, papers)
5. Object – evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption. Not limited to the sense of vision but extends to that which is perceived by the
senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch. (ex. firearm, bullet
6. Direct – evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any interference or
presumption. (ex. testimony of A that he saw A attack B with bolo killing him)
7. Circumstantial – proof of facts from which taken collectively, the existence of the particular
fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence. (ex. The testimonu
of X that he saw A running away from the place where B was found dead with wounds)
12. Cumulative – evidence of same kind and character as that already given tending to prove
the same proposition. (ex. Evidence of his classmates as to his capacity to write a certain
paper is cumulative to that of his teachers on his capacity to write a certain paper)
13. Prima Facie – that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and
overcome by other evidence.
14. Conclusive – that which is incontrovertible. (ex. A partners introducing in evidence a letter
writer by his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements obtained therein)
15. Rebuttal – evidence that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given
in evidence by the adverse party.
16. Sur-rebuttal – when plaintiff in rebuttal is permitted to introduce new matter, defendant
should be permitted to introduce evidence in sur-rebuttal.
17. Expert – expert evidence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject
or department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other persons.
18. Substantial – substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
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 the Rules of Court.
Civil Proceedings Criminal Proceedings
The party attends by accord The accused attend by compulsion
There is no presumption as to either party The presumption of innocence attends the
accused throughout the trial until the same has
been overcome by prima evidence of his guilt
Offer to compromise does not as a general rule, It is an implied admission of guilt
amount to an admission of liability
The plaintiff must prove his claim by a The government must establish the guilt of the
preponderance of the evidence accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC, ECC, SEC, COMELEC, Agrarian cases, CTA, etc.
There is no vested right of property in the rules of evidence. Hence, any evidence
inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued, but admissible
according to the laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable.
Rule of evidence may be waived. XPN: if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been
established by law on ground of public policy, the waiver is void. The waiver of the privilege
against the disclosure of state secrets is void.
Sources of Evidence: 1987 Constitution, Rules 128-134 of ROC, Resolution of the SC, etc.
Chapter II ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
2. That it is competent – that it does not belong to that class of evidence which is excluded by
the law of Rules of Evidence.
Relevancy of Evidence – evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce a belief as to its existence or non-existence.
Res Gestae – meaning ”things done”. It is used to refer to words spoken that are so closely
connected to an event that they are considered part of the event, and their introduction
does not violated the hearsay rule.
Competency of Evidence – evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the law or by the rules
on evidence in a particular case. It is that which the very nature of the thing to be proved requires as
the appropriate proof in the particular case.
a) Best evidence rule - when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself
b) Parole evidence rule – when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it 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. It prevents the introduction of evidence prior or contemporaneous
negotiations and agreements that contradict, modify or vary the contractual terms of a
written contract when the written contract is intended to be a complete and final expression
of the parties’ agreement.
c) Hearsay evidence rule – a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. It bars the
testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him.
d) Offer of compromise – in civil cases, it is not an admission of any liability and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror; in criminal cases, it constitutes implied admission
of guilt.
e) Disqualification of witnesses by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity
f) Disqualification by reason of marriage
g) Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party
h) Disqualification by reason of privileged communication
i) Exclusionary provisions in the Constitution (evidence obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures and the privacy of communication and correspondence)
Collateral Matters – those that are outside the controversy, or are not directly connected with the
principal matter or issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties. Collateral matters
are not allowed because they draw away the mind of the court from the point at issue, and excite
prejudice and mislead it. They are admissible when they tend in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Facts in Issue – are those facts which a plaintiff must prove in order to establish his claim and those
facts which the defendant must prove in order to establish a defense set up by him, but only when
the fact alleged by the one party is not admitted by the other party.
Facts relevant to the issue – are those facts which render probable the existence or non-existence of
a fact in issue, or some other relevant facts.
Multiple Admissibility – when evidence is admissible for one purpose it should not be rejected
solely because it is inadmissible for some other purpose; to admit the evidence only for the
allowable purpose.
Curative Admissibility – Three (3) different ways of treating inadmissible evidence that was
admitted:
1) The admission of an inadmissible fact, without objection, does not justify the opponent in
rebutting by other inadmissible facts;
2) The opposite rule, namely that the opponent may resort to similar inadmissible evidence; &
3) The intermediate rule, otherwise known as the Massachusetts rule, namely, that the
opponent may reply with similar evidence whenever it is needed for removing an unfair
prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.
Evidence illegally seized not admissible – the exclusion of such evidence is the only practical means
of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Chapter III JUDICIAL NOTICE, PRESUMPTIONS, JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
A. JUDICIAL NOTICE
is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act without
proof because they already know them. It is based on the Latin term “what is
known, need not be proved”.
Object of Judicial Notice – to save time, labor and expense in securing and
introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are
not actually bona fide disputed. Based upon convenience and expediency.
2) 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.
Judicial Notice taken during trial – give the parties an opportunity to be heard on
the matter (i.e. witness stating a day which is Sunday)
Judicial Notice taken after the trial but before judgment or on appeal – allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive material issue in the case ( i.e.,
new discovery that a rule had been promulgated that would negate the alleged
negligence of the defendant)
Rule of Judicial Notice not confined to court of record - only to every court of
justice, from the lowest to the highest; also, certain boards and special tribunals
which are not strictly courts but which are not strictly courts but which partake of
their nature and the findings of which partake of the nature of judgments may take
judicial notice of certain matters.
B. PRESUMPTIONS
A rule of law that attaches probative value to specific facts, or directs that an
inference be drawn as to the existence of a fact, not actually known, arising from its
usual connection with other particular facts which are known or established.
A conclusion or deduction drawn by reasonable and logical inference from the usual
probabilities attendant upon associated facts.
Conclusive Presumptions
1) Estoppel in pais (equitable estoppel) – misrepresentation or concealment of material
facts on the part of the person to be estopped.
the doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair
dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak
against his own act, representations, or commitment to the injury of one to
whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.
Equitable estoppel can only be invoked by one who is in a position to be
misled by the misrepresentation with respect to which the estoppel is
invoked.
2) Estoppel against tenant – the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlor at
the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Disputable presumptions
a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong – this presumption remains until it is
overcome by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent – GR: if it is proved that the
accused committed the unlawful charged, it will be presumed that the act was done
with a criminal intention, and it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. The act
in itself is evidence. Usually referred to as “general intent”.
c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act – every
person is deemed to contemplate and can be held responsible for the natural
consequences of his own acts; ….it is only when death is not the direct or indirect
consequence of the injury, but of the malicious commission on the part of the
injured, that he is relieved of responsibility.
d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns – the presumption is usually
invoked only in the absence of witnesses.
e) That evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced – not applicable
when the omitted evidence is at the disposal of both parties, because it would have
the same weight against the one as against the other party.
f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter
g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter – if a thing
delivered to another did not belong to the latter, an implied contract known as
“solution indebiti” is created.
h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid – possession by the
debtor of the evidence of a debt raises the presumption of payment.
i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones is
produced
j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act – when a property stolen is
found in the possession of a person who us unable to give a satisfactory explanation
of his possession, he may be deemed to have committed the crime of theft of said
property. – to raise this presumption, four basic facts must be proved: 1) that the
crime was committed; 2) that it was committed recently; 3) that the stolen property
was found in the possession of the defendant; and 4) that the defendant is unable to
explain his possession satisfactorily.
Men who come honestly into the possession of property have no difficulty in
explaining the method by which they came into such possession.
k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of money, or
the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. – It
is proper to indulge to a presumption that persons act honestly and properly and
dishonesty or bad faith will not be presumed, but must be proved.
l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it –
one who is charged with liability for certain acts seeks to justify himself under his
official authority; the presumption does not apply to a public officer seeking to
recover salary attached to the office, or the benefits of a pension system.
m) That official duty has been regularly performed – this is subject to qualifications. It
is indulges only where the legality of an official act is questioned collaterally, and not
where it is directly attached or where a question of jurisdiction is involved.
n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Phils, or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction – reason: Expediency of proceedings.
o) That all the matters within an issue in a case were laid before the court and [assed
upon by it…
p) That private transactions have been fair and regular.
q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed.
r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a written contract.
s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration.
t) That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument
was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated.
u) That a writing is truly dated
v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the
mail.
w) After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee
still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
No Presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after 300 days following the dissolution
of the marriage or the separation of spouses.
Conflicting Presumptions: one in favour of innocence and one in favour of guilt, the one in favour of
innocence is to be applied. A disputable presumption cannot prevail against a presumption of
innocence.
Judicial Admission – is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial as to dispense with
the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary
to be observed and complied with.
1. Formal judicial admissions – are those which are usually made in writing, such as pleadings.
2. Informal judicial admissions – those which in general are made orally in the course of trial or
proceeding (while on witness stand)
Judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making them while other admissions are,
as a rule and where the elements of estoppel are not present, disputable.
Judicial admission may not be contradicted unless they are able to show that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
CHAPTER XIII WITNESSES AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
Testimonial duty of citizens – is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and
giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned. Performance of the citizen’s testimonial
duty can only be invoked by the state after adequate notice is given such as subpoena
Witness – a person who testifies in a cause or gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
Competency of Witness – means the legal fitness or ability of a witness to be heard on the trial of a
cause.
Persons Qualified to be witnesses – all persons who can perceive and perceiving, can make known
their perception to others, may be witnesses.
“Religious or political belief” shall not be a ground for disqualification
“Conviction of a crime” is not a ground for disqualification. XPN: convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude; convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false
testimony are disqualified from being witnesses to a will.
Presumption of competency of witnesses – as a general rule, when a witness takes the stand to
testify, the law, on grounds of public policy, presumes that he is competent. The burden is upon the
party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the grounds of incompetency.
Objection to the competency of a witness is necessary – it is the right and privilege of the adverse
party. Objection must be made before he has given any testimony; if the incompetency appears on
the trial, it must be interposed as soon as it becomes apparent.
Waiver of Objection:
a) Where a witness testifies without objection, though at that time the party knows of his
incompetency.
b) Where the party who might have made the objection owns the witness in support of his own
case.
If objection is overruled, party may examine the incompetent witness without waving his
objection.
Disinterested Witness’ testimony is afforded evidentiary weight by his or her lack of interest in the
outcome of the case.
C. Marital Privilege
During marriage, H & W cannot testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse. XPN: in a civil case by one against the other; or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by the other against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
Reason: based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the marriage relation
as one of full confidence and affection.
Res Gestae (utterances made before, during or right after the occurrence) declarations of
husband and wife are admissible for or against each other, even though each is incompetent
to testify.
If marriage is dissolved by death (no more marriage) privilege no longer applies
D. Death or Insanity
Object and purpose: to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in regard to the
transaction in question on the part of the surviving party; to protect the estate from
fictitious claims, and to discourage perjury.
Requisites that witness may be disqualified:
a) that the witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case, or of a person in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted
b) that the action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind
c) that the subject matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind
d) that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
Mere witnesses who are neither parties plaintiff are not included in the prohibition
E. Privileged Communication – is used to designate any information which one person derives
drom another by reason of a confidential relationship existing between the parties.
3. Physician and Patient – may be claimed against those duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics who are to protect the disclosures to enable him to safely and
efficaciously treat his patient.
Requsites:
a) that the action in which the information is to be used is a civil case
b) that the relation of physician and patient existed between the person claiming the
privilege or his legal representative and the physician
c) that the information was acquired by the physician while professionally attending
the patient
d) that the information was necessary for the performance of his professional duty
e) that the disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the character of the
patient.
Privilege may be claimed in civil cases only, it does not apply in criminal cases.
In criminal cases, the privilege does not apply for the maintenance of public order and the
life and liberty of the citizens are deemed more important than the purpose for which the
privilege was created.
Examination of a Child Witness – the court shall exercise control over the questioning of children to:
1) Facilitate the ascertainment of the truth
2) Ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the
child
3) Protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment
4) Avoid waste of time.
Oath – is an appeal by a person to God to witness the truth of what he declares, and an imprecation
of Divine punishment of vengeance upon him if what he says is false.
Affirmation – solemn and formal declaration or assertion that witness will tell the truth. Substitute
for oath in certain cases
Oath must be done before the examination
Judgment may be SET ASIDE if after its rendition it is discovered that witness testified
without oath
Recalled witness need not be sworn again
Power to control and regulate the taking of oral testimony is vested in the trial court.
Testimony of a witness should be given as answers to questions, framed by counsel and not
in uninterrupted narrative form; REASON: to enable the opponent to know beforehand the
nature of the given testimony, thus, enable him to in time to object and prevent the
interjection of irrelevant and inadmissible matter.
When testimony is given in a continuous uninterrupted narrative:
- Where a party witness is his own counsel
- When allowed by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion
- In giving such testimony, it is the right and duty of the counsel to interpose and arrest the
narrative by calling the attention of the court to the objectionable and by a motion to
strike out
Constitutional provision against compulsory self-incrimination relates to CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS ONLY and not in civil action
Scope of privilege on Self-incriminating questions:
- Applies to any fact to which a penalty is attached
- when the fact would tend to incriminate the witness
- applies to a fact penalized by the law of the forum
- applies to a penal act of the witness himself, not of third person
- applies to a natural person
- does not apply to a record required to be kept, of acts not in themselves criminal
- does not apply to an oral report
If it requires intelligence and attention = COVERED BY RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
- Questions need not be actually incriminating. It is enough that there is TENDENCY TO
INCRIMINATE
- Privilege is strictly personal to witness
- Privilege not to answer questions which will have a tendency to subject him to a penalty
for an offense may be invoked not only in criminal cases but in all kinds of proceeding.
- Privilege against self-incrimination must be given at a proper time- when a question
calling for a criminating answer is propounded
- Inference from claim of privilege: silence will not be taken against, but testimony shall be
taken against him.
- Witness cannot avoid answering question material to the issue on ground that it imputes
DISGRACE if disgrace “does not” amount to INCRIMINATION
- Relevancy must be shown affirmatively by party seeking to coerce answer tending to
degrade witness
- A witness is bound to answer question about his PREVIOUS FINAL CONVICTION, even if it
tends to embarrass
- COURT MUST PROTECT A WITNESS FROM
1. Irrelevant, improper and insulting question
2. Harsh or insulting manner – the court may admonish the counsel
3. Detain only the witness so long as interest of justice requires (detain here means to
make him stay on witness stand)
4. Examine only on pertinent matters – competent, material and relevant evidence.
- If answer of witness is true but not responsive to the question, it may be stricken off.
Court will caution the witness.
- If answer is responsive but unfavorable = CANNOT BE STRICKEN
- When partly responsive and partly non-responsive = UNRESPONSIVE WILL BE STRICKEN
- Argumentative answer – must give only fact and may explain but not to argue in his
answer
- Incompetent answer (hearsay) is not allowed by the rules of evidence
- If party has more than 1 atty, the attorneys should choose among themselves who will
examine the witness. However, substitution is allowed
- Judge may properly cross-examine the witness
- Judge must observe the procedural rules in examining the witness – to prevent
impression of impartiality
Cross Examination – is the examination of a witness by the party opposed to the party who called
such witness, the latter party having examined, or having been entitled to examine, such witness in
chief.
Objects of cross-examination:
1. To elicit something in favour of the cross-examining party;
2. To weaken the force of what the witness has said in direct testimony; and
3. To show that from his present demeanor or from his past life he is unworthy of belief, and
thus weaken or destroy the effect of his testimony.
Right to cross-examine – cross examination of a witness is the absolute right, not the mere privilege,
of the party against whom he is called, and with regard to the accused, it is a right granted by the
Constitution.
Art. III, Sec. 14(2) “that the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to face”
Rule 115, Sec. 1(f) of the ROC declares that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be
entitled to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
If by accident or design cross-examination is prevented, his direct examination is rendered
incompetent
If the opposite party has had the opportunity of cross-examining but has not availed himself
of it, the direct examination will be received.
Right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process
The right does not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an
opportunity to exercise this right is desired by the party entitle to its.
When cross-examination is privilege – the right to cross-examine and its concomitant privilege of
asking leading questions ceases where the cross-examination in chief is apparently concluded and
the attendance of the witness is either dispensed with from the stand or the re-examination, if any,
has begun. After that further cross-examinations is a privilege only, resting in the favour of the court.
Cross-examination is generally the function of the counsel and not of the court – the trial court
should stay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct thereof.
Leading questions – the court in its discretion may restrict the right of a party to ask leading
questions on cross examination so that serious injustice may not result.
Matters on which a witness may be cross-examined – ROC provides that “upon termination of the
direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to
test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest of bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue”.
Matters on which a witness may not be cross-examined – GR: a witness cannot be cross-examined
on facts and circumstances not brought out in direct examination or in any way connected
therewith. XPN: If immaterial or irrelevant evidence has not been stricken out, it is error to refuse
cross-examination as to the facts to which it relates.
Documents may be identified and introduced on cross-examination
Cross-examination of the accused - may be cross-examined as to any matter testified to upon his
evidence in chief. Within the limitations as to self-incrimination, the accused subjects himself to the
same liabilities on cross-examination as do other witnesses, and thereby becomes subject to all
proper and legitimate cross examination as to facts in issue, whether it tends to criminate him or
not.