EVIDENCE

Under Atty. JA Bonifacio

GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2
1CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE 2
214 KINDS / DEGREES OF EVIDENCE 2
OFFER OF EVIDENCE 4
3SCOPE OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE (S2, R128) [Uniformity of the
Rules] 5
4APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE 5
Sasan v. NLRC 5
GSIS v. Villaviza 6
5RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE 1987 PC (S5(5), A8) /
CONSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE RULES 6
6EVIDENCE IN CC VS. CR CASES (3 DIFFERENCES) 6
7PROOF VS. EVIDENCE 6
8FACTUM PROBANDUM VS. FACTUM PROBANS 7
INSTANCES WHEN MOTIVE NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED /
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE 7
9REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (S3, R128) [AXIOMS
OF ADMISSIBILITY BY WIGMORE] 7
10RELEVANCY (S4, R128) 8
TEST OF RELEVANCY 8
Pp. v. Pedro (Theoretical Rape Case on RELEVANCY) 8
11COMPETENCY 10
A. Exclusionary Rule (vis-a-vis Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine)
10
Zulueta v. CA 10
Pp v. Adan 10
Pp v. Mahinay 11
B. RA 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Act) in connection with RA 9372
(Human Security Act of 2007) 11
Torralba v. Pp. 11
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA 12
C. Bank secrecy laws 12

1.
 BSP Group Inc. v. Go 12
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE 12
EVIDENCE THAT IS INCOMPETENT BUT MAY BE RELEVANT (RoC)
12
12COLLATERAL FACTS / MATTERS (2nd sentence, S4, R128) 13
CHARACTER EVIDENCE V. MOTIVE 13

2.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE
BROADEST SENSE
It is any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to
produce in the mind a persuasive affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence
of some other matter of fact. (Jones of Evidence, Vol 1, 4th Ed)

STATUTORY MEANING
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact (S1, R128)

1. Means - evidence is a method or a system of doing things.

*Technical rules of evidenceevidence employs a certain system of

techniques, or an art or craft in evidence

2. Sanctioned by the rulesevidence shall be allowed by the rulesR128-

134, ROC

3. Judicial proceedingrules are confined within judicial proceedings

only

INSTANCES WHERE ROC AND ROE DO NOT APPLY (S4, R1)

1. Election, land registration, cadastral, insolvency, naturalization
cases
2. QJ and admin cases
eg. labor cases use affidavits and position papers

SC case: Evidence rules cannot be used in labor cases.

4. Ascertaining the truthevidence establishes judicial truth, not

absolute truth.

*Judicial truth is the truth can be established by evidence

5. Matter of factexists when there is a controversy. No issue, no need to

present evidence.

WHEN EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE PRESENTED

1. No issue
2. Judicial admissions
3. Judicial notice

214 KINDS / DEGREES OF EVIDENCE

3.
1. Direct vs. Circumstantial
2. Primary vs. Secondary
3. Positive vs. Negative
4. Corroborative vs. Cumulative
5. Prima Facie vs. Conclusive
6. Relevant and Material
7. Competent
8. Immaterial, inadmissible, incompetent, irrelevant
9. Rebuttal vs. Sur-rebuttal
10.Object (real)
11.Documentary
12.Testimonial
13.Expert
14.Substantial

1. DIRECTproves the fact on issue without the aid of any inference or

presumption

CIRCUMSTANTIALproof of facts from which taken collectively

evidence of the particular fact in issue may be inferred as a necessary /
probable consequence. No direct evidence is available. It is allowed by S4,
R133.

ELEMENTS/REQUISITES:
1. More than one circumstance exists.
2. facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
3. combination of all the circumstances produce a conviction BRD.

2. PRIMARY (BEST)when subject of the inquiry will be the contents of

the document, it is incumbent upon the party presenting the evidence to
present the original document.
*BEST EVIDENCE RULE=THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE applies
to documents, and there is no hierarchy of evidence.

SECONDARYinferior to the original for practical reasons.

The important rule here is LAYING THE PREDICATE, LAYING THE

FOUNDATION. It means that the lawyer shall, before presenting the evidence,
prove how the document was lost or destroyed.

Eg. photostatic copies or xerox copies

3. POSITIVEwitness affirms that a fact exists

NEGATIVEwitness denies the occurrence of the fact (denial and alibi)

4.
 These two kinds are not specifically defined by the Rules. And positive
evidence will always prevail because negative evidence is easily conducted but
difficulty proven, and are inherently weak defenses.

4. CORROBORATIVEadditional evidence of a different kind and

character tending to prove the same point.

CUMULATIVEthe evidence of the same kind and character.

5. PRIMA FACIEevidence that suffices as a proof of fact until

contradicted/overcome by other evidence. It is rebuttable.

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCEevidence that cannot be subject to rebuttal.

It is incontrovertible.
Eg. Agent acting within the bounds of his authority binds the principal

6. RELEVANTwith tendency in reason to establish the probability /

improbability of the fact in issue.

COMPETENTnot excluded by the Rules of Court or other law.

These two kinds are the two requisites or axioms of admissibility.

7. IMMATERIAL, INADMISSIBLE, IRRELEVANT,AND INCOMPETENTnot

complying with the requisites. These are the basic objections.

8. REBUTTALexplains, repels, counteracts, or disproves facts given in

evidence by the adverse party.

SUR-REBUTTALcounteract evidence given in rebuttal stage.

In evidence presentation, these two kinds shall be relevant and

competent.

9. OBJECTanything addressed to the senses of the Court.

=AUTOPTIC =PROPHYLACTIC =REAL =PHYSICAL =FORENSIC

DOCUMENTARYany material containing letters, words, numerals,

figures, or symbols, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents.

5.
 The proof of the evidences contents is proven.

TESTIMONIALtestimony is given in court by a witness.

THE CRITERION TO DETERMINE WON IT IS OBJECT, DOCUMENTARY, OR

TESTIMONIAL
=Purpose of the evidence.

OFFER OF EVIDENCE

It depends on the kind of evidences purpose. It is proving the purpose

why evidence is presented. If not offered, evidence will not be considered.

WHEN TO OFFER (S35, R132)

1. Before testifying (testimonial evidence), formal offer must be done.

2. Before presenting object and/or documentary evidence, testimonial
evidence shall be offered first.

Formal offertestimonialobject and/or documentary.

Rule: It is required to inform the court of the purpose in presenting the

evidence.
It is to show the court the purpose.

10. EXPERTtestimony given in court / the deposition of one possessing,

regarding a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge /
training not usually acquired by human persons.

Here, the witness shall be qualified as an expert witness.

11. SUBSTANTIALthis is the quantum of proof in admin. cases only. It is

the amount of relevant evidence adequate to support / justify a relevant
conclusion.

3SCOPE OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE (S2, R128)

[Uniformity of the Rules]
ASPECTS OF UNIFORMITY / COVERAGE:

1. requisites of admissibility
6.
 2. qualifications and modes of examination of witnesses
3. order of trial / presentation of evidence
4. matters excludable as evidence
EG. Hearsay evidence EXCEPT legal hearsay (dying declaration)

It is known as the uniformity of the rules:

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 (S2, R128)

GRS2, R128 prescribes uniformity of the rules.

EXC
1. Distinctions of CC and CR
2. Summary procedure rules
3. Judicial Affidavit Rule
4. Rules on Small Claims.
5. Other special rules like DNA Evidence and Electronic Evidence

4APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE

It does not apply to administrative or QJ proceedings as administrative
bodies are not bound by technical rules of evidence (El Greco Ship Manning and
Management Corp. v. CoCustoms, GR 177188, 12/4/2008)

CASES:

Sasan v. NLRC
GR 176240, 8/17/2008

GSIS v. Villaviza
GR 180291, 7/27/2010

5RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE 1987 PC

(S5(5), A8) / CONSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE OF
EVIDENCE RULES
Q: Are rules on evidence constitutionally relevant?

A: Yes under S5(5), A8, PC.

1. The rule-making power of the SC is to amend rules of pleading, practice

and procedure which includes the rules on evidence.
7.
 2. The Congress cannot legislate a law to amend rules on evidence.

6EVIDENCE IN CC VS. CR CASES (3 DIFFERENCES)

1. Quantum of evidence
CC The party with burden of proof must prove his claim by preponderance of
evidence (S1, R133)
CR Proof beyond reasonable doubt (S2)

2. Offer of compromise
CC An offer is not an admission of any liability, and is inadmissible in evidence
against the offeror.
CR An offer by the accused is an implied admission of guilt, EXCEPT those
involving quasi-offenses or those compromise-able under the law. (S27, R130)

3. Presumption of innocence
CC None, and there is generally no presumption for or against a party EXCEPT
in certain cases provided for by law.
CR It applies as provided by S14, A3, PC, and S1(a), R115, RoC

7PROOF VS. EVIDENCE

These two are antonymous.

PROOF is merely the probative effect of evidence and is conviction or

persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
There is proof only because of evidence.
There is no proof without evidence.

EVIDENCE is the mode and manner of proving the circumstances on

which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings
(Bustos v. Lucero, GR L-2068, 8/20/1948)

DISTINCTIONS OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE PROOF
1. cause effect
2. method product
3. process something to be appreciated by the
judge
4. merely tends to convince one that convinces

8.
8FACTUM PROBANDUM VS. FACTUM PROBANS
Factum probandumthe probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact
in issue or the fact to be proven or proposition to be established.

=the ultimate facts sought to be established =matters in issue =requires

presentation of evidence

Factum probansthe material evidencing the proposition. It does not include

matters of judicial notice, conclusive presumptions, and judicial admissions as
these need not be established or proven.

=evidentiary fact by which the factum probandum may be proven.

Eg. Declaration of nullity of marriage

ProbandumPsychological incapacity of respondent spouse

ProbansElements of such incapacity

INSTANCES WHEN MOTIVE NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED /

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE

*GRMotive is not an essential element in a crime.

EXC
1. Act brings about variant crimes
2. Perpetrator has not been properly identified with direct evidence
3. WON act was intentional / accidental is to be determined
4. The specific nature of the crime is to be determined
5. Justifying circumstances will be interposed by the accused.

9REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (S3,

R128) [AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY BY WIGMORE]
=WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE

1. Relevancyrelevant to the fact in issue (S4, 128)

2. Competencynot defined by the Rules =not excluded by the law or the Rules
of Court.

=AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY BY PROFESSOR JOHN HENRY WIGMORE

1. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible =relevant

9.
3. All facts having rational probative value are admissible EXCEPT if some rule
or law excludes it =competency
10RELEVANCY (S4, R128)
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
in its existence of non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability / improbability of the fact in issue (S4, R128).

TEST OF RELEVANCY
Is there a logical or rational bearing to the fact in issue?

Speculations and guess work are not allowed in the trial.

Pp. v. Pedro (Theoretical Rape Case on RELEVANCY)

AccusedPedro
VictimMaria

Piece of Evidence

1. Pedro absconded Baguio City, is no longer foundfact of absconding.

RELEVANTFlight is a sign of guilt. Case law rules that prosecution can
prove such guilt.

2. Before actual trial, Pedros offer of 50 K for Maria to drop the case.
RELEVANTIt is an offer of compromise which is an implied admission of
guilt (S27, R130)

3. Pedros proposal of marriage for dropping of the case.

RELEVANTIt is an offer of compromise which is an implied admission of
guilt (S27, R130) WON accepted or breached.

If accepteda condonation extinguishing liability.

If breach (of promise to marry)not an actionable wrong.

4. Witness testimony: Maria reported the rape to police, making a scandal.

Pedro was asked if he did it but Pedro did not respond, and was silent. But
Pedro is not yet apprised of his constitutional rights.

10.
 RELEVANTa witness can testify about this fact. There is an INFERENCE
of admission of guilt by silence (S32, R130).

5. Same situation as above, but Pedro is apprised of his constitutional rights.

RELEVANTThere is an ADVERSE INFERENCE. It is not admission of guilt
by silence.

6. Pedro is a promiscuous person (sex addict).

GRNOT RELEVANT (S34, R130)
EXCRELEVANT if purpose is to prove he is a serial rapist / his
intent or habit.

7. Pedros defense: I am impotent.

NOT RELEVANTunder case law, mere intent to rape or touch to skin is
consummated rape.

8. Pedro: Maria is a prostitute.

NOT RELEVANTPerson of loose morale (or a prostitute) can be a victim.
And under case law, mere intent to rape or touch to skin is consummated rape.

9. Marias virginity.
NOT RELEVANTunder case law, mere intent to rape or touch to skin is
consummated rape.

10. Marias immediate report to parents and police about the act / crime.
NOT RELEVANTsuch report adds credibility to the allegation of rape
(S40, R130)

11. Marias love for extreme sports.

NOT RELEVANTunder case law, mere intent to rape or touch to skin is
consummated rape. Hymenal laceration is not material.

12. Pedro: She loved it!

RELEVANTThere is voluntary consent from the victim.

In a case law, there was no resistance, so accused was acquitted.

*Atty. Bonix says that this ruling is dangerous because the victim may be
a minor thus there will be no resistance.

11.
13. Pedro: We are lovers. And Maria concedes later.
RELEVANTIt is a sweetheart defense which is a valid defense. It is
voluntary consent by the adult victim.
EXC: Victim is a minor, who cannot give consent.

14. Maria had other sexual acts before the rape.

NOT RELEVANTunder RA 8353 (Rape Shield Law), no defense / evidence
before the alleged rape is allowed. Otherwise, it is unfair.

15. Defense counsel asks the victim, Do you masturbate?

RELEVANTInjury may be self-inflicted. Science or tests may prove penal
or DIGITAL penetration, like rape by sexual assault.

11COMPETENCY
It is not defined by the Rules of Court, however it is not excluded by any
law or the Rules of Court.

A. Exclusionary Rule (vis-a-vis Fruit of the Poisonous

Tree Doctrine)

Under the PC, any evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the

constitutional rights of the accused is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution
in a court of law, EVEN IF RELEVANT.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (A3, PC) WHERE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

APPLIES / WHEN IT IS APPLICABLE

1. Against unreasonable searches and seizures (S2)

GRSearches shall have warrants secured from the court.
EXCWarrantless searches / searches incidental to arrest
(S12, R16)
1. plain view doctrine
2. moving vehicles
3. checkpointsonly ocular
4. customs and airport
5. terry arrest
6. stop and frisk

2. To privacy and inviolability of communication (S3) in relation to RA

4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Act) and RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)
12.
 Zulueta v. CA
It is applicable against private persons like the dentist-spouses in
this case. The right to privacy is not surrendered by marriage. In this case, the
pieces of evidence obtained are not admissible in court.

RA 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Act)

GROne cannot intercept, overhear private communication without
consent from the conversing parties.
EXCAn application and a court order later granting interference.

RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)

It allows wiretapping but only the CA can issue surveillance order and
order to intercept the conversations of terrorists.

3. Under custodial investigation or investigation for an offense (S12) in

relation to RA 7438 (Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons, Arrested, Detained
or Under Custodial Investigation)

Pp v. Adan
GR 116437, 3/3/1997

A rape case where the accused surrender. In the municipal hall, he

asked an audience / press where he admitted.

SC:
1. Voluntary admissions or confessions to private persons / media
persons, spontaneously done, are admissible in evidence.
2. The constitutional rights are invokable against State actors.

3. The confession to the mayor is also admissible because

1. The mayor was not at his official capacity, and
2. The accused voluntarily approached him.

Pp v. Mahinay
GR 12248, 2/1/1999

Even private persons can assist the accused to be apprised of their

Miranda Rights. The basic Miranda rights are the right to:
1. be silent
2. have counsel
3. waive the right to counsel in writing

4. Against self-incrimination (S17)

13.
 GRNo person can be compelled as a witness against himselfordinary
or expert witness. It is applicable in all cases even legislative inquiries.

EXCVoluntarily taking the witness stand is a waiver of the right

against self-incrimination.
It means that he may be cross-examined to any matter related to
the case.

Eg. Murder
Accused goes to witness stand. If the Pros. asks questions about
rape, this shall be objected to by the Defense counsel but in a form of a
MANIFESTATION advising/reminding in open court about the accuseds right
against self-incrimination.

PROHIBITION OF RIGHT VS. SELF-INCRIMINATION

It covers testimonial compulsion only. Mere mechanical acts are
not includedfingerprinting, mugshot, physical examination, paraphine testing,
signatures.
NoteIn forgery and falsification cases, the accused cannot be
compelled to write his signature where it is the corpus delicti.

B. RA 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Act) in connection with

RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)

Torralba v. Pp.
GR 153699, 8/22/2005

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
GR 110662, 8/4/1994

C. Bank secrecy laws

BSP Group Inc. v. Go

GR 168644, 2/16/2010

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

It ordains that inadmissible evidence is a fruit of the poisonous tree.

Ratio:
1. Protection of civil liberties

14.
 2. Prevention of introducing illegal evidence by the authorities or the
government.

EVIDENCE THAT IS INCOMPETENT BUT MAY BE RELEVANT

(RoC)
1. Privileged communication (S24, R130)
attorney-client
doctor-patient
husband-wife
priest-confessor
public officer-citizen

2. Deadmans Statute (S23)

Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party.

3. Hearsay evidence

4. Bank secrecy laws

RA 1405Bank Secrecy Act
RA 6426Foreign Currency Deposit Act
RA 9160Anti-money Laundering Act

*Financial status is part of ones legal status. Bank accounts or deposits are
always confidential.

GRDisclosable if with the depositors consent.

EXC(EXCEPTIONS TO BANK SECRECY LAWS)
1. Written consent of the depositor
2. Impeachment cases but only as to LOCAL deposits
3. Court order in bribery or dereliction of public officials but only as
to LOCAL deposits.
4. Money deposited is the subject matter of the case
5. Any violation of the Anti-money Laundering Law with the
favorable recommendation of the AMLC (Anti-money Laundering Council)
6. In foreign depositsWritten consent of the depositor

12COLLATERAL FACTS / MATTERS (2nd sentence, S4,

R128)
It has no definition under the Rules of Court.

WORKING DEFINITION

15.
 It is something outside the controversy or issue; or something directly or
not connected with the principal matter in dispute.

GRCollateral facts are NOT admissible in evidence.

Ratio: It diverts minds of courts and parties from the principal fact
in issue.

EXCIt is relevant to the issue

x x x tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue (2nd sent., S4, R128)

CHARACTER EVIDENCE V. MOTIVE

Character Evidenceestimation of the public as to who one is.

GRCharacter evidence is NOT admissible (S51, R130)

Ratio: The case shall be decided on evidence presented, not on
character estimation of one party.

16.