Rule 128 Chapter Summary.docx

**Rule 128** **GENERAL PROVISIONS** ***Section 1.*** ***Definition of evidence*** "The means, sanctioned by the Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact." ***Evidence is sanctioned by the Rules but is not limited to the Rules*** Evidence is the mean...

**Rule 128** **GENERAL PROVISIONS** ***Section 1.*** ***Definition of evidence*** "The means, sanctioned by the Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact." ***Evidence is sanctioned by the Rules but is not limited to the Rules*** Evidence is the means allowed by the Rules to determine factual issues in litigation. Some \[evidentiary\] rules can be found in: - Substantive law - Other portions of the Philippine adjective law Instances: 1. **Article 1403 (2) of the Civil Code a.k.a. The Statute of Frauds** - evidence of \[any\] agreement cannot be received without the writing or a secondary evidence of its contents - Statute of Frauds - an evidentiary rule inasmuch as it limits a party's ability to prove an agreement if the same is not in writing. 2. **Article 2199** ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Article 2199** In determining the actual or compensatory damages to be paid, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Only actual or compensatory damages that requires proof of pecuniary loss. **Article 2216** Requirement (proof for pecuniary loss) does not apply as no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated, or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Principles relating to proof for certain forms of damages: +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | **ACTUAL OR | | | | | COMPENSATORY | | | | | DAMAGES** | | | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | ***Situation*** | A list of | ***Effect (in | Self-serving | | | damages | court)*** | | | | prepared | | Should have | | | extrajudicially | | been declared | | | without any | | inadmissible in | | | supporting | | evidence as the | | | receipts as | | "factum | | | bases | | probans" | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | ***Remedy*** | To justify an | ***Reason | ***Development | | | award for | behind the | Bank of the | | | actual damages, | law*** | Philippines vs. | | | there must be | | CA, G.R. No. | | | competent proof | | 11053, 16 | | | of the actual | | October 2005*** | | | amount of loss. | | | | | | | A court cannot | | | | | rely on | | | | | speculation, | | | | | conjecture, or | | | | | guesswork as to | | | | | the fact and | | | | | amount of | | | | | damages but | | | | | must depend | | | | | upon competent | | | | | proof that they | | | | | have been | | | | | suffered and on | | | | | evidence of the | | | | | actual amount | | | | | thereof. | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | **MORAL | | | | | DAMAGES** | | | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | ***Situation*** | If the | ***Effect (in | Moral damages | | | plaintiff fails | court)*** | cannot be | | | to take the | | awarded | | | witness stand | | | | | and testify as | | | | | to his social | | | | | humiliation, | | | | | wounded | | | | | feelings and | | | | | anxiety | | | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | ***Remedy*** | In cases of | ***Reason | Ordinary human | | | VIOLENT DEATH, | behind the | experience and | | | there is no | law*** | common sense | | | need for any | | dictate that | | | allegation of | | the wounds | | | proof of the | | inflicting on | | | emotional | | the surviving | | | sufferings of | | victims would | | | the heirs | | naturally cause | | | | | physically | | | | | suffering, | | | | | fright, serious | | | | | anxiety, moral | | | | | shock and | | | | | similar | | | | | injuries. | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ 3. **Article 114, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code** - A person cannot be convicted of treason unless the evidence of the prosecution meets the \[a\] **[required particularity]** (i.e. the confession of the accused in open court) or the \[b\] **[required plurality]** (i.e. testimonial evidence from at least 2 witnesses) 4. **Article 805 of the Civil Code** - Another provision with required plurality - Every notarial will must be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another 5. **Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure** - Two important evidentiary concepts: (1) concept of an admission under Rule 129 Section 4 and (2) concept of authentication under Rule 132 --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Concept of admission under Rule 129 Section 4** If an admission is made in the course of judicial proceedings, the fact admitted by the party no longer needs to be proved. **Concept of authentication under Rule 132** Authentication is dispensed with if a party fails to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document. --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. **Rule 25, Section 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure** - *"A party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give deposition pending appeal"* - Lays down a possible limitation on a party's ability to present testimonial evidence - A litigant who wishes to subsequently call the adverse party as a witness must comply first with the requirement stated in Rule 25, Section 6. 7. **Rule 26** - Provided in part that each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested (in short, an admission na gi-request is deemed admitted unless ang taong gi-requestan ug admission kay magserve ug sworn statement either denying the parts of the admission requested) - Any matter deemed admitted need not be proved anymore. - If the requested party complies, any admission made by him is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding (Sec. 3) ***Evidence applies in judicial proceedings but not necessarily in administrative cases*** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Law*** | **General Rule**: when the | | | proceedings are administrative or | | | quasi judicial, the rules of | | | evidence are not strictly | | | followed. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Reason behind the law*** | Administrative tribunal | | | | | | - Merely required to act | | | according to justice and | | | equity and the substantial | | | merits of the case | | | | | | - May resolve the case without | | | regard to technicalities or | | | legal forms and shall not be | | | bound by any technical rules | | | of legal evidence | | | | | | Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G.R. No. | | | L-46496, 27 February 1940 | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ Labor cases ***In illegal dismissal cases,*** - **Dismissed employee** - convince the LA that his termination from employment was contrary to law - **Employer** - attempts to persuade the tribunal that such termination was lawful ***In illegal dismissal cases,*** - No witnesses are presented and subjected to cross-examination - Evidence consisting in documents - attached and submitted together with the parties' position papers - Summary in nature and are resolved without following technical rules of evidence - **Article 221 of the Labor Code as reiterated in Section 2, Rule 5 of 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure** - "LA shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process..." Manner by which the hearing officer in a labor cases determines the relevance - Such hearing officer may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case - However, this **[rule of liberal adherence]** is not to be taken lightly and will only be countenanced if safeguards of due process are still followed - Should not be interpreted so as to dispense with the fundamental and essential right of due process. This right is satisfied, at the very least, when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers. ***Evidence in civil and criminal cases*** ***Purpose of Evidence*** - Because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case - Incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence Facts in issue, what are these? - Those matters of fact on which the plaintiff proceeds by his action, and which the defendant controverts in his pleadings - If the parties xx do not agree about it as they have their respective versions of the facts Object of Evidence - To establish the truth by the use of perceptive and reasoning faculties ***A matter of fact*** - **Fact** - defined as a circumstance, event, or occurrence as it actually takes or took place or a physical object or appearance as it actually exists or existed - Two kinds of facts: \[1\] ultimate facts and \[2\] evidentiary facts - **Ultimate facts a.k.a. Facta probanda** - principal, determinate, and constitutive facts upon the existence of which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defense rests - **Ultimate fact a.k.a. Factum probandum** - a proposition still to be established and as such, is necessarily hypothetical - **Evidentiary facts a.k.a. Facta probantia** - facts that are necessary for the determination of the ultimate facts - **Evidentiary fact a.k.a. Factum probans** - a premise upon which conclusions of the ultimate facts are based ---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Ultimate fact** Defendant Maja, the debtor, is indebted to the Plaintiff Pia, the creditor, for Php 500k. **Evidentiary fact** To prove the fact of Maja's indebtedness, Pia can present the promissory note Maja executed. ---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - **Relationship of relevancy** - every evidentiary question involves the relationship between \[1\] factum probandum and \[2\] factum probans - 2019 amendments of the Rules of Court - only ultimate facts were required to be stated in a pleading ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Rule 8, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure** Direct provision of the Rules that pleadings should OMIT evidentiary facts or facta probantia **A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC** Every pleading shall now contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts and include "the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his/her claim or defense, as the case may be" ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Fact vs. Law*** ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- **Fact** **Law** An event A principle Actual Perceived That which has been according to or in contravention of the rule Rule of duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- - The existence of foreign laws is a matter of fact ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Within the territory of its jurisdiction** Law operates as an obligatory rule which judges must recognize and enforce **Tribunal outside its jurisdiction** Law loses its obligatory force and its claim to judicial notice ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rule 8, Section 1 of the Rules - allegations, whether made to support a cause of action or defense, can either be of fact of law - **[If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law]** - the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to the pleading party shall be clearly and concisely stated - **[Only facts are required to be proved]** - because laws being official acts of government and subject of mandatory judicial notice require no proof under Rule 129, Section 1 ***Question of Fact vs. Question of Law*** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Question of Fact** **Question of Law** The doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts There is doubt as to what law is on a certain state of facts Question of fact does Does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties to a case When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law When the issue involves the truth or falsity of the parties' allegations It seeks to determine whether or not the legal conclusions of the lower courts from a given set of facts are correct When there is a need to review the evidence or witnesses When there is no need to review Where factual matters are involved, a QoF is to be determined by the evidence to support the particular contention The question must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them **In a jury system** Juries must answer to the QoF Judges to QoL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - **[The rules of evidence]** - apply only when there is a question of fact to be determined - **[If the question presented is one law]** - all that the tribunal has to do is to apply the law on the given set of facts; no need to receive evidence or conduct trial for that matter For the purpose of appellate recourse from a judgment rendered by the trial court, an important distinction exists between QoF and QoL - Section 5, Rule 8 of the Constitution - SC shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases in which only an error or QoL is involved General Rule: **[SC is not a trier of facts]** and it will usually not entertain QoF as the factual findings of the lower courts are considered final, binding or conclusive to the parties ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Question to be raised on appeal is a purely legal question** Mode of review is an appeal by certiorari under R45 directly to the SC **Appeal involves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact or law** Recourse should be made to the CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exception/s: 1. The SC may entertain QoF in appeals brought under Rule 45 from petitions for issuance of Writs of Kalikasan, Amparo, and Habeas Corpus 2. SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof 3. Transcendental or paramount importance a. Gios-Samar vs. Dept. of Transportation and Communications - "when a question before the Court involves determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as transcendental or paramount importance of the case. Such questions must first be brought before the trial courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve factual matters." ***Proof vs. Evidence*** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Proof** **Evidence** The logically sufficient reason for assenting to the truth of a proposition advanced A narrower term; and includes only such kinds of proof as may be legally presented at a trial, by the acts of the parties, and through the aid of such concrete facts such as witnesses, records or other documents A term of wide import and comprehends everything that may be adduced at a trial, within the legal rules Evidence may be false and of no probative value Strictly accurate and technical sense is the result or effect of evidence The medium or means by which a fact is proved or disapproved The conclusion drawn from or the effect of evidence The perfection of evidence for without evidence there is no proof The effect of when the requisite tantrum of evidence of a particular fact is met. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Waiver of the Rules of Evidence*** - Evidentiary rules that are intended for the protection of the parties may be waived - Waiver can be expressed or implied (a party's failure to seasonably object to the presentation of evidence that offends such rules) Examples: 1. Original Document Rule under Rule 130, Section 3 2. Several rules on Privileged Communications under Rule 130, Section 24 What cannot be waived - rules grounded on public policy, such as: 1. The constitutional rules on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures 2. The right to privacy 3. The right against coerced confessions ***Classification of the Rules of Evidence according to Wigmore*** Rules of evidence may be classified in the following manner: 1. **Intrinsic rules a.k.a. Rules of probative policy** - those which are directed at facilitating the pursuit of truth a. [Relevancy requirements] - those which ensure that each of piece of evidence presented during trial is logically probative of the factual question b. [Rules of auxiliary probative policy] - those which allow the court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence (hearsay evidence) on the ground that it might obscure rather than illuminate the truth Characteristics of intrinsic rules: a. [Exclusionary] - exclude certain kinds of evidence (hearsay rule under Rule 130 Section 37) b. [Preferential] - require one kind of evidence in preference over another on the premise that they are more trustworthy (original document rule under Rule 130 Section 3) c. [Analytical] - subject certain kinds of evidence to scrutiny (testimonial evidence is subjected to the process of cross-examination under Rule 132 Section 6) d. [Prophylactic] - apply certain measures to prevent the risk of falsity or mistake (rule which requires that a witness be placed under oath seeks to prevent perjury) e. [Quantitative] - evidence be presented in a specific quantity or plurality or that they be corroborated as a necessity to produce certain results (before an accused can be discharged as a state witness, the court must be satisfied that his testimony can be corroborated in its material points under Rule 119 Section 17; extrajudicial confession must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti under Rule 133 Section 3) 2. **Extrinsic rules a.k.a. Rules of Extrinsic Policy** - those that advance values and goals that override the policy of ascertaining the truth (exclusionary provisions of the 1987 Constitution seek to advance constitutional rights sometimes at the expense of the truth and physician-patient communication is designed to promote health, not truth as it encourages free disclosure in the sickroom by preventing disclosure in the courtroom ***Classes of Evidence*** 1. **Object or real evidence** - They are exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court - Tangible evidence directly involved in the underlying events of the case - In the appreciation of object evidence, the court uses the senses of sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell 2. **Documentary evidence** - Consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent or other modes of written express offered as proof of their contents - Photographs - include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos - What is important is not the PHYSICAL document itself but its contents - In the appreciation of documentary evidence, the court has to use intelligence - Constitutes what is written on paper and not the attributes of the paper itself as a physical object - **The LWT of Cecil George Harris, principle**: "the material in which the contents are written does not matter. The material that contains written expressions does not have to be paper. In the same vein, object or real evidence can be in the form of paper if it is offered not as proof of its contents but of its physical attributes." 3. **Testimonial evidence** - Oral or written assertions offered in court as proof of the truth of what is being stated, for as long as the witness whose testimony is offered can perceive and in perceiving, can make known his perception to others (Rule 130, Section 21) 4. **Demonstrative Evidence a.k.a. Testimonial aids** - A kind of real evidence, refers to evidence in the form of objects (maps, diagrams, or models) - Used to broadly illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue - Not prohibited, although not specifically mentioned in the Rules - Example: Rule on Examination of a Child Witness which provides that the court shall permit a child to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins, or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony ***Hierarchy of Evidence*** **Theoretical evidence:** 1. Physical or object evidence 2. Documentary evidence 3. Testimonial evidence - Can either be oral (those delivered in open court) or written (like affidavits) - **Open court declarations take precedence over written affidavits** - an affidavit is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to him - **Occupies the lowest rung in the hierarchy of evidence but conversely the most indispensable** - neither object nor documentary evidence can be presented without an accompanying testimony --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Physical or object evidence** Greater credence is given to physical or object evidence "as evidence of the highest order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses" **Physical vs. testimonial evidence** Conclusions as to physical evidence should prevail **Contrary oral assertions** Cannot normally prevail over object evidence **Documentary vs. testimonial** Documentary evidence prevails; testimonial evidence is easy of fabrication --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **CLASSES OF EVIDENCE** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to whether evidence affirms | | | or negates** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Positive or affirmative | when a witness affirms that a | | evidence** | fact occurred or did not occur. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Negative evidence** | when the witness cannot affirm | | | the occurrence or non occurrence | | | of a fact | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to materiality** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Material evidence** | evidence that is offered upon a | | | matter properly in issue. Whether | | | a matter is properly in issue is | | | determined by the pleadings | | | submitted by the parties | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Immaterial evidence** | evidence offered upon a matter | | | that is not in issue | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to relevancy** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Relevant evidence** | evidence which has a tendency in | | | reason to establish the | | | probability or improbability of | | | the fact in issue. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Irrelevant or unrelated | evidence that has no tendency in | | evidence** | reason to establish the | | | probability or improbability of | | | the fact in issue | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to the need to infer or | | | presume** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Direct evidence** | proof that if believed, | | | establishes the truth or falsity | | | of a fact in issue and does not | | | arise from a presumption | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Circumstantial evidence** | evidence not bearing directly on | | | the fact in dispute but on | | | various attendant circumstances | | | from which the judge might infer | | | the occurrence of a fact in | | | dispute | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to originality** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Primary or best evidence** | evidence which the law regards as | | | effecting the greatest certainty | | | of the fact in question | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Secondary or substitutionary | evidence which itself indicates | | evidence** | the existence of a more reliable | | | or original source of information | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to kinds of supporting | | | evidence** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Cumulative evidence** | additional evidence of the same | | | kind and character as that | | | already given and tends to prove | | | the same proposition | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Corroborative evidence** | additional evidence of a | | | different kind and character, | | | tending to prove the same point; | | | deemed necessary only when there | | | are reasons to suspect the | | | witness did not tell the truth or | | | that his observation had been | | | inaccurate | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to controversion** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Prima facie evidence** | evidence that is sufficient to | | | establish a fact and if not | | | rebutted, becomes conclusive of | | | that fact; shifts the burden of | | | presenting evidence to the | | | adverse party to refute that fact | | | deemed established | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Rebutting evidence** | that which is given by a party in | | | the cause to explain, repeal, | | | counteract or disprove facts | | | given in evidence by his opponent | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Conclusive evidence** | evidence which is | | | incontrovertible, that is to say | | | either not open or not able to be | | | questioned, as where it is said | | | that a thing is conclusively | | | forward, it means that such | | | result follows from the facts | | | shown as the only one possible | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to the nature of | | | testimony/** | | | | | | **As to the tenor of the | | | testimony** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Character or reputation | evidence attesting to one's | | evidence** | character and moral standing in | | | the community; when allowed, the | | | character evidence must be | | | limited to the traits and | | | characteristics involved in the | | | type of offense charged | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Opinion evidence** | evidence of what the witness | | | thinks, believes, or infers in | | | regards to facts in dispute; | | | rules ordinarily do not permit | | | witnesses to testify about their | | | opinions or conclusions | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Expert evidence** | testimony which consists of the | | | opinion of a witness on a matter | | | requiring special knowledge, | | | skill, experience or training | | | which he is shown to possess | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Ordinary or testimonial | consists of a witness who | | evidence** | testifies on facts which he knows | | | of his personal knowledge, that | | | is, which are derived from his | | | own perception | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **As to the source of evidence** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Intrinsic evidence** | evidence that is necessary for | | | the determination of an issue | | | that comes from the act, | | | declaration, document or object | | | itself | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Extrinsic evidence or evidence | evidence from source outside the | | aliunde** | subject act, declaration, | | | document or object | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **Demonstrative evidence** Evidence in the form of objects (maps, diagrams, or models) that has in itself no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue broadly. Demonstrative evidence is not prohibited, although not specifically mentioned in the Rules. In appreciating demonstrative evidence, the court uses the same 5 senses but, more importantly, applies intelligence to draw conclusions or inferences from the objects presented. Thus, for demonstrative evidence, what is important is not the object but the information that the objects create. ***Alibi as a Negative Testimonial Evidence*** - "Elsewhere" or "somewhere else" - In a criminal action, alibi is a defense that the defendant was somewhere else than the scene of the crime when the crime was committed - In jurisprudence, alibi is a negative, self-serving evidence that the law considers to be inherently weak - Alibi, a negative defense, is inherently weak but it can only be defeated by the presentation of positive evidence. People vs. Umapas (G.R. No. 215742) ***Weight of Negative Evidence*** Based on the pronouncements in Umapas, it can be said that positive evidence, such as positive identification of the accused by a witness, prevails over negative evidence like alibi. People vs. Miranda (G.R. No. 176634) ***Negative Pregnant a.k.a. Pregnant Denial*** A form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading or during the examination of a witness. A negative pregnant (or a pregnant denial) is a denial which implies its affirmative opposite by seemingly denying only a qualification of the allegation and not the allegation itself. Example: Q: Have you ever smoked marijuana? A: I have never smoked marijuana at work. ***Proof of Conspiracy*** Considering the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by direct evidence. It may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. ***Doctrines on Supporting Evidence*** -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony of a lone witness If found by the trial court to be positive, categorical, and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction Corroborative or cumulative evidence Necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness bent the truth or that his/her observation was inaccurate Not a prerequisite to the conviction of the accused Accused against his co-accused Always a competent witness against his co-accused When satisfactory and convincing, may be the basis for a judgment of conviction of his co-accused (People vs. Lumayag, G.R. No. 181474) -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253* *People vs. Cirbeto, G.R. No. 231359* No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case. ***Corroboration is generally not required*** Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Requirement of at least two witnesses under Article 114 of the RPC** If the person accused of treason does not make a confession of his guilt **Article 805 of the NCC - requirement of 3 or more credible witnesses** Every notarial must be attested and subscribed by 3 or more credible witnesses **Rule 119, Section 17 - requirement of corroboration to the testimony of the accused** The testimony of the accused sought to be discharged as a state witness should be SUBSTANTIALLY corroborated in its MATERIAL POINTS **Rule 113, Section 3 - requirement of corroboration to an extrajudicial confession made by an accused** An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti **Circumstantial evidence - more than one circumstance** In order for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, there must be more than one circumstance and all such circumstances must be inexorably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt **Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness - hearsay testimony of a child witness must be corroborated** When a child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Section 2.*** ***Scope of Rules of Evidence*** States that the general rule is the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. A mandate on the uniform application of the rules of evidence across all courts and in all trials and hearings unless the contrary is provided. *"All courts"* Should be read to mean "all subordinate courts" and not the Supreme Court which is not a trier of facts. The rules of evidence apply only when there is a need to resolve factual issues. The Supreme Court has the power, if it is so inclined, to disregard technical rules of procedure and evidence in subservience to the interests of substantial justice. *"All trials and hearings"* The rules of evidence are applicable in both civil and criminal cases. *"Except as otherwise provided by law or these Rules"* ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Rule on Examination of a child witness** Applicable to the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to a crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and noncriminal proceedings involving child witnesses. Child witnesses may testify in a narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by the trial court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the interest of justice. **Revised Rules on Summary Procedure** Affidavits take place of direct testimonies. The court resolves the case on the basis of position papers, with attached affidavits of witnesses, submitted by the parties. **Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases** There is no presentation of evidence in the manner provided under the Rules. There is no direct examination, cross-examination and so on. Lawyers, unless they are parties, are not even allowed to appear. ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***Section 3.*** ***Admissibility versus Probative Value*** **Admissibility** is not synonymous with the believability or persuasive value of evidence. **Admissibility of evidence** **Weight of evidence/ probative value** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on its relevance and competence Pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade Whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth. Depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case. Refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all Refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue Tendency of evidence to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than that it would be without the evidence. The mere fact that evidence is admissible does not necessarily mean that it is also credible. According to Rule 128, Section 3, evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the Rules. **Credibility** depends on the evaluation given to the evidence by the court in accordance with the guidelines provided in Rule 133 of the Rules and the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court. ***Axioms of Admissibility*** 1. **Axiom of Relevancy** Only those facts which have rational probative value are admissible. Based on Rule 128, Section 4, evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence 2. **Axiom of Competency** All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless prohibited by some specific rule. ***Section 4.*** ***Relevancy*** Synonymous with pertinence Evidence is relevant if it has a rational connection or relationship to the factual matter that a party seeks to prove. McCormick suggests that the following inquiry for determining relevancy: *Does evidence offered tender the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence?* If evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue, it is admissible because it is relevant. The word "relevant" means that any two facts to which it is applied are so related to each other that, according to the common course of events, one, either taken by itself or in connection with the other facts, proves or renders probable the past, present, or future existence or non-existence of the other. ***Competency of Relevancy*** **Legal Relevancy or Materiality** Whether the evidence is offered upon a matter properly in issue; Whether evidence is material is determined by the allegations in the pleading or by the requirements of substantive law. **Logical Relevancy or Probative Value** Whether the evidence has the tendency to establish the proposition for which it is offered; When evidence has a connection to the issue and has a tendency to establish the fact for which it is offered to prove, such evidence has probative value. Example: **IN CRIMINAL CASE FOR MURDER** ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Logically relevant The fact that the crime was committed with treachery may be logically relevant if the attack wounds are inflicted from the victim's back Legally relevant Evidence of treachery would not be legally relevant if it was not even alleged in the information **IN A CIVIL CASE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE** Logically relevant Evidence that the defendant-seller was misled into signing the contract of sale would be logically relevant Legally relevant If fraud was never alleged as a defense in the defendant-seller's answer, then evidence thereof would be legally irrelevant or immaterial. ***Evidence on collateral matters*** **Collateral matters** Matters that are not in issue. They are not generally allowed to be proven, except when they are relevant or when they tend to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. **The collateral matters allowed to be proved because they are relevant are:** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Antecedent circumstances** | Those in existing even prior to | | | the commission of the crime | | | | | | Such matters: | | | | | | - Habit | | | | | | - Custom | | | | | | - Bad moral character when | | | self-defense is invoked | +===================================+===================================+ | **Concomitant circumstances** | Those which accompany the | | | commission of the crime | | | | | | Such as: | | | | | | - Opportunity to do act | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Subsequent circumstances** | Those which occur after the | | | commission of the crime | | | | | | Such as: | | | | | | - Flight | | | | | | - Escape | | | | | | - Concealment | | | | | | - Offer of compromise | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ***Competency*** Evidence should not be excluded by law, the Constitution, or the Rules. If there is a provision of the law or the Constitution, jurisprudence or the Rules which declares certain evidence as inadmissible, then, no matter how material or relevant it may be, it would still be excluded for not being competent. ***Principles on Exclusion of Relevant Evidence*** **1. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE PRINCIPLE** Evidence obtained in violation of a particular law must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence; The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on how the evidence is obtained and not what the evidence tends to prove; Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible. **2. THE FRUIT OF POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE** Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in violation of a particular exclusionary law or rule; *The doctrine holds that once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence resulting from it is also inadmissible*. In other words, there must first be primary evidence, which is determined to have been illegally obtained, then secondary evidence is obtained because of the primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any secondary evidence discovered or obtained because it may also not be used. The "poisonous tree" is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation. The "fruit of poisonous tree" is evidence discovered because of the knowledge gained from the illegal search, arrest or interrogation or violation of a law. 3\. EVIDENCE MAY BE EXCLUDED if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will cause unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or undue delay or waste of time 4\. (Rule 133, Section 7) The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. ***Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Principle*** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Doctrine of Inevitable | Evidence is admissible even if | | Principle** | obtained through an unlawful | | | arrest, search, interrogation or | | | violation of an exclusionary law, | | | if it can be established to a | | | very high degree of probability | | | that normal police investigation | | | would have inevitably led to the | | | discovery of the evidence | +===================================+===================================+ | **Independent Source Doctrine** | Evidence is admissible if | | | knowledge of the evidence is | | | gained from a separate or | | | independent source that is | | | completely unrelated to the | | | illegal act of the law enforcers | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Attenuation Doctrine** | Evidence may be suppressed only | | | if there is a clear causal | | | connection between the illegal | | | police action and the evidence. | | | | | | These factors are considered: | | | | | | 1. The time period between the | | | illegal arrest and the | | | ensuing connection of | | | consented search | | | | | | 2. The presence of intervening | | | factors or events | | | | | | 3. The purpose and flagrancy of | | | the official misconduct | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ***Evidence excluded by the Constitution*** The inadmissibility applies in all cases, whether civil, criminal, or administrative and for all purposes. 1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures 2. Right to privacy of communication and correspondence a. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. (Zulueta vs. CA) 3. Right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel 4. Right against the employment of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means that vitiate the free will as well as against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention 5. Right against self-incrimination ***Evidence excluded by law: ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT or RA No. 4200*** It is unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication to tap, secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication by using any device. **In relation to evidence (Section 4)** Any evidence obtained in violation of the AWA shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. **How to be admissible** The consent of the person speaking or of all the parties to the conversation must be obtained. However, consent is not necessary if the words which were taped or recorded were not intended to be confidential as when they were intended to be heard by an audience or when uttered under circumstances whereby it might be reasonably inferred that the conversation was without regard to the presence of third persons. **AWA when inapplicable** 1. When, by a written order of the court, the act of wiretapping is authorized in cases involving crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy, and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616 punishing espionage, and other offenses against national security 2. When, upon a judicial authorization of the Court of Appeals, a law enforcement agent or military personnel is permitted to "secretly wiretap, overhear, listen and listen to, intercept, screen, read, survey, record or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind, or type of electronic, mechanical, or other equipment, or device, or technology, any private communications: a. Between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization b. Between members of a person or entity designated as a terrorist, one who finances terrorism, or a terrorist organization c. Any person charged with or suspected of committing any of the crimes defined and penalized as acts of terrorism ***Ramirez vs. CA*** The law clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. ***Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA*** Absent showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under RA No. 4200. **Types/ Kinds of admissibility** 1. Multiple admissibility 2. Conditional admissibility 3. Curative admissibility **Multiple admissibility** Evidence that is plainly relevant and competent for 2 or more purposes will be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites of admissibility for other purposes. **Conditional admissibility** Evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection with another fact subsequent to be proved will be established. Otherwise, such fact already received will be stricken off the record at the initiative of the adverse party. **Curative admissibility** Evidence that it otherwise improper is admitted (despite objective from the other party) to contradict improper evidence presented or introduced by the other party, to cure, contradict, or neutralize such improper evidence. ***Theories on Curative Admissibility*** **American rule** The admission of such incompetent evidence, without objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence. **English rule** If a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence. **Massachusetts rule** The adverse party may be permitted to introduce similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice cause by the admission of the other party's evidence.