LECTURE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE

Lecturer: ATTY. TEODORO R CAPARROSO, MAPSS, PESE Chief, Regional Legal Officer PNP Police Regional Office 5 Camp General Simeon A. Ola Legazpi City

NOTES:
THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE (Rules 128-234, Rules of Court) was submitted by the RULES OF COURT REVISION COMMITTEE to the SUPREME COURT in a letter dated AUGUST 31, 1987. The Supreme Court Resolved to: (a) approve the proposed Rule on Evidence as submitted by the Rules of Court Revision Committee on August 31, 1978 effective July 1, 1989; and, (b) cause its publication immediately in the Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation.

Rule 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Sec 2. Scope. The rules on evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearing, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. Evidence must have such relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, EXCEPT when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

NOTES: 1) Evidence, defined: Evidence is the means sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court.) It is the means of satisfying the truth or untruth of allegations of fact made by the parties in their pleadings (Bustos vs Lucero, 81 Phil. 640; (Tracy Handbook on Evidence, 62 Edition, p. 1.) i) Other definitions of EVIDENCE: (1) Evidence is that which proves any matter in question or to influence the belief respecting it. (U.S. vs. Pons, 34 Phill. 733.) Note: This definition does not limit evidence to be use in strictly judicial proceedings. (2) Evidence is the mode and manner of proving the competent acts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings (Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 680)

(3) Evidence is any matter of fact the effect, tendency or the design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of some other matter of fact. (Bentham, Judicial Evidence, p. 17) (4) Evidence represents any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal tribunal for the purpose of producing a persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the tribunal, as to the truth of a proposition, not of law or logic, on which the determination of the tribunal is to be asked. (Wigmore, Evidence, Vol. I, p. 3) (5) Evidence is the means by which any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, may be established or disproved. (Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438) (6) Evidence embraces those rules of law which determine what testimony is to be admitted or rejected in the trial of a civil action or a

criminal prosecution and what weight is to be given to the evidence which is admitted. (Kring vs. Missouri, 107 US 221) (7) Evidence may be considered as the fact or groups of fact that should legally support a decision. (this is implied in the Gelmart Industries (Phil.) Inc. vs. Leogardo, 155 SCRA 403 [1987]) ii) Purpose of evidence. To ascertain in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court) (1) FACT is a thing done; an action performed; an incident transpiring; actual occurrence. A fact is either a state of things that is in existence; or, a motion that is an event. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.) (2) MATTER OF FACT is the fact/facts in issue in a case. It is determined by law and the pleadings.

(3) TRUTH: There are three (3) conceptions as to what constitutes TRUTH: (a) agreement of thought and reality, (b) eventual reality; and, (c) consistency of thought with itself. (4) Judicial Proceedings means trial in the regular courts. This may not necessarily mean that evidence is limited or restricted in its application to judicial proceedings. (Sec: U.S. vs. Pons, supra; Bustos vs. Lucero, Supra) (5) Distinguish evidence from proof. Evidence is the means of proof, Proof is the effect of evidence. Proof, in a criminal case, is that degree and quantity of evidence that produces conviction. (81 Jones on evidence, 2nd Ed. Pp. 11-12

(a) Illustration: On a charge of rape, it was shown that accused was with the victim at the scene of the crime at the time and date that the victim was allegedly raped. That from the accused were recovered the watch and jewelries worn by the victim on the day she was raped. That at the time the accused was apprehended he had the panty of the victim. That the blood type of the blood found in the scissors held by the victim is the same blood type of the blood found on the stab wound of the accused. Any one of such circumstance may constitute evidence to establish the proof of his guilt; but all of such circumstances, taken together, or combined may be deemed proof. iii) Distinction between factum probandum and factum probans. Factum Probandum is the ultimate fact or the fact to be established; Factum Probans is the evidentiary fact, or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established. (1 Wigmore on Evidence, p.5)

UNIFORMITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE (b) The Scope of the Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence shall be the same in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Sec. 2, Rule 128) This requires uniformity of the Rules of Evidence in Judicial Proceedings. The recognized exceptions are: i) The procedure enunciated in Section 16, P.D. 946 which allows the court in agrarian cases to utilize an employ every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure. ii) Cases before the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations, where under Art. 221 of the Labor Code,

the rules of evidence prevailing in court of law or equity shall not be controlling, or before the Employees Compensation Commission, where probability not the ultimate degree of certainty is the test proof. (Better Building, Inc. vs. Pucan, 135 SCRA 62) iii) Cases before the Securities and Exchange Commission under Rule 13, Sec. 3, SEC Rules of Procedure. iv) Cases before the Court of Tax Appeal, where under Sec. 8, R.A. 1125 its proceedings shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of evidence. v) In administrative proceedings the rules of evidence is not strictly enforced. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Enriquez, A.M. No. P-89-290, Jan. 29, 1993; In the matter of the loss of registered foreign latter, A.M. No. 93-9-249-CA, Dec. 5, 1994.)

(1) In administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. (a) SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE means that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Sec. 5, Rule 133.) vi) Difference in the quantum of evidence required in a civil case from those in criminal cases. While in civil cases the plaintiff must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence, on the other hand, the prosecution in criminal cases must be establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the accused would be entitled to an acquittal.

1) Kinds of evidence: 1.1 Material evidence. It is evidence which tends to prove the FACT in issue as that is determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. (Wigmore, Students Ed., p. 37) 1.2 Relevant evidence. It is evidence which has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (I Elliot 197) This is determined by reason, logic and common sense. 1.2.1 FACT is a thing DONE OR EXISTING. Bouviers Law Dictionary, p.) 1.2.2 ISSUE is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side affirms and the other denies.

1.3 Competent evidence. It is evidence which is not excluded by any of the rules of evidence. (Hart vs. Newland, 10 N.C. 122). This is determined by law and experience. 1.3.1 Examples of Incompetent evidence: (a) Hearsay evidence; (b) illegally obtained evidence; (c) Extrajudicial confession which is obtained without assistance of counsel; (4) Bank Accounts under Rep. Act 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposit), among others. 1.4 Direct and circumstantial evidence. DIRECT EVIDENCE is that which proves the fact in dispute WITHOUT the aid of any inference or presumption (Lack County vs. Neilon, 44 Or. 14); while CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or

probable consequence. (State vs. Avery, 113 Mo 475; Tracys Handbook, 62 Ed., p.6.) 1.5 Primary or Best evidence and Secondary Evidence. Primary or Best evidence is that which the law regards as affecting the greatest certainty of the fact in question. Secondary evidence means inferior or substitutionary evidence, that which itself indicates the existence of more original source of information. Secondary evidence is permitted by law ONLY when the better evidence in not available. (Cooleys Blackstone 1128; Tracys Handbook, 62 Ed., p.6) 1.6 Positive and negative evidence. Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur and negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact. (Porter vs. Valentine, 41 NYS 507) 1.7 Expert Evidence. It is the evidence given by one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity

knowledge not usually acquired by other persons (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530) 1.8 Cumulative evidence. Evidence is CUMULATIVE when IT is of the same kind and character as that already given, and tends to prove the same proposition. (Wyne vs. Newsman, 75 VS. 814) 1.9 Corroborative Evidence. It is additional evidence of a different kind and character, tending to prove the same point. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1839) 1.10 Rebutting evidence. It is EVIDENCE given to repel, counteract or disprove facts proved by other side. (State vs. Silva 21 Ida. 247) 1.11 Prima Facie evidence. It is that evidence which suffices for the proof of a fact issue until rebutted or overcome by other evidence. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure.)

1.12 Conclusive evidence. It is that evidence incontrovertible. (Wood vs. Chapin, 13 NY 509)

which

is

1.13 Real evidence. It is evidence addressed to the senses of the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130) It is called AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE or DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. (20 Am. Jur. 600) 1.14 Testimonial evidence. It is that furnished by the testimony of man, which may be oral or written. (Tracys Handbook 62 Ed., p.6) ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: - Evidence is admissible when: (a) It is relevant to the issue; and, (b) is not excluded by any of the rules of evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court.)

Admissibility defined: 2.1 Evidence illegally obtained is inadmissible. The reason being that non-admission of such kind of evidence is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. (Stonehill vs Diokno, L-19550, June 19, 1967; Sec. 4, R.A. 4200, popularly known as the Anti bugging law.) 2.2 Axioms that underlie the entire structure of the law on evidence are known as the AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY. These are as follows: 2.2.1 None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. 2.2.2 All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids. (1 Wigmore pp. 9-10)

2.3 Classification of Rules of Admissibility: According to Wigmore, the rules of admissibility may be group under three heads, the first dealing with the probative value of specific facts, the second including artificial rules which do not profess it define probative value but aim at increasing or safeguarding it, and he third covering all those rules which rest on extrinsic policies irrespective of probative value. These three groups are classified as follows: 2.3.1 The first group of rules belonging to the RULE OF PROBATIVE POLICY attempts to define, for legal purposes, the probative value which suffices to entitle a fact to be regarded as evidential. Here the law is concerned with the rules of logic and inference as applied in practical experience, i.e. with RELEVANCY, CIRCUMSTANTIAL, TESTIMONIAL AND REAL EVIDENCE are the three great classes.

2.3.2 The second group of rules which also belongs to the RULE OF PROBATIVE POLICY lays down auxiliary tests and safeguards, usually for particular kinds of facts, over and above the required minimum probative value. The HEARSAY RULE, the RULES OF QUANTITY, the RULE OF OATH and a dozen others, belong to this class. 2.3.3 The third group of rules which represents the RULES OF EXTRINSIC POLICY invokes, for the exclusion of certain kinds of facts, extrinsic policies which override the policy of ascertaining the truth by all available means. These rules concede that the evidence in question has all the probative value that can be required, and yet exclude it because its admission would injure some other cause more than it would help the cause of truth, and because the avoidance of the injury is considered more consequence than the possible harm to the cause of truth. Most of these rules consist in giving certain kinds of persons an option i.e. Privilege to withhold he evidential fact.

2.4 Admissibility and Credibility DISTINGUISHED. Admissibility is determined by the concurrence of two (2) requisites, namely: (a) relevancy, and (b) competency. CREDIBILITY is a matter for the court to appreciate. (People vs Abellera, 47 Phil. 731; Wright vs. Tinio, L-4004, May 29, 1952) 2.4.1 The two terms are not synonymous. (Ibid) 2.5 TYPES OF ADMISSIBILITY 2.5.1 MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE means EVIDENCE which is plainly relevant and competent for two or more purposes. If this takes place such evidence will be received if it satisfies the requisites prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if does not satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes. (People vs. Doyle, 21 Mich.

221; People vs Ananias, L-5591, March 28, 1955; People vs. Yatco, 97 Phil. 940) 2.5.1.1 Illustration: A Certificate of Death may be offered to prove the fact of the death of the person named therein. It may also be offered for the purpose of showing that a certificate of death was issued by the examining physician. 2.5.2 CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE means that evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection with other facts subsequently to be proved will be established. (Rogers vs. Brent, 10 III. 573; People vs. Yatco, supra.) 2.5.3 CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY means that evidence, otherwise improper, is admitted to contradict improper evidence introduced by the other party. (1 Wigmore, 165)

2.6 ADMISSIBILITY OF COLLATERAL MATTERS 2.6.1 COLLATERAL MATTERS. Collateral matters are those other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule 28) 2.6.2 Evidence on collateral matter shall not be allowed by the court, as a general rule. The exception is when they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact is issue. (Ibid) 2.6.3 Classify, define and give examples of COLLATERAL MATTERS. 2.6.3.1 COLLATERAL MATTERS may be:

2.6.3.1.1 Antecedent: which are those preceding the facts in issue, such as moral character, motive, conspiracy, plan and design. (Ibid) 2.6.3.1.2 Concomitant: which are those accompanying the facts is issue, such as opportunity and incompatibility or alibi (Ibid) 2.6.3.1.3 Subsequent: which are those succeeding the facts is issue, such as flight and concealment, behavior of the accused upon being arrested, finger-prints or footprints, and articles left at the scene of the crime which may identify the culprit (Ibid) Collateral matters are really circumstantial evidence. 2.7 BASIS of the Rules of evidence. The basis upon which all rules of evidence must rest, if they are to rest upon reason, is their adaptation to the successful development of the truth; and a rule of evidence at one time thought necessary to the ascertainment of truth

should yield to the experience of a succeeding generation whenever that experience has clearly demonstrated the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule. (Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 391) RULE OF RELEVANCY 3. RELEVANCY requires that evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to introduce belief in its existence or non-existence. 3.1 How determined? RELEVANCY is addressed to reason. logic, common sense and experience. There are no hard and fast rules governing them. Their determination is usually left to the sound discretion of the court. (Presumption and the law of evidence by Prof. Bradley Thayer, 3 Harvard Law Review 143; Pronove, Evidence, Bench Guide Series, 1986)

RULES ON COMPETENCY 4. COMPETENCY requires that such evidence is not excluded by any rule of law for the purpose for which it is offered. 4.1 How determined? COMPETENCY is determined by law. 4.2 Examples of evidences, which thought relevant, nevertheless, are excluded by law or of the rules: 4.2.1 Bank Accounts under R.A. 1405 (by law) 4.2.2 Hearsay rule excluded evidence (by the rules) 4.2.3 Evidence not presented during the administrative investigation is inadmissible in the certiorari

proceeding. (Lovina vs. Moreno, 9 SCRA 557); (by Jurisprudence) 4.2.4 Evidence illegally seized; also extra-judicial confession obtained without the assistance of a lawyer. (by law)

THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY!

DIOS MABALOS SAINDO GABOS!