EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA
WHEN EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE
1. COMPETENCY
o Primarily a matter of law or rule (yellow ribbon/red ribbon
example)
o Refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as
such
o However, when applied to a WITNESS, the term
“competent” refers to the qualifications of the witness
 his eligibility to stand and testify
Common grounds for objections due to incompetence:
 Leading
 Hearsay
 Parol
 for purposes of trial objections, evidence is never incompetent, it is the
people who are
COMPETENT EVIDENCE  One that is not excluded by law or rules in a
particular case
Competence of electronic evidence (when competent and admissible)
 If it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the rules of
court
 Authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules on evidence
COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS DISTINGUISHED FROM HIS CREDIBILITY
 A witness may be competent, and yet give an incredible testimony
 A witness may be incompetent, and yet his evidence, if received is
perfectly credible
CREDIBILITY  refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a
witness worthy of belief; BELIEVABILITY
 After the competence of a witness is allowed, the consideration of his
credibility follows
Admissible evidence and Credible evidence
 Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by law or rules
 Admissible evidence is NOT NECESSARILY credible evidence
 Admissibility does not guarantee credibility
2. RULES OF EXCLUSION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are
inadmissible
1. evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable
search and seizure
2. evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication
and correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court or
when public safety or order requires otherwise
3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are
uncounselled, or when the confessant was not properly informed
of his constitutional rights, or when the confession was coerced
4. evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-
incrimination
B. Principles:
1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing provisions is TOTAL
in that the inadmissibility or incompetency applies to all cases,
whether civil criminal or administrative, and for all purposes.
2. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by
law enforcers or other authorized agencies of the government.
It does not apply if the evidence was obtained by private persons
such as private security personnel or private detectives even if
they perform functions similar to the police whenever a crime
was committed.
a) Thus evidence obtained by the following are not covered by the
constitutional provisions:
(i) the security personnel or house detectives of hotels or
commercial establishments or schools
(ii) private security agencies even if they are guarding public or
government buildings/offices
(iii) employers and their agents.
It will be some other appropriate principle on the admissibility of evidence
which will govern.
1
EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA
b) However, by way of exception, the rule of incompetency applies if
what are involved are the private correspondence of an individual. In
Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it was held that pictures and love letters
proving the infidelity of the husband, kept by him in his private clinic,
taken by the wife without the knowledge of the husband, are
inadmissible as evidence for being obtained in violation of the
husband’s privacy of communication and correspondence.
“ The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone of them
breaking the drawers and cabinet of the other and ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does
not shed his or her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is available to him or her”
3. Secondary evidence resulting from a violation of the foregoing provisions is
inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.
3. EXCLUSION UNDER CERTAIN LAWS
1. The rule excluding secondary evidence when the primary or
best evidence is available
2. The rule excluding hearsay evidence
3. The rule excluding privilege communications
4. COLLATERAL MATTERS
When is a matter “collateral”?
 If it is on a parallel or diverging line
 Merely additional
 Auxiliary
 The term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence
and the matter in dispute
EXAMPLE:
 The motive of a person and in some instances, his reputation are
matters that may be considered collateral to the subject of a
controversy
 A very strong motive to kill a victim does not ipso facto make motive
relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with
absolutely no motive to kill could be the culprit
When collateral matters are allowed
GENERAL RULE  Evidence on a collateral matter is not allowed (SEC. 4,
RULE 128)
o It is not allowed because it does not have direct relevance to the
issue of the case
o This rule is NOT ABSOLUTE though
EXCEPTION  Under the rules of court, a collateral matter may be admitted
if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue (SEC. 4, RULE 128)
o It shall be admitted if it would have the effect of corroborating or
supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence
ILLUSTRATION  Although evidence of character is generally inadmissible,
the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved
o In civil cases, evidence of moral character of a party is admissible
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case
A. The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that
evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or
coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be
excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the
evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves.
2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the
constitution or by a particular law. 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.
Example: The accused claimed that information about his bank accounts i.e.
trust funds, was obtained in violation of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law (
2
EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA
R.A. 1405) and moved to have them be excluded as evidence. HELD: R.A.
1405 nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall
render the evidence there from inadmissible in evidence. If Congress has both
established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, the court
would encroaching upon the prerogatives of congress if it authorizes a remedy
not provided for by statute. Absent a specific reference to an exclusionary rule,
it is not appropriate for the courts to read such a provision into the act. (
Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190, Nov. 30, 2006).
3. The phrase is attributed to Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme
and has its biblical reference to Mathew 7: 17-20.
B. The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in
an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or violation of
a particular exclusionary law.
2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary evidence.
The doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. There must first
be a 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 of it may not also be used.
a. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search or
interrogation. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence discovered because
of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation or
violation of a law.
b. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the state
should not be used to gain other evidence because the original illegally
obtained evidence taints all those subsequently obtained.
C Illustrations:
A suspect as forced to make a confession where he revealed he took shabu
from the room of X. Based on this knowledge the police went to the house of
X and with the consent of X, searched his room and found the shabu. The
confession is inadmissible because of the exclusionary. It is the poisoned tree.
The shabu is inadmissible because knowledge of its existence was based on
the confession. It is the fruit.
D. Exceptions to the two principles- when evidence is still admissible
despite the commission of an illegal arrest, search or interrogation, or
violation of a particular exclusionary law.
1. Under the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery - Evidence is admissible even
if 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
2. 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.
3. Attenuation Doctrine - evidence maybe suppressed only if there is a clear
causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. Or, that
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is
too attenuated i.e too thin, weak, decreased or fragile. This takes into
consideration the following factors:
a). The time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or
consented search
b). The presence of intervening factors or events
c). The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct
E. Remedy : By filing a Motion to Suppress the Evidence
III. R.A. 4200 ( The Anti Wire Tapping Law) Exclusion as to evidence
obtained through mechanical, electronic or other surveillance or
intercepting devises. (Intercepted communications)
3
EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA

1. When Judicial Authorization was granted upon a written petition filed

pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 4200 if the crimes involve
A. Coverage: R.A 4200 declares that evidence is inadmissible if obtained
through any of the following ways: (a) treason
(b) espionage
1. By using any device to secretly eavesdrop, overhear, intercept or record (c) provoking war and disloyalty
any communication or spoken word
( d) piracy and mutiny in the high seas
(e) sedition, inciting to sedition
a. The person who obtained the evidence may be a third person or a
participant in the conversation or communication. (g) kidnapping

b. To be admissible the consent of the person speaking or of all the parties to (h) other offenses against national security.
the conversation. However consent is not necessary if the words which were
taped or recorded were not intended to be confidential as when the were
intended to be heard by an audience or when uttered under circumstances of The list is exclusive and does not include offenses which are equally or more
time, place, occasion and similar circumstances whereby it may reasonably serious as those enumerated, such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, Trafficking
be inferred that the conversation was without regard to the presence of third in Persons, Rape, Murder.
persons.

2.When Judicial Authorization is granted upon a written petition under R.A.

2. By the unauthorized tapping of any wire or cable as to communications 9372 ( The Human Security Act of 2007) in connection with the crimes of
used via telephone/cable, as opposed to verbal communications. terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. If granted the authority covers
written communications.

a) There must be a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate

installation of a device or arrangement in order to over hear, intercept, or
record the spoken words.
o hence over hearing through an extension telephone wire is not
included even if intentional because “ each party to a telephone
conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an
extension telephone and may allow another to overhear the
conversation ( Ganaan vs. IAC, 1986)

B. Exceptions: when evidence through secret recording or tapping is

admissible