SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINES IN RULES ON EVIDENCE
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES
It has been held that a reliance onthe technical rules of evidence in laborcases is misplaced. Hence, the applicationof the concept of judicial admissions insuch cases would be to exact compliancewith technicalities of law that is contraryto the demands of substantial justice.
(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana,G.R. No. 157634, 5/16/ 2005)
ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVEVALUE
The admissibility of evidence shouldnot be confused with its probative value.Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are tobe considered at all, while probative valuerefers to the question of whether theadmitted evidence proves an issue. Thus,a particular item of evidence may beadmissible, but its evidentiary weightdepends on judicial evaluation within theguidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
(Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Cormoposa, G.R. No.152807, 812/ 2003)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE vs.WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
Admissibility of evidencedepends on its relevance and competence,while the weight of evidence pertains toevidence already admitted and itstendency to convince and persuade.
(DBPPool of Accredited Insurance Companiesvs. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., 480SCRA 314, January 27, 2006)
BASIC TENETS OF CREDIBILITY
Findings of credibility of the trialcourt will generally be respected onappeal; even findings of facts of the Courtof Appeals, when supported by substantialevidence, are conclusive and binding uponthe parties and not reviewable by theSupreme Court.
(Millares vs. PLDT, G.R.No. 154078, 5/6/2005)
Factual findings of trial courts whichhave been affirmed
in toto
by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight andrespect and will not be disturbed absentany showing that the trial courtoverlooked certain facts andcircumstances which could substantiallyaffect the outcome of the case.
(Yulo vs.People, 452 SCRA 705, 3/4/2005; Mendozavs. People, 448 SCRA 158, 1/14/ 2005)
Questions concerning the credibilityof a witness are best addressed to thesound discretion of the trial court as it is inthe best position to observe theirdemeanor and bodily movements.
(Llantovs. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288, 1/31/ 2005)
The failure of a witness to recalleach and every detail of an occurrencemay even serve to strengthen rather thanweaken his credibility because it erasesany suspicion of a coached or rehearsedtestimony.
The assessment of thecredibility of witnesses and theirtestimonies is best undertaken by the trialcourt.
The testimony of a single witness if straightforward and categorical issufficient to convict. Corroborativeevidence is deemed necessary only whenthere are reasons to warrant the suspicionthat the witness falsified the truth or thathis observations had been inaccurate.
(Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553,6/30/2005)
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
The principle of
falsus in uno, falsusin omnibus
is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility whenthe testimony of a witness may be partlybelieved and partly disbelieved dependingon the corroborative evidence presentedat the trial.
(People vs. Negosa, G.R. No.142856-57, 8/25/ 2003)
COLLATERAL MATTERS
Variations in the declarations of witnesses in respect of collateral orincidental matters do not impair theweight of their testimonies, taken in theirentirety, to the prominent facts, nor per sepreclude the establishment of the crimeand the positive identification of themalefactor.
(People vs. Acosta, G.R. No.140386, 11/29/2001)
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In a criminal case, circumstantialevidence may be sufficient for convictionprovided the following requisites concur:(1)
There is more than one circumstance;(2)
The facts from which the inferencesare derived are proven, and
;
(3)
Thecombination of all the circumstances issuch as to produce a conviction beyond
1
reasonable doubt.
(People vs. Sevilleno,G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004; Ungsod vs.People, 478 SCRA 282)
A conviction based oncircumstantial evidence must excludeeach and every hypothesis consistent withinnocence. Hence if the totality of thecircumstances eliminates beyondreasonable doubt the possibility of innocence, conviction is proper
(Mallari vs.People, 446 SCRA 74, 12/ 10/2004)
Circumstantial evidence may be abasis for conviction and such convictioncan be upheld provided the circumstancesproven constitute an unbroken chainwhich leads to one fair and reasonableconclusion that points to the accused tothe exclusion of all others as the guiltyperson. Direct evidence is not the onlymatrix from which the trial court may drawthe conclusions and findings of fact.
(People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos.132791-140465-66, 9/2/2002)
Circumstantial evidence is not aweaker defense
vis-à-vis
direct evidence.
(People vs. Matito, G.R. No. 144405,2/2/2004)
As to probative value, the Courtconsiders circumstantial evidence of anature identical to direct evidencebecause no greater degree of certainty isrequired when the evidence iscircumstantial than when it is direct. Inboth types of evidences what is required isproof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Peoplevs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791-140465-66,9/ 2/ 2002)
Direct evidence is not a condition
sine qua non
to prove the guilt of anaccused beyond reasonable doubt. In theabsence of direct evidence, theprosecution may resort to adducingcircumstantial evidence. Crimes areusually committed in secret and underconditions where concealment is highlyprobable. If direct evidence is insisted onunder all circumstances, the prosecutionof vicious felons who commit heinouscrimes in secret or secluded places will beimpossible to prove.
(People vs. Sevilleno,G.R. No. 152954, 3/11/2004)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DECISIONS
As a general rule, courts are notauthorized to take judicial notice in theadjudication of cases pending before themof the contents of other cases even whensuch cases have been tried or are pendingin the same court and notwithstanding thefact that both cases may have been triedor are actually pending before the same judge. Courts may be required to take judicial notice of the decisions of thecoordinate trial courts, or even of adecision or the facts involved in anothercase tried by the same court itself, unlessthe parties introduced the same inevidence or the court, as matter of convenience, decides to do so. Besides judicial notice of matters which ought tobe known to judges because of their judicial functions is only discretionaryupon the court. It is not mandatory.
(T’boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc.(TADI) vs. Solilapsi, Adm. Case No. 4766,12/27/2002)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FINANCIALCONDITION OF THE GOVERNMENT
Judicial notice could be taken of thefact that the government is and has formany years been financially strapped, tothe point that even the most essentialservices have suffered seriouscurtailment.
(La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs. Ramos, 445 SCRA1,12/1/2004)
However, the allegation that thereis a so-called consensus to extend theterms of barangay captains cannot besubject of judicial notice.
(Balajonda vs.Commission on Elections, 452 SCRA 643,2/28/ 2005)
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS
Notwithstanding a person’s standingin the business community, the courtcannot take judicial notice of said person’shome address or office after his departurefrom the government as a cabinetmember.
(Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals,448 SCRA 165, 1/14/ 2005)
The Court takes notice that it is notunusual that killings are perpetrated infront of witnesses.
(Velasco vs. People,483 SCRA 649, March 28, 2006)
ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSEOF COURT PROCEEDINGS
Judicial admissions do not requireproof and may not be contradicted in theabsence of a prior showing that theadmissions had been made throughpalpable mistake.
(Abarquez vs. People,479 SCRA 225)
An admission made by a party,under the rules of evidence, binds him andmay be taken or used against him. If theadmission was made in the course of theproceedings in the same case, it does not
2
require proof, and may be contracted onlyby showing that it was made throughpalpable mistake or that no suchadmission was made.
(Vesagas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142924, 12/05/2001)
ADMISSIONS BY COUNSEL
While an admission made on thepleadings cannot be controverted by theparty making such admission and that thesame is conclusive as to him, it is also ahornbook doctrine that the authority of anattorney to bind his client as to anyadmission of facts made by him is limitedto matters of judicial procedure. Anadmission which operates as a waiver,surrender or destruction of the client’scause is beyond the scope of theattorney’s implied authority.
(People vs.Hermanes, G.R. No. 139416, 03/12/2002)
Even the negligence of counselbinds the client.
(Sarraga vs. BancoFilipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R.No. 143783, 12/ 9/ 2002)
This rule is not however, withoutexception. In cases where reckless orgross negligence of counsel derives theclient of due process of law, or when itsapplication will result in outrightdeprivation of the client’s liberty orproperty or when the interests of justiceso require, relief is accorded the clientwho suffered by reason of the lawyer’sgross or palpable mistake or negligence.
(Salazar vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 142920,2/6/2002)
ADMISSION BY SILENCE
Silence is admission if there was achance for respondent to deny thecharges.
(Donton vs. Loria, 484 SCRA 224,March 10, 2006)
The rule on admission by silenceapplies to both criminal and civil casesalthough must be received with cautionbecause not every silence is an admission.For instance, the silence of a person underinvestigation for the commission of anoffense should not be construed as anadmission by silence because of constitutional reasons.
(Crisostomo vs.Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45, 4/15/2005)
Not every silence of a party isadmissible. It is necessary that:
(a) that heheard and understood the statement; (b)that he was at liberty to make a denial; (c)that the statement was about a matteraffecting his rights or in which he wasinterested and which naturally calls for aresponse; (d) that the facts were within hisknowledge, and; (e) that the fact admittedfrom his silence is material to the issue.
(People vs. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105)
Thus,in one case, despite the manyopportunities given to the respondent, herefused to comment and present his side. The gravity of the charges and the weightof the evidence against him would haveprompted an innocent man to come outand clear his name. However, he opted tomaintain his silence. His silence can easilybe interpreted as an admission of guilt.
(Ortiz vs. De Guzman, A.M. No. P-03-1708,2/26/2005)
UNCOUNSELED ADMISSIONS
An admission is inadmissible inevidence under Art. III Sec. 12(1) and (3)of the Constitution if it was given undercustodial investigation and was madewithout the assistance of counsel.However, if the defense failed to object toits presentation during the trial, the resultis that the defense is deemed to havewaived objection to its admissibility.
(People vs. Samus, G.R. Nos. 135957-58,09/17/2002)
In Aballe vs. People, the Court heldthat the declaration of an accusedexpressly acknowledging his guilt of theoffense may be given in evidence againsthim and any person, otherwise competentto testify as a witness, who heard theconfession, is competent to testify as tothe substance of what he heard if heheard and understood it. The said witnessneed not repeat in verbatim the oralconfession; it suffices if he gives itssubstance.In the recent case of People vs.Zuela, the Court ruled that an admissionmade to a private person is admissible inevidence against the declarant pursuantto Sec. 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states that the “act,declaration or omission of a party as to arelevant fact may be given in evidenceagainst him.
(People vs. De La Cruz, G.R.Nos. 141162-63, 07/11/2002)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRAJUDICIALCONFESSION
The Court, with its constant trystwith retracting confessants, has drawn thecardinal requirements for an extra-judicialconfessions to be admissible to wit: (1) theconfession must be voluntary; (2) theconfession must be made with theassistance of a competent andindependent counsel, preferably to theconfessant’s choice; (3) the confessionmust be express, and; (4) the confession
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
