Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Evidence Reviewer (Prof. San Pedro)

Evidence Reviewer (Prof. San Pedro)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,789|Likes:
Published by azdariel
UP Law: Evidence - San Pedro
(Caveat: take everything with a grain of salt - I haven't had time to recheck everything I typed :P )
UP Law: Evidence - San Pedro
(Caveat: take everything with a grain of salt - I haven't had time to recheck everything I typed :P )

More info:

Published by: azdariel on Nov 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





evidence | 1st sem, 2011-2012ysr
I. GENERAL PROVISIONSA.Rule128: General Provisions
Section 1.
Evidence defined 
. Evidence is the means,sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicialproceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)Section 2.
. — The rules of evidence shall be the same inall courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwiseprovided by law or these rules. (2a)
Bustos v. Lucero: 
R128, §1 provides the legal definition of evidence –
Evidence is the mode and manner of provingcompetent facts in judicial proceedings
: result or effect of evidence.
Proof of such fact 
: when requisite quantum of evidence of aparticular fact has been duly admitted and given weight
Factum probandum 
: ultimate fact; fact sought to beestablished. Refers to the proposition
Factum probans 
: evidentiary fact; fact by w/c the factumprobandum is to be established. Refer to the materials whichestablish that propositionLaw of evidence
fundamentally a procedural law (Bustos v. Lucero)
§5[5], Art. VIII, Consti: SC shall promulgate rulesconcerning pleadings, practice and procedure w/c shallbe uniform for all courts of the same grade & shall notdiminish, increase or modify substantive rights
new rules may be validly applied to cases pendingat time of such change (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn)
BUT in criminal cases, if alteration of evidence ruleswould allow reception of lesser quantum of evidence than what the law required at the timethe offense was committed in order to convict =retroactive application is unconstitutional for being
ex post facto 
primarily found in RoC (R 128-133)special laws (Ex. RA 4200 [Anti-Wiretapping Law], Code of Commerce, CC)Consti – see Part B.The rules of evidence are specifically applicable ONLY in judicial proceedings.
Quasi-judicial proceedings: the same apply by analogy,or in a suppletory character and whenever practicableand convenient (R1 §4) EXCEPT where the governinglaw or that particular proceeding specifically adopts therules of evidence in RoC
Classification of evidence according to form
Object (real) evidence 
(§1, R130)That which is directly addressed to the senses of thecourt and consists of tangible things exhibited ordemonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, orat a place designated by the court for its view orobservation of an exhibition, experiment ordemonstration.
The ascertainment of the controverted fact is madethrough the direct use of the different senses of thepresiding magistrate or his authorized delegate.
Referred to by Wigmore as evidence by “autopticpreference,” i.e. by presenting in open court theevidentiary articles for the observation or inspectionof the tribunal2)
Documentary evidence 
(§§2-19, R130)Evidence supplied by written instruments or derivedfrom conventional symbols, such as letters, by whichideas are represented on material substances.
Specific definition found in §2, R1303)
Testimonial evidence 
That which is submitted to the court through thetestimony or deposition of a witness
Other classifications of evidence
1)Relevant, material, and competent evidencea)
Relevant evidence 
: evidence having any value inreason as tending to prove any matter provable inan actionb)
Material evidence 
: evidence directed to prove a factin issue as determined by the rules of substantivelaw and pleadingsc)
Competent evidence 
: one that is not excluded by the Rules, a statute, or the Constitution
Test of relevancy
The logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact inissue, i.e. whether the former tends to establish theprobability or improbability of the latter
Materiality of evidence
Determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is inissue or not, w/c is in turn determined by the substantivelaw, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by theadmissions or confessions on file2)Direct and circumstantial evidencea)
Direct evidence 
: that which proves the fact indispute w/o the aid of any inference orpresumptionb)
Circumstantial evidence 
: the proof of (a) fact/s fromwhich, taken either singly or collectively, theexistence of the particular fact in dispute may beinferred as a necessary or probable consequence3)Cumulative and corroborative evidencea)
Cumulative evidence 
: evidence of the same kindand to the same state of factsb)
Corroborative evidence 
: additional evidence of adifferent character to the same point4)Prima facie and conclusive evidencea)
Prima facie evidence 
: that which, standing alone,unexplained, or uncontradicted, is sufficient tomaintain the proposition affirmedb)
Conclusive evidence 
: that class of evidence whichthe law does not allow to be contradicted5)Primary and secondary evidencea)
: that which the law regards asaffording the greatest certainty of the fact inquestion. Referred to in RoC as the best evidenceb)
Secondary evidence 
: that which is inferior to theprimary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Also calledsubstitutionary evidence6)Positive and negative evidence
evidence | 1st sem, 2011-2012ysr
Positive evidence 
: when the witness affirms that afact did or did not occurb)
Negative evidence 
: when the witness states he didnot see or know of the occurrence of a factPositive testimony is entitled to greater weight since thewitness represents of his personal knowledge thepresence or absence of a fact. In negative testimony,there is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hencewithout any representation or disavowal that the fact inquestion could or couldn’t have existed or happened.When a witness declares of his own knowledge that afact did not take place that is actually positive testimony since it’s an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact.
Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to thetruth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence.
Not evidence if it’s excluded by the law or RoC even if itproves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.Definition under §1, R128 significantly considers “evidence”not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertainingthe truth of a matter of fact.
Purpose of evidence 
 Ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicialproceeding (§1, R128)Evidence is required because of the presumption that thecourt is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in acase. It is incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issuethrough the presentation of admissible evidence.
When evidence is required; when not required 
Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no needto present evidence because where the case presents aquestion of law, such is resolved by the mere applicationof the relevant statutes or rules of this jurisdiction towhich no evidence is required.
When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issueof fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is nomore reason to present evidence. Case is ripe for judicialdetermination through a judgment on the pleadings perR34
Evidence may be dispensed with by agreement of theparties. The parties to any action are allowed by theRules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in thelitigation and to submit the case for judgment upon thefacts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
Evidence is not required on matters of judicial notice (§1,R129) and on matters judicially admitted (§4, R129)
 Applicability of the rules of evidence 
§4, R1 provides for the non-applicability of RoC, includingnecessarily the rules of evidence, to certain specifiedproceedings.
 Administrative bodies are not bound by the technicalniceties of the rules obtaining in a court of law.
CSC conducts its investigations for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering totechnical rules of procedure applicable in judicialproceedings.
Ong Chia v. Republic 
: The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petitionfor naturalization.
Sasan, Sr 
v. NLR
: Technical rules of evidence are notbinding in labor cases.
Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers, Inc.
: The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings beforeadministrative bodies where decisions may be reachedon the basis of position papers only.Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings,nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantialevidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidencecannot be disregarded. (Marcelo v. Bungubung)
 Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence 
The provisions of the REE apply to all civil actions andproceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.(§2, R1, REE)
Scope of the rules of evidence 
The rules of evidence in the RoC are guided by the
 principle of uniformity 
. As a general policy, the rules of evidence shallbe the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. (§2,R128)
Evidence in civil cases v. Evidence in criminal cases
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASESEVIDENCE IN CRIMINALCASESThe party having the burdenof proof must prove his claimby a
 preponderance of evidence 
(§1, R133)Guilt of accused has to beproven
beyond reasonable doubt 
(§2, R133)
Offer of compromise 
is notan admission of any liability,and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror 
(§27, R130) An
offer of compromise by 
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt 
, EXCEPT incriminal cases involvingquasi-offenses (criminalnegligence) or those allowedby law to be compromisedGenerally there is
no  presumption of innocence 
for or against a party EXCEPT in certain cases provided forby law The accused enjoys the
constitutional presumption of innocence 
(§14, Art. III,Constitution)
Distinction between evidence and proof 
Evidence is the medium or means by which a fact isproved or disproved.
Proof is not the evidence itself. It is merely the probativeeffect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
Proof is the effect of evidence because withoutevidence there is no proof.
Bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence arenot equivalent to proof.
Positive and negative defenses 
GENERAL RULE: Positive evidence is more credible thannegative evidence.
Reason: the witness who testifies to a negative may haveforgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to
evidence | 1st sem, 2011-2012ysr
remember what never existed. (Gomez v. Gomez-Samson) A denial evidence is the weakest defense and can neverovercome a positive testimony particularly when it comesfrom the mouth of a credible witness. (People v. Mendoza)
Evidence that is negative is self-serving in nature andcannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.(People v. Larranaga)
Denial, like alibi is an inherently weak defense vis-à-vispositive identification.
Factum probans and factum probandum 
Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:a)the fact or proposition to be established (factumprobandum); andb)the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition tobe established (factum probans).Factum probandum : the fact to be proved; the fact which isin issue and to which the evidence is directed.Factum probans : the probative or evidentiary fact tending toprove the fact in issueThe factum probandum in a certain case may be affected by the judicial admissions of a party.
Ex. If the defendant in a suit based on a culpa aquilianatheory admits his negligence in his answer to thecomplaint, there is no more need to prove negligence.Hence, negligence ceases to be a factum probandum inthe case.If the factum probandum “signifies the fact or proposition tobe established,” then matters of JN, conclusive presumptionsand judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of the factumprobandum of a particular case, because such matters neednot be established or proven.In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refersto the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from thedefendant’s standpoint.
: Suit for collection of a sum of money – in theabsence of any admission by the defendant,
The factum probandum of the plaintiff would be:1)The existence of the debt of the defendant2)The maturity of the debt3)The demand made by the plaintiff upon thedefendant to pay 4)Failure to pay despite the demand
The factum probandum for the defendant: the fact of payment of the obligation or the prescription of the debtor the elements of any defense he may interpose
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. v. Tanjangco 
For a tort case under CC 2176, plaintiff has to prove:1)Damages suffered by the plaintiff 2)The fault or negligence of the defendant or some otherperson for whose act he must respond3)The connection of cause and effect between the fault ornegligence and the damages incurred.In a criminal case, the factum probandum includes all matterthat the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt inorder to justify a conviction.Section 3.
 Admissibility of evidence 
. — Evidence is admissiblewhen it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)Section 4.
collateral matters 
. — Evidence must havesuch a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in itsexistence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral mattersshall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonabledegree to establish the probability or improbability of the factin issue. (4a)
Requisites for admissibility of evidence
(§3)1)It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved
§4: Evidence is relevant when it has “such a relationto the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existenceor non-existence.”
Relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic andhuman experience2)It must be competent
§3: Evidence is competent when it “is not excludedby the law of these rules.”
Competency is determined by the prevailingexclusionary rules of evidenceRestated by Wigmore – axioms of admissibility:1)That none but facts having rational probative valueare admissible2)That all facts having rational probative value areadmissible unless some specific rule forbids theiradmissionNote: under this concept, relevant evidence is any classof evidence which has “rational probative value” toestablish the issue in controversy. Admissibility of evidence is determined at the time it is offeredto the court (§35, R132)
Object or real evidence is offered to the court when thesame is presented for its view or evaluation (ex. Ocularinspections or demos)
Documentary evidence formally offered by theproponent immediately before he rests his case
Testimonial evidence offered by the calling of the witnessto the standEvery objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be madeat the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter asthe objection to its admissibility shall be considered waived.
Objections to object or real evidence must be madeeither at the time it is presented in an ocular inspectionor demonstration or when it is formally offered.
Objections to documentary evidence must be made atthe time it is formally offered.
In the case of testimonial evidence, objection to thequalifications of the witness should be made at the timehe is called to the stand
If the witness is otherwise qualified, the objectionshould be raised when the objectionable questionis asked or after the answer is given if theobjectionable features became apparent by reasonof such answer.
Doctrines or rules of admissibility sanctioned by SC
Conditional admissibility 

Activity (30)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Ruby Jean liked this
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Dayday Able liked this
Jantzen Chua liked this
Jantzen Chua liked this
Cari Mangalindan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->