You are on page 1of 13

EVIDENCE

Sec. 1, Evidence is the means, means sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a matter of fact. Sec. 2. The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. [Ong Chia: Rule 1, Sec. 4: These rules shall not apply to election, cadastral and naturalization cases.]

Sec. 3. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules. Two requisites: 1. It is relevant [does not say material] 2. It is not excluded by law or these Rules

Examples: 1. Excluded by the Constitution (Sec. 2,3,12 & 17, Art. III.) 2. Excluded by law [Salcedo-Ortanez, RA 4200, RA 7438; Barco v. CA(Art. 167, FC]

Art. 167, Family Code: The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. 3. By these rules (a) Dead Mans Statute (b) Res inter alios acta disqualification due to mental incapacity

Sec. 4. Evidence must have its relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 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. [Relevance v. Materiality]

The following are admissible [relevant]. They are not also excluded by any exclusionary rule. But are they conclusive? 1. Paraffin test [P. v. Baconguis] 2. DNA [P. v. Yatar/Herrera v. Alba] 3. Blood test [P. v. Tumimpad 4. Finger-printing [P. v. Sartagoda] 5. Polygraph test [P. v. Carpo]

Is DNA conclusive evidence ?


Herrera Case, June 15, 2005:
Paternity cases: DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID Probability of paternity: 1. If it excludes putative father conclusive of non-paternity 2. Less than 99.9 corroborative evidence 3. 99.9 or higher refutable presumption

How to refute? Vallejo Standards: Consider how samples were collected, how they were handled, possibility of contamination, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests qualification of analyst

Question No. 15 (5): (Incompetent evidence)


A sued for annulment of his marriage with B. During trial, A offered in evidence cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations of B with her lover. The tapes were recordings made by tapping As telephone line, with As consent and obviously without Bs or her lovers. B vehemently objected to their admission, on the ground that neither B nor her lover consented to the wire tap. The court admitted the tapes, ruling that the recorded conversations are nonetheless relevant to the issues involved. Was the court correct in admitting the cassette tapes in evidence? Explain.

1997, Question No. 15 (d) (Incompetent evidence) Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence: The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession.

1994, Question No. 8 : (Paraffin test)


At the homicide trial, the prosecution proposed that accused Joey undergo a series of paraffin tests to determine whether he fired his service pistol at the time the victim, Lyn, was shot to death. (xxx) Is the result of the paraffin test admissible in evidence?

2008, 16:The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting that he was the last person seen with the woman when she was still alive, Carlito was arrested within five hours after the discovery of the cadaver and brought to the police station. The crime laboratory determined that the woman had been raped. While in police custody, Carlito broke down in the presence of an assisting counsel and orally confessed to the investigator that he had raped and killed the woman, detailing the acts he had performed up to his dumping of the body near the creek. He was genuinely remorseful. During the trial, the State presented the investigator to testify on the oral confession of Carlito. Is the oral confession admissible as evidence of guilt? (4%)

2008, No. 9:The search warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of shabu. During the service of the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not covered by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the plain view doctrine. There was no indication of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (4%)