PRAC COURT

EXPERT WITNESS
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses,
may be received in evidence. (43a)
The use of the word may signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is
permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony
does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness.
The testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not
to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the
determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt
depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law. It has
been held of expert testimonies:
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may
place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies inaccordance
with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert
testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide,
considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the
witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has
supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he
testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study
and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other
matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert
may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all
the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly
fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the
credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to
the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in
the absence of abuse of discretion
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Section 3 Rules of Court. Admissibility of evidence- Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules.

I. Introduction.
A. Admissibility- the character or quality which any material must necessarily
possess for it to be accepted and allowed to be presented or introduced as

evidence in court. It answers the question: should the court allow the material to be
used as evidence by the party?

B. Weight- the value given or significance or impact, or importance given to the

material after it has been admitted; its tendency to convince or persuade. Hence a
particular evidence may be admissible but it has no weight. Conversely, an
evidence may be of great weight or importance but it is not admissible.
II. Conditions for admissibility (Axioms of admissibility per Wigmore)
A. RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational probative value are admissible). Per
section 4, Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
1. The material presented as evidence must affect the issue or question. It must
have a bearing on the outcome of the case. It requires both:
a). rational or logical relevancy in that it has a connection to the issue and therefore
it has a tendency to establish the fact which it is offered to prove. The evidence
must therefore have probative value
b). legal relevancy in that the evidence is offered to prove a matter which has been
properly put in issue as determined by the pleadings in civil cases, or as fixed by the
pre-trial order, or as determined by substantive law. If so the matter has materiality.
Illustration: (i). Criminal case: the fact that the crime was committed at nighttime is
rationally or logically relevant to a killing at 12 midnight but evidence thereon would
be not be legally relevant if nighttime was not alleged in the Information. It would
be immaterial. (ii) Civil Case: In an action for sum of money based on a promissory
note, evidence that the defendant was misled into signing the note would be
rationally relevant but if fraud was never alleged as a defense, then evidence
thereof would be legally irrelevant or immaterial.
The components of relevancy are therefore probative value and materiality.
2. Rule as to collateral matters: Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability
or improbability of the facts in issue
a). collateral matters-facts or matters which are not in issue. They are not generally
allowed to be proven except when relevant.
b) In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed to be proven, being relevant
include:
(i). Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existing even prior to the commission of
the crime. They include such matters as habit, custom, bad moral character when

self defense is invoked; or plan design, conspiracy, or premeditation, agreement to

a price, promise or reward
(ii) Concomitant circumstances or those which accompany the commission of the
crime such as opportunity to do the act or incompatibility
(iii).Subsequent circumstances or those which occur after the commission of the
crime, such as flight, escape, concealment, offer of compromise

c). Example: Motive is generally irrelevant and proof thereof is not allowed except:
when the evidence is purely circumstantial, when there is doubt as to the identity of
the accused, or when it is an element of the crime.
B. COMPETENCY ( All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
some specific law or rule forbids). In short the evidence is not excluded by law or
rules.
III. Principles which exclude relevant or material evidence:
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 ( 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. Attentuation 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