RULES ON EVIDENCE

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(Ang non-sense ng column na to sa
totoo lang.)
Concept
It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact.

Purpose

To ascertain the truth respecting a matter

of fact.

Reason

There is a presumption that the court is

not aware of he veracity of the facts
involved in a case, thus it is incumbent
upon the parties to prove a fact in issue
through the presentation of admissible
evidence.

Scope

The same in all courts and in all trials and

hearings, except as otherwise provided by
law or the rules, such as those under Sec.
4, Rule 1 (NICOLE):
1. Naturalization proceedings;
2. Insolvency proceedings;
3. Cadastral proceedings;
4. Other cases as may be provided by law;
5. Land registration cases; and
6. Election cases.

Applicability of the Rules on Evidence

1. In civil cases covered by the Rules

on Summary Procedure, where parties
are required to submit position papers
attaching thereto affidavits of witnesses,
thus obviating the application of the Rules
on Testimonial Evidence, the rest of the
rule son evidence still apply.
Therefore, any document or object
evidence presented by the parties in their
respective position papers must still
conform to the Rules on Evidence.

2. In criminal cases covered by the

Rules on Summary Procedure, while
the affidavits of the parties and the
witnesses constitute their direct
testimony, they may still be subject to
cross- examination, redirect, or re-cross
examination. The Rules on Evidence still
apply on any document or object evidence
presented.

3. Small Claims Cases- is designed to

function quickly and informally. There are
no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no
strict legal rules of evidence.

4. Administrative Cases- rules of

evidence are not strictly observed in
proceedings before administrative bodies.
Administrative bodies are not bound by
the technicalities of law and procedure
and the rules obtaining in the courts of
law.
Note:

While administrative and quasi- judicial

bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the
technical rules of procedure in the
adjudication of cases, this procedural rule
should not be construed as a license to
disregard certain fundamental evidentiary
rules. The evidence presented must at
least have a modicum of admissibility
for it to have probative value (Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company v.
Dumapis, G.R. No. 163210, August 13,
2008).

Quasi- judicial bodies are given the

authority to make rules of procedure.
However, they have no power to make
their own rules concerning the quantum
of evidence. Such power is vested in the
Supreme Court (CONST. Art. VIII, Sec. 5).

Distinctions of Concepts

Evidence Proof
It is the medium or It is the effect or
means by which a result of evidence.
fact is proved or It is the probative
disproved effect of evidence
and is the
persuasion of the
mind resulting
from the
consideration of
the evidence.

Factum Factum Probans

Probandum
Ultimate facts Intermediary or
evidentiary facts
The facts or The fact by which
proposition to be the factum
established probandum is to
be established
Hypothetical Existent
A. Admissibility of Evidence

a. Requisites
1. Relevant- such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non- existence.
Test: is an affair of logic, human
experience and common- sense.

2. Competent- not excluded by the Rules

on Evidence, the law and the Constitution.
Test: determined by law

b. Relevancy

The evidence is relevant when it related

directly to a fact in issue; or to fact from
which, by the process of logic, an
inference may be made as to the
existence of a fact in issue.

Collateral Matters
Refer to matters other than the fact in
issue. These are matters outside the
controversy or are not directly connected
with the principal matter or issue in
dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of
the parties.

Types of Admissibility

c. Multiple Admissibility- Where the

evidence relevant and competent for two
or more purpose, such evidence may be
admitted for any or all purposes for which
it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility
therefor.

Example: A confession of an accused may

not be competent as against his co-
accused being a hearsay as to the latter,
or to prove conspiracy being established
by other evidence, nonetheless, the
confession of the accused may be
admitted as evidence of his own guilt
(People v. Yatco,et.al., 97 Phil. 940).

d. Conditional Admissibility of
Evidence- Where the evidence at the
time of its offer appears to be immaterial
or irrelevant unless it is connected with
the other facts to be subsequently proved,
such evidence may be received on the
condition that the other facts will proved
thereafter; otherwise, the evidence given
will be stricken out from the record.
e. Curative Admissibility of Evidence
(fighting fire with fire)- Where improper
evidence was admitted over the objection
of the opposing party, he should be
permitted to contradict it with similar
improper evidence. Otherwise it would
result in disparity of rulings to his
prejudice. This is evidence introduced to
cure, contradict, neutralize improper
evidence presented by the other party.

f. Direct v Circumstantial Evidence

Direct Evidence Circumstantial
Evidence
Evidence which Proof of fact/s from
proves the fact in which, taken
dispute without either singly or
the aid of any collectively, the
inference or existence of the
presumption. particular fact in
dispute may be
Illustration: inferred as a
X saw A attack B necessary or
with a swiss knife. probable
The testimony of X consequence.
is a direct
evidence against A Illustration:
for the crime of X testified that he
homicide. saw A holding a
knife while running
from the place
where B was found
lying on his own
blood; that A’s
hands are full of
blood; and days
after the incident,
A flee from the
Philippines. When
these facts are
taken together,
they will show that
A is the one who
killed B.
As to probative value, the Court
considers circumstantial evidence as
being of a nature identical to direct
evidence because no greater degree of
certainty is required when the evidence
is circumstantial than when it is direct.

g. Positive v Negative Evidence

Positive Evidence Negative Evidence

When a witness When the witness
affirms in the states that an
 stand that a event did not
certain state of occur or that the
facts does exist or state of facts
that a certain alleged to exist
event happened. does not actually
exist.

h. Competent v Credible Evidence

Competent Credible
Not excluded by Not only
rules or law in a admissible
particular case. evidence but also
believable and
Means that the used by the court
evidence is of such in deciding a case.
character that the
court is bound to Means
receive or allow it “believability”.
to be introduced at
the trial. It does
not however,
gurantee
credibility.

Burden of Proof
The duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law.

In civil cases, the burden of proof must

produce preponderance of evidence
thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on
the strength of his own evidence and not
upon the weakness of the defendants.
The concept of preponderance of
evidence refers to evidence which is of
greater weight, or more convincing, that
which is offered in opposition to it; at
bottom it means probability of truth (Jison
v. CA).

Burden of Evidence

The duty to prove the case of a party or

overcome the evidence of the opponent
as demanded by the exigencies of the
trial. In other words, the burden of
evidence shifts from one side to another
as the trial progresses.

In the course of the trial in a civil case,

once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie
case in his favor, the duty or burden of
evidence shifts to defendant to controvert
plaintiff’s prima facie case.
Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, no qui
negat- He who asserts, not he who
denies, must prove (Martin v CA, G.R. No.
82248, January 30, 1992).

Presumptions

a. Conclusive Presumption (juris et

de jure)- is a presumption of law that is
irrebuttable and not permitted to be
overcome by any proof to the contrary.

b. Disputable Presumption (juris

tantum)-is that which the law permits to
be overcome or contradicted by proofs to
the contrary; otherwise, the same
remains satisfactory.

Effect of a Presumption: A party in whose

favor the legal presumption exists may
rely on and invoke such legal presumption
to establish a fact in issue. One need not
introduce evidence to prove the fact for a
presumption is a prima facie proof of the
fact presumed.

c. Prima Facie Evidence (Presumptive

Evidence)- That which, standing alone,
unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to maintain the proposition
affirmed.

Pyramiding Presumption or Inference

General Rule: A presumption cannot
arise from the strength of another
presumption. It must be based on facts.

Exception: An inference may be based

on a fact which itself is based on an
inference justifiable drawn from
circumstantial evidence.

Presumptions in Civil Actions and

Proceedings

Generally, there exists no presumption in

favor of either party, except in cases
specifically provided for by law.

Disputable presumptions:
i. Presumption of morality and decency;
ii. Presumption of validity of marriage;
iii. Presumption of dissolution of former
marriage;
iv. Legitimacy;
v. Chastity;
vi. Presumption of good reputation;
vii. Presumption of good faith, fair dealing,
honesty.

Presumptions in Criminal Case

i. Presumption of Innocence
ii. Presumption of unlawful intent

Liberal Construction of the Rules on

Evidence

Like all other provisions under the

Rules of Court, the rules of evidence must
be liberally construed.
Rules of procedure are mere tools
intended to facilitate rather than frustrate
the attainment of justice (Quiambao v CA,
G.R. No. 128305, March 28, 2005).
However, to justify the relaxation
of the rules, a satisfactory explanation
and a subsequent fulfillment of the
requirements have always been required.
Quantum of Evidence

a. Preponderance of Evidence- is the

quantum of evidence applicable to civil
cases.
It means “greater” or “superior
weight” of evidence. It is more convincing
and more credible than the one offered by
the adverse party. It also means evidence
which is convincing to the court as worthy
of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.

What should the court consider to

determine the existence of
preponderance of evidence?

1. All the facts and circumstances of the

case;
2. The witnesses’ manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts
to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony;
3. The witness’ interest or want of it, and
also his or her credibility insofar as the
same may ultimately appear in trial;
4. The number of witnesses, although it
does not mean that preponderance
necessarily means the greater number.
Note: To persuade by preponderance of
evidence is not to take the evidence
quantitatively but qualitatively.

b. Substantial Evidence- in cases filed

before administrative or quasi- judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established
when supported by substantial evidence,
or such amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.

c. Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt-

does not mean such a degree of proof
excluding the possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.
It is the constitutional presumption
of innocence that lays such burden upon
the prosecution. The prosecution must
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and must not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.
Yet, when the accused invokes a
justifying circumstance like self- defense,
the burden of proof rests upon the
defense to prove that the killing was
justified.

d. Clear and Convincing Evidence- if it

produces in the mind of the trier of facts a
firm belief or conviction as to the
allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate, being more than
preponderance, but not to the extent of
such certainty as is required beyond
reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.