VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE

REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE ü Accusation is NOT synonymous with

guilt. There must always be a
RULE 128 sufficient evidence to support a
GENERAL PROVISIONS charge.
ü Purpose of evidence – to know the
BASIC PRINCIPLES legal or judicial truth.
§ Sec. 34 of Rule 132 – courts
Concept of “evidence”; truth as purpose are not authorized to consider
Sec. 1. Evidence Defined – Evidence is the evidence which has not been
means, sanctioned by these rules, of formally offered.
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth • EXAMPLE: It may be
respecting a matter of fact. the actual truth that it
ü NOT every fact having a conceivable was Mr. X who shot
connection to the issue of a case, or Mr. Y., if the available
that which provides a reasonable evidence presented
inference as to the truth or falsity of a and admitted in court
matter alleged is considered points to Mr. Z as the
evidence. culprit, then he judicial
ü To be considered evidence, the same or legal truth is that it
must be “sanctioned” or allowed by was Mr. Z, not Mr. X,
the ROC. who shot Mr. Y.
§ Thus, ü Proof v Evidence
• Hearsay evidence, PROOF EVIDENCE
• A coerced extrajudicial The probative effect of The means sanctioned
confession of the accused, evidence and is the by the ROC
and conviction or persuasion ascertaining in a
• An evidence obtained in of the mind resulting judicial proceeding the
violation of constitutional from a consideration of truth respecting a
rights the evidence. matter of fact.
Even if ultimately shown to
correspond to the truth, do the EFFECT or RESULT of The MEDIUM of proof
NOT fall within the definition evidence
of Sec. 1 of Rule 128.
ü Evidence – NOT an end in itself but a
means of ascertaining the truth of a
matter of fact in a judicial proceeding
ONLY.
ü Why is evidence required? – because
of the presumption that the court is
not aware of the veracity of the facts
involved in a case therefore, it is
incumbent upon the parties to prove
a fact in issue through the
presentation of ADMISSIBLE
evidence.

1
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
Scope and applicability of the rules on evidence
Sec. 2. Scope – 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.
ü ROE – applicable only to judicial
proceedings.
ü Principle of uniformity – the ROE
shall be the same in ALL courts and in ALL
trials and hearings, the Rules of Evidence
are guided by this.
ü ROE apply ONLY to judicial
proceedings.
o In relation to this, Sec. 4 of Rule 1
provides for the non-applicability
of the ROC, including necessarily
the rules on evidence to certain
specified proceedings.
§ Sec. 4, Rule 1. In what
cases not applicable –
These Rules shall not apply
to election cases, land
registration, cadastral,
naturalization and
insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein
provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever
practicable and
convenient. [NICOLE]
ü Hearsay rule – are NOT to be rigidly
applied in the course of preliminary
investigation.
o WHY? Because preliminary
investigation does NOT finally
adjudicate the rights and
obligations of the parties.
§ Probable cause can be
established with hearsay
evidence, as long as there
is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay.
(Estrada v SB, G.R. No.
212761-52, July 31, 2018)
ü GR: Administrative agencies are NOT
bound by the technical ROE.
§ It can accept documents
which cannot be admitted
in a judicial proceeding
where the ROC are strictly
observed.
§ It can choose to give
weight or disregard
evidence, depending on it
trustworthiness.
o ROE are NOT strictly applied in
proceedings before
administrative bodies such as the
Board of Medicine. (Atienza v.
Board of Medicine, 642 SCRA 523,
Feb. 9, 2011)
ü The technical ROE are NOT binding on
labor tribunals. (Manalo v. TNS
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 208567,
November 26, 2014).
o The argument, that the written
statements of certain employees
are hearsay because such
employee were not presented for
cross-examination, is NOT
persuasive.
§ The ROE are NOT strictly
observed in proceedings
before the NLRC which are
summary in nature and
decisions may be made on
the basis of position
papers (Castillo v.
Prudentialife Plans, Inc.,
G.R. No. 196142, March
26, 2014)
2
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE

When evidence is required, when not required o This is because Art.

o REQUIRED – when the court has to 1756 of the Civil
resolve a question of fact. Code establishes
o NOT REQUIRED – the presumption
1. When no factual issue exists in that, “in case of
a case or where the case death or injuries to
presents only a question of passengers,
law; common carriers
§ Because where the are presumed to
case presents a have been at fault
question of law, such or to have acted
question is resolved by negligently”
the mere application o Same presumption
of the relevant Art. 1735 – when
statutes to which no the goods on
evidence is required. board a common
2. When the pleadings in a civil carrier are lost,
case do not tender an issue of destroyed, or
fact; deteriorated.
§ A trial need not be § The constitutional
conducted since there presumption of
is no more reason to innocence is also a
present evidence. fitting example.
§ The case is then ripe o The accused has
for judicial no duty to prove
determination, his innocence
through judgment on because the law
the pleadings. presumes that an
3. When the parties to the action accused in a
have agreed upon/stipulated criminal
to the facts involved in the prosecution is
litigation (Rule 30, Sec. 7) innocent until
4. On matters of judicial notice proven otherwise.
(Rule 129, Sec. 1-3); and 7. When a rule presumes the
5. On matters judicially admitted truth of a fact.
(Rule 129, Sec. 4) § Under Rule 131, there
6. When the law presumes the are 2 kinds of
truth of a fact; presumptions:
§ EXAMPLE: An injured 1. Conclusive
passenger sues a a. Whenever a party, by his or
common carrier for her own declaration, act or
breach of contract of omission, intentionally and
carriage, evidence of deliberately led another to
the negligence of the believe a particular thing
defendant carrier is true, and to act upon such
dispensed with. belief, he or she cannot, in
3
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE

any litigation arising out of o RoEE do NOT apply to criminal

such declaration, act or actions.
omission, be permitted to
falsify it; and Evidence in Civil Cases v Evidence in Criminal Cases
b. The tenant is not permitted Civil Cases Criminal Cases
to det the title of his or her As to burden of Preponderance Proof beyond
landlord at the time of the proof of evidence reasonable
commencement of the (Sec. 1, Rule doubt (Sec. 2,
relation of landlord and 133) Rule 133)
tenant between them. Offer of NOT an EXCEPT those
compromise admission of involving
2. Disputable – the following any liability, quasi-offenses
presumption are satisfactory if NOT (criminal
uncontradicted, but may be admissible in negligence) or
contradicted and overcome by evidence those allowed
other evidence: against the by law to be
a. That a person is innocent of offeror compromised,
a crime or wrong; an offer by the
b. That an unlawful act was accused MAY
done with an unlawful be received in
intent; evidence as an
c. That a person intends the IMPLIED
ordinary consequences of admission of
his or her voluntary act; guilt.
d. That a person takes As to Does NOT Accused
ordinary care of his or her application apply, except ENJOYS the
concerns; Presumption of in certain cases constitutional
[CHAR ANG DAMI PALA innocence provided for by presumption
NITE SEE CODAL NA LANG law. of innocence.
HAHAHA] EX: A
common
o The basic rule is that, a mere carrier is
allegation is NOT evidence and is Not presumed to
equivalent to proof. have been at
fault or
Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence negligent in
o The provisions of the Rules on case a
Electronic Evidence apply as well to passenger is
quasi-judicial and administrative injured in the
cases course of his
§ Sec. 2, Rule 1 of the Rules on transportation
Electronic Evidence – These by the carrier.
Rules shall apply to all civil As to the Does NOT Is a declaration
actions and proceedings, as concept of apply to civil of an accused
well as quasi-judicial and “confession” cases acknowledging
administrative cases. his guilt of the
4
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE

*”admission” is offense Proof v Evidence

used. charged. PROOF EVIDENCE
As to the Admissible as Prosecution is The probative effect The means
evidence of long as it is NOT allowed of evidence and is sanctioned by the
moral pertinent to to prove the the conviction or ROC ascertaining
character the issue of moral persuasion of the in a judicial
character character of mind resulting from proceeding the
involved in the the accused a consideration of truth respecting a
case. even if it is the evidence. matter of fact.
pertineny to
the mroal trait the EFFECT or The MEDIUM of
involved. RESULT of evidence proof
*It can ONLY
do so in
rebuttal. Factum probandum v Factum probans
As to the rule Applicable NOT FACTUM PROBANS FACTUM PROBANDUM
on applicable The probative or The ultimate fact to be
disqualification *The rule evidentiary fact tending proved or proposition
by reason of involves a to prove the fact in to be established.
death or claim or issue.
insanity demand Material evidencing the
against the proposition.
estate of the
deceased or o Factum probandum – fact to be proved
the person of o Factum probans – evidentiary fact tending to
unsound mind. prove the fact in issue.
As to the Applicable NOT
applicability of applicable • If P claims to have been injured by the
the patient- negligence of D, who specifically denies
physician having been negligent,
relationship o the negligence of D that caused
As to the rule NOT applicable Applicable the injuries of P constitutes the
on admission factum probandum of the suit.
by conspirator o The evidence offered by P, to
As to the rule NOT applicable Applicable prove the liability is the factum
on extrajudicial probans.
confession • Factum Probandum – in certain may be
affected by the judicial admissions of a
party.
o If the defendant in a suit is based
on a culpa aquiliana theory admits
his negligence in his answer, there
is no need to prove negligence.
o Matters of judicial notice,
conclusive presumptions and

5
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
judicial admissions CANNOT
qualify as parts of the factum
probandum because such matters
need not be established or
proven.
Corpus delicti
o When the accused enters a plea of not
guilty, the State has to prove the
corpus delicti of the offense.
o The body or substance of the crime.
o ELEMENTS:
1. The existence of a certain act
or result forming the basis of
the criminal charge; and
2. The existence of a criminal
agency as the cause of the act
or result.
o Before a person can be convicted of a
crime, a crime must be proven to have
occurred.
§ EXAMPLE: FOR HOMICIDE,
before a person can eb
convicted of the same, it must
be shown that:
1. Someone was killed;
and
2. The accused was
responsible for the
killing.
o The body of the crime does NOT
necessarily refer to the actual object
or fruit of the crime.
§ It is the fact that a crime has
been committed by a
particular perpetrator.
o Even a single witness; uncorroborated
testimony, if credible, may suffice to
prove the CP.
o CP mat even be established by
circumstantial evidence.
o In theft, corpus delicti has 2 elements:
1. The property was lost by the
owner; and
2. It was lost by felonious taking.
o In illegal possession of firearms, the
CP is the accused’s lack of license or
permit to possess or carry the firearm.
Liberal construction of the ROE
o Liberally construed – (Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC)
o RoEE – be construed liberally (Sec. 2, Rule
2, RoEE)
Absence of vested right in the rules on evidence
o Because said rules are subject to change
by the SC pursuant to its powers to
promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure.
§ The change is however,
subject to the constitutional
limitation – on the enactment
of ex post facto law.
• Ex post facto law
includes one which
alters the rules oon
evidence and receive
less of different
testimony than that
required at the time if
the commission of the
offense in order to
convict the accussed.
Waiver of the rules on evidence – when an
objectionable evidence is NOT objected to the
evidence becomes admissible because of the waiver.
o EXAMPLE: The court is NOT precluded
to accept in evidence a mero
photocopy of a document when no
objection was raised when it was
formally offered.
6
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
ü May the parties stipulate waiving the rules
on evidence?
o YES. The Civil Code (Art. 6) provides
that, “rights may be waived, UNLESS
the waiver is contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals or good
customs or prejudicial to a third
person with a right recognized by
law.”
§ As long as ON law or principle
of morality, good custos, and
public policy are transgressed
or no rights of third persons
are violated, the ROE may be
waived by the parties.
Illustrations of the requisites
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Requisites for the admissibility of evidence
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence – Evidence
is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and not excluded by the Constitution, the or
these rules.
ü 2 elements for evidence to be admissible:
1. The evidence is relevant; and
2. The evidence is not excluded by the:
a. Constitution, or
b. The rules
o These 2 elements correspond to
Wigmore’s 2 axioms of admissibility,
namely:
a. Axiom of Relevance – That
none but facts having rational
probative value are
admissible; and
b. Axiom of Competence – That
all facts having rational
probative value are
admissibili UNLESS some
specific rule forbids them.
ü NO evidence is admissible UNLESS it is
relevant.
o However, relevancy alone does NOT
make the evidence admissible.
§ An item of evidence may be
relevant but not admissible,
because it may be
incompetent (it is excluded
by the Constitution or the
ROC)
ü NEITHER is evidence admissible merely
because it is competent.
ü Evidence must be BOTH relevant and
competent.
ü Prosecution for homicide, the witness swears
that the accused killed the victim because his
ever-truthful boyhood friend told him so.
o The testimony although relevant, is
NOT admissible because the witness
was NOT testifying based on his
personal knowledge of the event.
§ The testimony is a hearsay,
which is excluded by the ROC.
o Testimony is relevant but
incompetent.
ü Prosecution for homicide, the wife of the
accused testified that the husband admitted
to her in confidence that it was he who killed
their neighbor.
o If the testimony is offered as evidence
against the husband and is objected
by the latter, the testimonial evidence
will be inadmissible by virtue of a
particular provision of the Rules of
Court which excludes it as a specie of
evidence nwithstanding its obvious
relevance.
§ The testimony is also relevant
but incompetent.
7
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
ü Civil case for collection of a sum of money,
the testimony of an eyewitness to the
transaction between the creditor and debtor
is competent evidence because the witness
would be testifying on the basis of his
personal knowledge.
o HOWEVER, if the subject of the
testimony includes the alleged
frequent bouts of dizziness of the
debtor, that portion of the testimony
is made inadmissible by the fact that
the matters testified to are irrelevant
to the issue of whether or not a debt
exists.
o The testimony is irrelevant.
ü If a defense witness testifies having actually
seen the alleged victim fire a gun first at the
accused without the latter’s provocation, the
testimony of the eyewitness is competent
and the matters testified to are relevant to
the pela of self-defense.
o The testimony is admissible. It is
BOTH competent and relevant.
ü Oral evidence will be excluded to prove a
contract of sale of a parcel of land which does
not conform to the statute of frauds. (Art.
1403 [2], Civil Code)
o Evidence is incompetent, hence,
inadmissible.
ü Documents obtained in violation of
constitutional guarantees, although
containing relevant matters, are inadmissible
because they are illegally obtained, as when
evidence is illegally seized.
ü Extrajudicial confession is inadmissible when
made in violation of a person’s Miranda rights
(example: he was not informed of right to
counsel, right to remain silent and other
applicable rights.)
Relevant evidence
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters –
Evidence must such 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.
ü According to Sec. 4, evidence, to be relevant
must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
o Relevance = logic
o It deals with rational relationship
between the evidence and the fact to
be proved.
ü It is the relation to the fact in issue which
makes the evidence either relevant or
irrelevant.
ü ILLUSTRATION: A standard car accident,
counsel for the plaintiff presents the
testimony of another car driver to testify to
the following:
o That the defendant was driving at a
speed of 120km per hour in a 60km
limit zone at the time the plaintiff was
sideswiped and injured by the
defendant.
§ The witness claims he knows
whereof he speaks because he
saw everything that
transpired.
o W/N such testimony meets the test of
relevance will depend upon what
counsel wants to prove by the
testimony.
o Initially, counsel would want to prove
that, at the time of accident, the
defendant was driving way beyond
the speed limit.
§ This is the immediate fact
sought to be estavlished.
§ Since there is a traceable
connection between the
8
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
substance of the testimony
and the fact to be proved, the
testimony is relevant.
o On the other hand, if the testimony is
offered to prove that the defendant is
a thief, the testimony has no logical
connection at all to the fact sought to
be proved.
§ There is no connection
between driving at a very fast
pace and the defendant’s
being a thief. Hence, it is
irrelevant.
o Establishing through the witness that
the defendant was driving way
beyond the speed limit is NOT
sufficient.
§ This fact must be shown to be
related to the ultimate issue in
the case.
o Now, the usual issue in every
automobile accident case is whether
or not the damage caused to the
plaintiff arose out of the defendant’s
negligent operation of his car.
o The question that should necessarily
be asked is: Is the immediate fact
proved? – is the defendant’s driving
beyond the speed limit, related to the
issue of negligence?
Test for determining the relevancy of evidence
ü The determination of relevance is a matter if
inference and not of law.
o The test is one of logic, common
sense, and experience.
o The existence of the relationship
between the fact in issue and the
offered evidence is one that is
perceived only be the min without
reference to a statute or rule.
Collateral Matters
ü When it is on a “parallel or diverging line”,
merely “additional” or “auxiliary”.
o Absence of direct connection
between the evidence and the matter
in dispute.
ü EXAMPLE: The motive of a person and, in
some instances, his reputation are matters
that may be considered collateral to the
subject of a controversy.
o A very strong motive to kill the victim
does not ipso facto make motive
relevant to the issue of guilt or
innocence because the person with
absolutely no motive to kill could be
the culprit outright.
ü Jurisprudence considers motive as generally
immaterial, not being an element of the
offense.
o However, motive becomes important
when the evidence on the
commission of the crime and the
identity of the perpetrator are purely
circumstantial.
9
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
When collateral matters are allowed
ü GR: Evidence on a collateral matter is NOT
allwed.
o WHY? It does not have direct
relevance to the issue of the case.
ü XPN: Collateral matters may be admitted if it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish
the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
o In other words, while the collateral
evidence may not bear directly on the
issue, it will be admitted if it has the
tendency to induce belief as to the
probability or improbability of the
issue of the case as when it would
have the effect or corroborating or
supplementing facts previously
established by direct evidence.
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters – Evidence
must such 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.
ü ILLUSTRATION: Although evidence of
character is generally inadmissible, the
accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait in the
offense charged (Sec. 54(a)(2), Rule 130)
ü In civil cases, evidence of the moral character
of a party is admissible when pertinent to the
issue of character involved in the case. (Sec.
54(b), Rule 130)
ü Evidence of the good character of a witness is
admissible if his character has been
previously impeached. (Sec. 54(c), Rule 130)
Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a
witness; determination of credibility
ü Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or
the lack of it, is ALWAYS relevant.
o WHY? Because it has the inherent
tendency to prove or disprove the
truthfulness of his assertion and, the
probative value of the proffered
evidence.
ü Every type of evidence sought to be
admitted, whether an object or document,
requires the testimony of a witness who shall
identify, testify, and affirm or deny the
authenticity of the evidence.
o When the credibility of the
sponsoring witness is found wanting,
Sec. 11 of Rule 132, authorizes his
impeachment by contradictory
evidence.
§ By evidence that, in the past,
he has made statements
inconsistent with present
testimony, or by evidence that
his general reputation for
truth, honesty or integrity is
bad.
ü In the assessment of the testimonies of
witnesses, the Court is guided by the rule that
for evidence to be believed, it must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must also be credible in itself
such as the common experience of mankind
can approve as probable under the
circumstances.
o There is no test of the truth of human
testimony except its conformity to
our knowledge, observation, and
experience.
o Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous and is
outside of judicial cognizance.
ü The importance of the credibility of a witness
in a judicial proceeding is highlighted by the
rules…
o Cross-examination – adverse party to
test such credibility during
10
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
§ Hence, Sec. 6 of Rule 132, a
witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse
party on any relevant matter.
• It is allowed even if it is
NOT necessarily stated
in the direct
examination, provided
it is relevant.
Competent Evidence
ü One that is not excluded by law or rules in a
particular case.
ü The test of competence – the law or rules
o If the law excludes – incompetent
ü Competence in relation to evidence, refers to
the eligibility of an evidence to be received as
such.
o His eligibility to take the stand and
testify.
ü If evidence offered is objected to on the
ground that it is incompetent, such objection
is NOT an accepted form of objection,
because it as a general objection.
o The objection shall specify – the
ground for its incompetence
§ Leading
§ Hearsay
§ Parol
Competence of electronic evidence
ü If (1) it complies with the rules in admissibility
prescribed by the ROC and related laws and
(2) is authenticated in the manner prescribed
by the RoEE. (Sec. 2, Rule 3, RoEE)
Admissibility and weight (probative value) of the
evidence
ü Admissibility of evidence – refers to the
question of whether or not the evidence is to
be considered at all.
ü Probative value of the evidence – question
whether or not it proves an issue.
ü Admissibility of evidence shall NOT be
equated with the probative value.
o Admissibility depends on its relevance
and competence, weight pertains to
tendency to convince or persuade.
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY
1. Multiple Admissibility
ü There are times when a proffered evidence is
admissible for 2 or mor purposes.
o EXAMPLE: declaration of a dying
person may be admissible for several
purposes.
§ It may be offered as a dying
declaration.
§ It may be offered as part of res
gestae
§ It may be offered as
declaration against interest.
o EXAMPLE: The statement of a bus
driver immediately after the collision,
that he dozed off in the wheel while
driving, may be admissible as an
admission under Sec. 27, Rule 130 or
as part of res gestae pursuant to Sec.
44, Rule 130.
ü Sometimes, evidence is inadmissible for one
purpose but admissible for another or vice
versa.
o EXAMPLE: Evidence of a person’s bad
general reputation for truth, honesty,
or integrity is objectionable if offered
to prove that he committed the crime
charged but it may admissible to
impeach the witness credibility of a
witness under the authority of Sec.
11, Rule 132.
ü Evidence may also be admissible against one
party but not against another.
11
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE
2. Conditional Admissibility
ü When the relevance of a piece of evidence is
not apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which will readily be seen when
connected to other pieces of evidence not yet
offered.
o The proponent of the evidence may
as the court that the evidence, subject
to the condition that he is going to
establish its relevancy and
competency at a later time.
o If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court may upon motion
of the adverse party, strike out form
the record the evidence that was
previously conditionally admitted.
3. Curative Admissibility
ü Doctrine of curative admissibility – allows a
party to introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing party’s
previous introduction of inadmissible
evidence.
o A party who first introduces either
irrelevant or incompetent evidence
into the trial cannot complain of the
subsequent admission of similar
evidence by the adverse party.
o This doctrine shall NOT eb invoked
where evidence was properly
admitted.
o EXAMPLE: In an action for damages
arising from a car accident, the
plaintiff, despite the objection by the
defendant, was allowed to introduce
evidence to show that, on several
occasions, the defendant, in the past,
had injured pedestrians because of
his negligence. – the evidence was
offered to prove the defendant’s
propensity for negligence.
(inadmissible) (Sec. 35, Rule 130 –
Similar acts as evidence – Evidence
that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to
prove that he or she did not do the
same or similar thing at another time,
but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity,
plan, system, scheme, habit. Custom
or usage, and the like.
§ If we were to follow the
concept of curative
admissibility, the court may be
asked to give the defendant
the chance to contradict or
explain his alleged past acts
and to show evidence of his
past acts of diligence to
counteract the prejudice
which improperly admitted
evidence may have caused.
ü If hearsay evidence prejudicial to the
defendant was erroneously admitted despite
objection, under the principle of curative
admissibility, the court should allow hearsay
evidence favorable to the same defendant.
Direct and circumstantial
ü Direct evidence – proves a fact without
drawing inference form another fact.
o The testimony of a prosecution
witness claiming that he personally
saw the accused when the latter drew
and fired his pistol at the victim,
without the latter’s provocation. –
direct testimonial evidence
o In a prosecution for arson, a witness
testifies that he was only a few feet
away, behind a bush, when he saw
the accused set the nipa hut of the
offended party on fire. – direct
evidence
12
 VOLCANOTES 2020 | EVIDENCE

ü Circumstantial evidence – a fact is

established by making an inference form a
previously established fact.
o The court uses a fact from which
assumption is drawn.
o EXAMPLE: fingerprints of the accused
are found in a crime scene of murder.

Conviction by circumstantial evidence

ü NO requirement that only direct evidence
may convict.
ü Probative value of direct evidence is
generally neither greater than nor superior to
circumstantial evidence.

13