Two Kinds Of Evidence According To Relevance

Marlon Bacerra vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 204544, July 3, 2017)

FACTS: At about 1 o’clock in the morning, the accused was throwing stones outside
the house of Alfredo Melegrito and was yelling “vulva of your mother.” As he was
about to leave, the accused exclaimed "Vulva of your mother, Old Fred, I'll bum you
now." Edgar, the son of Alfredo, witnessed the incident through a window in his room.
Troubled by what happened, Alfredo decided to look out for the accused. On or about
4 o’clock in the morning, Alfredo saw the accused on his way towards their nipa hut
and shook it. Moments later, he saw that their nipa hut was already burning. Alfredo
tried to ask for help to set off the fire, but he was too late for the nipa hut was already
destroyed. (these are circumstances)

DOCTRINE: Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are classifications of

evidence with legal consequences.

The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the
relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference
does not relate to the probative value of the evidence.

Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, “indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that
the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.”

The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor
superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between
“direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a
fact may be inferred.” The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be
convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Direct
- no need for inferences, e.g. Eye-witness who saw the incident where the accused
burning the nipa hut
- has direct relation to the fact that is proven

2. Circumstantial Evidence
- need inferences, e.g. circumstances in the case of Bacerra
- need a link, not really direct link or iisang chain, as long as you put them together and
the fact in question is proven
- taken individually, the circumstances are not really relevant, with respect to collateral
matters
- elements under Section 4, Rule 133, ROC, as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC,
known as the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence

“Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

Discussion: It does not mean to say that the more circumstances you have, the
better chances that you will get circumstantial evidence, meaning it is not based solely
on the number of the circumstances for as long as you can complete the chain
connecting to the issue or the fact that you are trying to prove because it is a
continuous links.

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and,

Discussion: in the case of bacerra:

b.1. they saw the accused throwing stones and saying those words proven as a fact
by the testimony of the private complainant
b.2. the accused was seen walking in front of the house
…
From these, we can draw the inferences which creates the circumstantial
evidence…again you cannot draw an inference from another inference, the
presumption or inference should be based on a fact…

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.”

Discussion: we are talking about the quantum of evidence in criminal cases

Q: when you look at the third element, it refers to conviction, do we apply

circumstantial evidence to criminal actions only?

A: NOT YET PROPERLY ANSWERED: if yes, the legal basis would be the element,
but if no, the legal basis would be “qualified” – nganga; unanswered haha

Once your circumstances qualify a circumstantial evidence, that would be as

good as a direct evidence; as if both evidences have the same probative value.

E.g. if you are trying to prove the color of an object, and you said that the color
is green, then it is an object evidence; but in circumstantial evidence, you look for the
components of the green color which are blue and yellow which when put together, it
would create green color.

I: the blue color (one circumstance)

I: the yellow color (another circumstance)
C: combining these two circumstances, and creating the color of green is your
circumstantial evidence

Thus, circumstantial evidence is an evidence based on inferences drawn form

facts which were proven.
 Note: Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.

ANOTHER CASE: In one case of theft, the witness saw the accused climbing
the wall (does this have direct relation to the act of stealing? NONE) then he was
seen entering the house [maybe he got something from the house (does this have
direct relation to the act of stealing? NONE)], then he was seen coming out with a
bulk on his pocket [it might be money: reasonable doubt (does this have direct
relation to the act of stealing? NONE)], then the following day he went shopping with
his girlfriend and bought an expensive cellphone (it leads to the question where
he got the money, maybe he borrowed or loan for money) for his own which he cannot
normally afford. He is a driver in the house where he stole the money. The witness is
the girlfriend who testified against the driver(boyfriend) accused.

BOLD HIGHLIGHTS ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE UNDERLINE

HIGHLIGHTS ARE ASSUMPTIONS. ITALIC HIGHLIGHTS HAVE TO DO WITH THE
RELEVANCY OF CIRCUMSTANCES WITH RESPECT TO COLLATERAL
MATTERS. In here, we are trying to prove whether the driver stole the money,
not that of where he got the money.

Q: Is there a circumstantial evidence?

A: None, the links and circumstances do not lead to the conclusion that the accused
was the one who got the money, because there are lot of possibilities that would
question the circumstances, parang maraming doubt sa mga circumstances na
nailathala such as there is no direct relation of the circumstances to the accusation
which is the act of stealing.

DOCTRINE: Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction and such

conviction can be upheld provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused to
the exclusion of all others as the guilty person. (People v. Bernal 388 SCRA 211; Jose
Espineli v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179535; Mel Candelaria v. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 209386) In short, we are linking the inferences to come up
with a conclusion.

Kinds of evidence according to their probative value or weight of evidence

RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

1. Primary evidence – evidence that which the law regards as affording the greatest
certainty of the facts in question.
- It is a piece of evidence that one firstly acquired.
- E.g. testimonial statement of the accused, you learnt that he is keeping drugs
from his bedroom, and get the drugs, you could not have obtained the drugs
(secondary evidence) without the statement of the accused (primary
evidence)
 2. Secondary evidence – evidence that which is necessarily inferior and shows on its
face that a better evidence exists. It is also known as substitutionary evidence
because it is used as a substitute only when the exceptions are present.
- If there are evidence/s acquired from the piece of evidence known already as
the primary evidence, then those are secondary evidences.

CASE: Eugenio San Juan Geronimo vs. Karen Santos (G.R. No. 197099,
September 28, 2015)

FACT IN ISSUE: Is Karen Santos the daughter of the brother of Eugenio

Geronimo?

The Supreme Court ruled that the filiation should be proven first by primary
evidence, or secondary evidence in the absence of the primary evidence. With respect
to Article 172 of the Family Code to prove the filiation of legitimate children, it provides
for the primary evidence, and secondary evidence which can be presented in the
absence of the primary evidence to quote:

ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the

following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the following evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved
by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Along the way, what Santos presented is not a primary evidence because there
are alterations in the document that would make the evidence as no longer primary
evidence. The Supreme Court added that Article 172 should not be used because it
involves the legitimacy of a child.

Q: Would you consider a birth certificate as the best evidence to prove that a
person is a child of the mother?

A: No. DNA evidence or hospital records can be the best evidence.

Q: Would you consider a birth certificate as the best evidence to prove that a
person is a child of the father?

A: No. DNA evidence can be the best evidence.

Q: What matter of fact may be proven by the birth certificate as a primary

evidence, purest evidence, highest probative value with highest degree of
persuasion in the mind of the judge? What does the birth certificate surely prove?
A: Birth certificate may prove the entries of evidence as to filiation, but it does not
necessarily mean that the facts written are correct which means, it may appear that the
name of a person is written as the father, but actually he is not biologically the father. It
means this is rebuttable.

Q: What if the opposite of conclusive evidence?

A: Disputable evidence or Rebuttable evidence.

Q: when it comes to filiation, what is the best evidence that we have?

A: DNA evidence which is conclusive.

Q: If DNA is primary, then how would we treat the birth certificate and other
entries to filiation?

Q: Is the primary evidence an exclusionary rule?

A: YES. It excludes the presentation of Primary evidence.

In connection thereto, only Best evidence is allowed to be presented to prove

certain facts. No other evidences are presented except these, but these may be
presented if it falls under the following exceptions. (Rule 130, Section 3, ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT RULE sa 2019 proposed amendment to Rules on Evidence)

Q: Why do we say that these are the classification of evidence according to the
probative value?

A: When it comes to proving the contents of a document, the piece of document that
would have the highest probative value would be your primary evidence which is the
original copy of the document, while the secondary evidence has lesser probative value.
That’s why if you have primary evidence you are not allowed to present the secondary
evidence.

Reemphasize: E.g. testimonial statement of the accused, you learnt that he is keeping
drugs from his bedroom, and get the drugs, you could not have obtained the drugs
(secondary evidence) without the statement of the accused (primary evidence)

In relation to Doctrines of the poisonous tree and the fruit of the poisonous tree:

Q: Are these doctrines the same?

A: No, for example, let us say that the testimony statement of the accused is the tree,
and the drugs are the fruit of the tree, then kung ano ang puno ay sya ring bunga, both
doctrines are poisonous, but they are not the same in application.
PROBLEM: In custodial investigation, the person should be assisted by the counsel.
When the accused made the statement admitted that he is keeping drugs in his
bedroom, but it was made without the assistance of the counsel, what is the
effect? Can the statement be used against the accused?

A: NO, because the constitutional right to counsel is violated, and such violation tainted
his admission, so such violation made the tree poisonous. Hence, you cannot use the
tree as evidence. That is what you call the exclusionary rule.

Exclusionary rule is referred to us as singular, “the exclusionary rule: so, we are

talking about evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right of the accused
such as illegal search. This is found on the Rules of Court, Substantive laws like NIRC
where you cannot use an actionable document if the documentary stamp tax is not paid,
so you cannot use that in court such as deed of sale, you cannot actually present that
as evidence if it does not have documentary stamp as paid. In general sense,
exclusionary rule is a rule that excludes the admission of an evidence, while when you
say “the” exclusionary rule, it specifies what it excludes in evidence because there is a
violation of the constitutional right of the accused.

Poisoned tree, in our example, would be the admission made without counsel,
and the fruit of the poisoned tree is the drugs. Both doctrines are used interchangeably,
but these are not the same. Thus, if you have a poisoned tree, then that is not
admissible as evidence because it is excluded under the exclusionary rule.

Again, the primary evidence there is the testimony, while the secondary evidence
is the drugs. The secondary evidence is called derivative evidence. It has nothing to do
with the probative value of evidence, instead but to the source (kinds of evidence
according to their source).

Answer to classmate’s question: The exclusionary rule (as an emphasis) is

connected to the doctrine of the poisonous tree.

Q: What are the distinctions between positive and negative evidences?

A: Evidence is positive if witness states affirmatively that a certain event did or did
not occur. For example, I kill him, or I did not kill him. It is positive because there is an
averment from a person that something happened or did not happen.

Evidence is negative if witness states that he did not see or did not know of the
occurrence of a fact and there is total disclaimer of personal knowledge. E.g. I do not
know if he killed the person.

Q: In between negative and positive evidence, what would have the greater
probative value?
A: Positive evidence

Reemphasized example on illegal possession of firearm:

Q: In the allegation of the state prosecutor, the accused does not have a license to
carry a firearm (negative statement). Then, we get a certificate that the accused does
not really have a license to carry firearm, what kind of evidence is that?

A: Positive evidence (d sigurado)

Jurisprudence: He who makes the averments has the burden of proving it.

Example: If the employer claims that he paid the employee, then such employer
should prove it by presenting payroll.

Question: If the employee would claim that he did not receive any
compensation or payment, then does he have the burden of proof? How do we
prove nothing?

Description from our classmate: when you receive a payment, there is a

signature you have given in a record that you have receive a payment, thus, if
the record is not available, it means that you did not receive any payment.

Professor’s answer: Under ideal circumstances, that would be correct,

(in relation to the modes of discovery under Rules), kasi pwedeng matamper
yung record because you are asking records from the adverse party. There is a
possibility that the document may not be presented kahit gumamit ka ng modes
of discovery. That’s why when it comes tonegative averments, you do not have
the burden of proof, because you cannot prove nothing.

Q: How do you relate the description of our classmate and the answer of mam to
the concept of positive and negative evidence? May negative ba or positive dun
or wala? Or we just confine ourselves to the idea that negative evidence is you
just say, “you don’t know?” Eto kasi ung illustration the probative value of an
alibi at tsaka eye-witness like “ Nakita kita sa bar na kasama ni ganito… tapos the
other would say as an alibi, “wala ako duon, nasa bahay ako”, would the two
statements be a positive evidence?

A: Negative evidence means you simply do not know, no idea, non-existence of

happening. Positive evidence is when you know something (d sigurado ung sagot)

For example: The respondent would claim that the respondent is the father of her child.
In the witness stand, the respondent testifies and said that “hanku ammu nakaturug nak
met”, is the statement negative or positive?
A: NEGATIVE. Positive evidence is based on personal knowledge, while negative
evidence is based on lack of knowledge, or the total disclaimer of the personal
knowledge.