MAAGAD, JIAN MARGARETH C.

Evidence – Special Class

Second Assignment

1. Explain the concept of Evidence

As defined in Sec. 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Evidence, Evidence is the

means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.

Under this definition, it can be said that Evidence is a system, process or

methodology of proving a fact. However, Evidence may also be the materials
presented in court consisting of objects which are those addressed to the senses of
the court; documents which consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any
material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or their
equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents; and or the the oral testimonies of witnesses. (Sec. A(1), B(2) and C of
Rule 130, as amended)

2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence

The rules on evidence are guided by the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY.

The rules shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. (Sec.
2, Rule 128)

• Applies only to JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; Sec. 4 of Rule 1 provides

for the non-applicability of the Rules of Court in certain proceedings:

“Sec. 4. 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.”

The technical rules on evidence are not binding upon the administrative
agencies and the labor tribunals. Such rules on evidence are not strictly applied in
proceedings before administrative bodies, like the Board of Medicine.(Evidence
(The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano)

3. Rules on Evidence in Civil Cases vs. Rules on Evidence in Criminal

EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES

Party having burden of proof must Guilt of the accused has to be proven
prove his claim by BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
An offer of compromise is not an An offer of compromise by the accused
admission of any liability, and is not MAY be received in evidence as an
admissible in evidence against the implied admission of guilt, except
offeror those involving criminal negligence or
those allowed by law to be
Statements made in the course of compromised
compromise negotiations also
inadmissible Plea of guilty later withdrawn not
admissible against accused
Concept of presumption of innocence Accused enjoy the constitutional
does not apply presumption of innocence
Concept of confession does not apply Concept of confession applies in
criminal cases
Evidence of moral character of a party Prosecution is not allowed to prove the
is admissible as long as it is pertinent to bad moral character of the accused
 the issue of character involved in the even if it is pertinent to the moral trait
case involved.

Accused may present evidence of his

good moral character that is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged during his time to
present evidence
Rule on disqualification by reason of The rule on disqualification does not
death or insanity under Sec. 23 of Rule apply
130 applies
Privileged communication on patient- No reference as to privileged
physician relationship has reference communication on patient-physician
relationship
Rule on admission by a conspirator Rule on admission by a conspirator
does not apply applies
Rule on extrajudicial confession does Rule on extrajudicial confession
not apply to the defendant applies to the accused in a criminal
case
( Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano)

4. Proof v. Evidence

PROOF EVIDENCE
Not the evidence itself; exists only Mode or manner of proving competent
because of evidence; the probative facts in judicial proceedings Without
effect of evidence and is the conviction evidence, there is no proof
or persuasion of the mind resulting
from a consideration of the evidence
Effect or result of evidence Medium of proof
( Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano)

5. Factum Probans v. Factum Probandum

FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS

The fact or proposition to be established The facts or material evidencing the
fact or proposition to be established
The fact to be proved, the fact which is The probative or evidentiary fact
in issue in a case and to which the tending to prove the fact in issue
evidence is directed
Ultimate facts Intermediate or evidentiary facts
Hypothetical Existent

Illustration:

In a criminal case, when the accused pleads not guilty, the factum
probandum refers to a matter that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt in order to justify a conviction. (Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by
Willard B. Riano)

6. Admissibility of Evidence

A) Requisites for Admissibility

Sec. 3, Rule 128, as amended:

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not

excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules

2 elements must concur in order for the evidence to be admissible:

  The evidence is relevant;

- Relevant if it “has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce

belief in its existence or nonexistence.” (Sec. 4, Rule 128)

 The evidence is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the

rules (competent).

- Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules

of evidence

An item of evidence may be relevant but not admissible, because it

is incompetent. To be admissible, the evidence MUST BE BOTH
RELEVANT AND COMPETENT. (Evidence (The Bar Lectures
Series) by Willard B. Riano)

B) Relevance of Evidence and Collateral Matter

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 128, the 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 It should be directed to the matters in dispute and any evidence

which has neither direct nor indirect relationship to such matters
must be set aside as irrelevant.

Relevance requires that the immediate fact proved must have a

connection to the ultimate issue.

“There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by

law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is
relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be
exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experience.” (People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761).

Collateral Matter

• Connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence

and the matter in dispute. (Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard
B. Riano)

General Rule: evidence on a collateral matter is not allowed. This is

because it does not have a direct relevance to the issue of the case.

Exception: a collateral matter 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)

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.
(Admissibility of Evidence, Batasnatin)

C) Multiple Admissibility

There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or

more purposes.

Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more

purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for
its admissibility. (Regalado, 2008)
D) Conditional Admissibility

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 condition that
the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence
already given will be stricken out. (Regalado, 2008)

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. (Evidence (The
Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano)

E) Curative Admissibility

The DOCTRINE OF CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY allows a

party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the
opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.

The doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was properly

admitted.

If hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously

admitted despite objection, under the principle of curative
admissibility, the court should allow hearsay evidence favorable to the
same defendant. (Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B.
Riano)

F) Direct and Circumstantial evidence

• Direct evidence – proves a fact without the need to make an

inference from another fact.

• Circumstantial evidence – that which indirectly proves a fact in issue

through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established.

When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established by

making an inference from a previously established fact. The court uses
a fact from which an assumption is drawn.

When the evidence is direct, the court does not have to make an
inference from one fact to arrive at a conclusion. (Evidence (The Bar
Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano)

G) Positive and Negative evidence

• Positive evidence – when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain

state of facts does exist or that a certain event happened.

• Negative evidence – when the witness states that an event did not
occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.

Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in

nature than that which is accorded to evidence that is negative in
character. (Republic v. Bautista, GR No. 169801, September 11, 2007)

Greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused

by the prosecution witnesses than the accused’s denial. (People v.
Solina, GR No. 196784, January 13, 2016)
 Denials are considered with suspicion and received with caution
because they are easily fabricated and concocted. (People v.
Salahuddin, GR No. 206291, January 18, 2016)

- To be worthy of consideration, denials should be

substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. (Medina v.
People, GR No. 182648, June 17, 2015)

H) Competent and Credible Evidence

Admissible (Competent) evidence – when it is relevant to the issue

and is not excluded by the law or rules.

1. Admissibility does not guarantee credibility

The determination by the trial court of the credibility of the

witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full
weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.
(People v. Solina, GR No. 196784, January 13, 2016)

Except when facts or circumstances of weight and influence

were overlooked or the significance of which was misappreciated
or misinterpreted by the lower courts. (People v. Dela Peña, GR
No. 207635, February 18, 2015)

The Court is guided by the following jurisprudence when

confronted with the issue of credibility of witnesses on appeal
(Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Willard B. Riano):

1. The Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s

evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses. (Trial court is
in the BEST POSITION to determine the truthfulness of
the witness)

2. Absent any substantial reason which would justify the

reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s
findings, when no significant facts and circumstances,
affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been
overlooked or disregarded.

3. The rule is even more stringently applied if the CA

concurred with the RTC. (People v. Sanchez, 665 SCRA
639, 643, February 8, 2012)