EVIDENCE

Chapter 1 Direct Evidence Circumstantial

Evidence
The Concept of Evidence -proves a challenged -indirectly proves a
fact without drawing fact in
Evidence- a means to an end
any inference from issue, such that the
End- is the ascertainment of truth of an alleged other facts fact-finder must draw
fact in a judicial proceeding an inference or
reason from
Adducing evidence – producing or presenting circumstantial
evidence in court to establish proof to support a evidence
particular stand in an issue or controversy

Factum Probans – Evidentiary facts / Proposition Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is

of fact admissible when it is relevant to the
Fact by which ultimate facts is to be established issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the
law or these rules

Factum Probandum – Ultimate/ Material facts CHAPTER II

Facts sought to be established
To be proved by evidentiary facts
It may be the the cause of action or elements of
the felony
A (evidentiary fact) + B (evidentiary fact 2) = C
(Ultimate Fact).
Direct evidence- A=C
If the existence of A
is enough to establish the truthfulness of C and
there is no need for other pieces of
evidence
Relevancy – it must have a relation to the fact in
issue
Section 4: Evidence on collateral matters NOT
ALLOWED,
EXCEPT
-When it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue
-evidence on collateral matters are allowed
when it has any tendency in reason (logic) to
establish the probability or improbability of an
ultimate/
material fact.
RELEVAANCE, WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY
Relevance - the tendency in reason of a
particular piece of evidence to prove or
disprove an ultimate/material fact
-the reason of a particular evidence to prove
or disapprove.
-the probative value
-relevance, as an element of admissibility only
requires that the former
possess any tendency in reason to have any
probability of proving the truthfulness of
the latter
The test of relevance & materiality:
A (factum probans) ~ B (factum probandum
Requisites of relevant evidence
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or
less
probable than it would be without the evidence
(b) material, if the fact is of
consequence in determining the action.

Weight - refers to the persuasive force of

Circumstantial evidence - if there is a need to
draw an inference from the factum probans, and
relate said
inference to another/other piece/s of evidence to
make the factum probandum more
probable.
evidence or likelihood of such probability.
Sufficiency - whether the evidence presented
had
reached or satisfied the prescribed threshold or
quantum of proof necessary in a
particular case has to rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s
Quantum of Proof

-refers to the aggregate evidentiary value

prescribed by law for each class of cases

-It is analogous and at times interchangeable

with the term “burden of proof.”

Quantum of Proof vs. Burden of Proof CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

- Derived from American Common Law
Quantum of Burden of Burden of -It is less than proof beyond
Proof Proof Evidence reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but greater
refers to the refers to the refers to the than preponderance of evidence (for
standard obligation of duty of a civil cases)
value of the party in a party to -Clear and convincing proof is more than mere
evidence given case in present preponderance, but not to extent
required by meeting said evidence of such certainty as is required beyond
the law quantum of sufficient to reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.
proof in order establish or Beyond reasonable doubt – criminal case
to prevail rebut a fact
in issue to CASES THAT REQUIRE CLEAR AND
-onus probandi establish a CONVINCING EVIDENCE AS QUANTUM
prima facie OF PROOF
case
-Nullifying contracts on basis of fraud it must be
established by CLEAR AND CONVINCING
Preponderance of Evidence – Civil cases EVIDENCE
-probability of proof, greater weigh of evidence, -Supreme Court held that clear and
greater weigh of the credible evidence convincing evidence is required in overcoming
-Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, the presumption of regularity: Regularity in the
and value of the aggregate evidence on either performance of official duties
side
-It is evidence which is more convincing to the -As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed
court as worthy of belief than and must be proved by clear, positive and
that which is offered in opposition thereto convincing evidence.
-it only requires
that evidence be greater or more convincing than -An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the
the opposing evidence standard of proof required in granting or
denying bail is clear and convincing evidence
Preponderance of evidence, how determined: that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all
the orders and processes of the extradition court
Court may consider the following:
-facts and circumstance of the case -the defense of alibi must
-witnesses’ manner of testifying, intelligence, be supported by clear and convincing proof: it
their means and opportunity of was physically impossible for him to have
knowing the facts, nature of the facts to which been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
they commission
testify, probability or improbability of their
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCIARY VALUES
testimony, their interest or want of
interest, their personal credibility Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
-The court may also consider the number of
witnesses Clear and Convincing Evidence
- the quality and not only the quantity of
evidence be considered in civil cases, plaintiff Preponderance of Evidence
Substantial Evidence Or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
-Quantum of proof in criminal cases
-Sec 14 par 2 Art II of Constitution: “xxx In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved xxx”
-Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not
absolute certainty but only of
moral certainty.
*Moral certainty -that degree of proof which
produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind
-the PROSECUTION bears the burden of proof
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
How can the prosecution proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt?/ In every
criminal conviction, the prosecution is required
to prove two things
beyond reasonable doubt:
-prove each and every element of the crime
charged in the information /the fact of the
commission of the crime charged, or the
presence of all the elements of the offense;
-prove the participation of the accused in the
commission of
the offense /the fact that the accused was the
perpetrator of the crime
*the Prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own
evidence, and not anchor its success upon the
weakness of the evidence of the accused.
Circumstantial Evidence as Basis of Guilt
Circumstantial evidence - goes to prove a fact or
series of facts other than the facts in issue,
which, if proved, may tend by inference to
establish a fact in issue
-A number of circumstantial evidence may be so
credible to establish a fact from
which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the elements of a crime exist
and that the accused is its perpetrator
-circumstantial evidence presented must
constitute an unbroken chain which leads one
to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused as the guilty person
-The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility
that some other person has committed the crime
Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
“Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when
sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction
1) There is more than one circumstance
2) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven
3) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.”
Circumstantial Evidence: When sufficient to
convict the accused
General Rule: Circumstantial Evidence does not
suffice to convict the accused
Exception: when all are present
-circumstantial evidence suffices to convict
an accused only if the circumstances proven
constitute an unbroken chain which leads
to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person;
-the circumstances proved must be consistent
with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except
that of guilt.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
-Complainants in administrative proceedings
carry the burden of proving their
allegations with substantial evidence or such
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
-The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
believe that a person is responsible for the
misconduct complained of, even if such
evidence might not be overwhelming or even
preponderant
-Substantial evidence consists of more than a
mere scintilla of evidence but may
be somewhat less than a preponderance
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Based on the Book of Regalado
[RULE 128]
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec 1. Evidence defined.
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
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. (2a)
Notes:
Evidence, defined: Bustos v. Lucero: Evidence
is the mode and manner of proving competent
facts in judicial proceedings.
Proof is the result or effect of evidence.
- This is the result when the requisite quantum of
evidence of a particular fact has been duly
admitted and given weight.
Rules of Evidence as Procedural Law
- Amendments in such rules may validly be
made applicable to cases pending at the time of
such change. Parties have no vested right in the
rules of evidence.
- HOWEVER, in criminal cases, if the
amendment would permit the reception of a
lesser quantum of evidence to convict,
retroactive application would be unconstitutional
for being ex post facto.
Other Laws Governing Evidence
- GR: Rules of evidence is governed by the
Rules of Court
- EXPN: Application of other laws
Examples:
- RA 4200 (Anti Wiretapping),
- Code of Commerce (weight of entries in
merchant books)
- Electronic Commerce Act
- NCC, RPC
- Constitution: Bill of Rights - Art III
o Sec 2: The right of people against
unreasonable searches and seizures
o Sec 3: The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable (EXC. By
order of court or when provided by law for
safety and public order)
o Evidence obtained in violation of such
provisions shall be INADMISSIBLE
Applicability of the Rules of Evidence:
- GR: Applicable ONLY in judicial proceedings
- EXC: In quasi-judicial proceedings
o The same apply by analogy, or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and
convenient.(Rule 1 Section 4)
o It shall apply also when the governing law of
such proceeding specifically adopts such rules
o Note: NOT applicable in agrarian cases
Classification of Evidence According to Form
(Obejct, Documentary, Testimonial)
1. Object (Real) Evidence - directly addressed
to the senses of the court and consist of tangible
things exhibited or demonstrated in open court,
in an ocular inspection, or at place designated by
the court for its view or observation of an
exhibition, experiment or demonstration.
- This is referred to as “autoptic proference”
since it proffers or presents in open court the
evidentiary articles for observation or inspection
2. Documentary Evidence- Evidence supplied
by written instruments or derived from
conventional symbols, such as letters, by which
ideas are represented on material substances
- Rule 130 Sec 2: writings or any material
containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents
3. Testimonial Evidence: That which is
submitted to the court through the testimony or
deposition of a witness.
Other Classification of Evidence:
1. Relevant, Material, and Competent
Evidence
- Relevant: evidence having any value in reason
as tending to prove any matter provable in an
action.
o TEST: The logical relation of the evidentiary
fact to the fact in issue, whether the former tends
to establish the probability or improbability of
the latter.
- Material: evidence directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules of substantive
law and pleadings. o TEST: w/n the fact it
intends to prove is an issue or not.
o W/N a fact is in issue: Determined by
substantive law, pleadings, pre-trial order and by
admissions or confessions on file.
o Evidence may be relevant BUT may be
immaterial.
- Competent: one that is not excluded by the
Rules, statutes or the Constitution.
2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
- Direct: that which proves the fact in dispute
w/o the aid of any inference or presumption
- Circumstantial: proof of a fact or facts from
which, taken either singly or collectively, the
existence of a particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.
3. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
- Cumulative: evidence of the same kind and to
the same state of facts.
- Corroborative: additional evidence of a
different character to the same point.
4. Prima Facie and Conclusive Evidence
- Prima Facie: that which, standing alone,
unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
maintain the proposition affirmed.
- Conclusive: the class of evidence which the
law does not allow to be contradicted.
5. Primary and Secondary Evidence
- Primary: that which the law regards as
affording the greatest certainty of the fact in
question. Also known as “best evidence”.
- Secondary: that which is inferior to the
primary evidence and is permitted by law only
when the best evidence is not available. Also
known as “substitutionary evidence”
6. Positive and Negative Evidence
- Positive: when the witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
o Entitled to a greater weight since the witness
represents of his personal knowledge the
presence or absence of a fact.
- Negative Evidence: when the witness did not
see or know of the occurrence of a fact. o Lesser
weight since there is a total disclaimer of
personal knowledge, hence without any
representation that the fact could or could not
have existed or happened.
o It is admissible only if it tends to contradict
positive evidence of the other side or would tend
to exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the
other side.
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence.
Evidence is admissible when:
- it is relevant to the issue AND
- is not excluded by the law or these rules. (3a)
Sec. 4. Relevancy; collateral matters.
Evidence must have such a 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. (4a)
Notes:
Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when: 2 Requisites
(see codal)
- When it is Relevant o it must have a relation to
the fact in issue as to induce belief of its
existence or non-existence
oDetermined by the rules of logic and human
experience.
- When it is Competent o When not excluded by
the law or by the RoC
o Determined by the prevailing exclusionary
rules on evidence
Note: The weight however of admissible
evidence depends on judicial evaluation within
the Rule 133 and rules of the SC
While evidence is admissible, it may be entitled
to little or no weight at all.
o Conversely, evidence of great weight may also
be inadmissible.
Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence
According to Professor Wigmore
1. That none but facts having rational probative
value are admissible &
2. That all facts having rational probative value
are not forbidden by specific rules
Note: Here, Relevant Evidence means any class
of evidence which has “rational probative value”
to establish the issue in controversy
When is admissibility determined?
– At the time it is OFFERED to the court
- Real Evidence: offered o when the same is
presented for its view or evaluation
o when the party rests his case and the real
evidence consists of objects exhibited in court
- Testimonial Evidence: offered by the calling
of the witness to the stand
- Documentary Evidence: offered by the
proponent immediately before he rests his case
When should admissibility be objected?
- At the time evidence is offered to the court OR
- As soon thereafter as the objection to its
admissibility shall have become apparent
o Objection to the qualification of the witness:
made at the time such person is called to the
stand
o Objection to the testimony: made at the time
the question is asked or after the answer is given
when the objectionable features become
apparent by reason of the answer
Note: if not done within such time – right to
object is deemed WAIVED
Doctrines and Rules of Admissibility
Sanctioned by the Supreme Court
1. Conditional Admissibility
- When the evidence at the time it is offered
appears to be immaterial or irrelevant, such
evidence may be received on condition that the
other facts will be proved thereafter
- IF not proved subsequently: evidence given
will be stricken out.
- REQUISITE: There should be no bad faith on
the part of the proponent. (necessary to avoid
unfair surprises)
2. Multiple Admissibility
- When the evidence is relevant AND competent
for two or more purposes, such evidence
should be admitted for any or all the purposes
for which it is offered
- PROVIDED it must satisfy all the requirements
for its admissibility.
3. Curative Admissibility
- The right of the party to introduce incompetent
evidence in his behalf where the court has
admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by
the adverse party.
3 Theories of Curative Admissibility cited by
Wigmore o American rule
– the admission of incompetent evidence w/out
objection by the opponent, does not justify
rebutting it by similar incompetent evidence.
o English rule – if inadmissible evidence is
admitted, the adverse party may resort to similar
inadmissible evidence

o Massachusetts rule –similar incompetent

evidence may be admitted in order to avoid a
plain and unfair prejudice caused by the
admission of the other party’s evidence

What should be determined to apply the

curative admissibility rule?

1. w/n the incompetent evidence was seasonably

objected to  Lack of objection: waiver of the
right to object admissibility BUT does NOT
deprive him to introduce similar rebutting
evidence

2. w/n the admission of such evidence will cause

a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against
whom it was admitted  When the admissible
evidence has been improperly excluded, the
other party should not be permitted to introduce
similar evidence

Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno: Documentary

evidence illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a
timely motion or action to suppress. (Applies to
illegally obtained confessions)

Collateral Matters, defined: Matters other than

the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
for inference as to the existence or non-existence
of the facts in issue

- GR: Collateral matters are INADMISSIBLE or

not allowed

EXPN: when it tends in any reasonable degree

to establish the probability or improbability of
the fact in issue (“Circumstantial Evidence” or
evidence of relevant collateral facts)

Note: What is prohibited – IRRELEVANT

collateral facts

4 Main Divisions of the Rules of Evidence:

(1) Admissibility of Evidence Rule 130;
(2) Burden of proof and what need not be proved
Rule 131 & 129;
(3) Presentation of Evidence Rule 132;
(4) Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Rule
133; Note: Rule 134 has been transposed to Part
I as Rule 24