Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chapter 1 - Evidence Book

    Uploaded by

    Gilbert John Lacorte
    57 views15 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    57 views15 pages

    Chapter 1 - Evidence Book

    Uploaded by

    Gilbert John Lacorte

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    Chapter 1 RULE 128 General Provisions Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the ‘means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining In a judical proceeding the truth respecting @ mater hake ng pecting a mate Section 2. Scope, — Tho rile of evidence shal be the ‘same in all courts and inal tials and hearings, except as ‘otherwise provided by law or these cules, (2a) Section 3. Admissibilty of evidence, — Evidence Is ‘admissible when itis relevant to the issue and is not ‘excluded bythe law or these rules. (2a) Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence ‘must have such a relation tothe fac in issue as to induce belief in iis existence or non-existence, Evidence on collateral matters shall not be alowed, except when tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or lmprobabilty of the fect niu. (4a) 1. Legal Definition of Evidence. “Evidence ie the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining ina judial proceeding the tuth respecting a matter of fact” 2. The law tse provides forthe definition of evidence, The ‘meaning given bythe law i fe wit significance in tat: 4. Itisa tool to arrive atthe tut It must be sanctioned by the rules; CIhmust be used in a judicial proceeding: 4. The truth that is ascertained pertains toa fact in issue ‘subject ofthe judicial proceeding. 3, General Classification of Evidence ‘2. Object Evidence b. Documentary Evidence «Testimonial Evidence 4. Scope of Evidence - The law provides thatthe rules on ‘evidence must be uniform in all courts, tobe used uniformly in ll vals and hearings. Section 4 of Rule 1 ofthe Rules ‘of Cour, however, species what proceedings where these rules, including the rules on evidence, donot apply, thus ‘Secon 4. Inwhat cases net applicable. These rules 4.1 Obviously, while the rules on evidence must be ‘applied unforniy in all courts and inal proceedings therein, there are speciic cases like election and cadastral cases. here the rules nd no applicability. Note however, thal they ‘may stil be used in a suppletory character, and notably, whenever its use is deemed practicable and convenient, 5. Admissibility of Evidence. ~ Regardless of how important 2 certain piece of evidence may be to a case, it cannot bbe considered by the court unless it passes the test of ‘dmissibity as stated under Section 3, Rule 128, which requires that: ‘It must be relevant tothe issue; >. Itmust not be excuded by the law or hese rules. ‘5.4 Once he testo admissibily is passed, ovdence fez by party mest go tough ante sat 's, ts valve ta party's poston or theory is woighed bythe court. This Is what is known 98s Probate Vatu, 6. “Admissibility” v. “Probative Value” These two ‘concepts inthe study of evidence have been distinguished ‘by the Supreme Courtin the recent case of Sofia Tabuada ‘et a, v. Eleanor Tabuada & Bernan Certeza, G.R. No. 196510, September 12, 2018, in this fashion “The logal relationship of Sofa Tabuad with deceased Loreta Tabuada was established by proponderance of evidence ‘The CA ound met inthe contention thatthe pettoners wore nt able to prove by preponderance of ence {hat they were the legal hors athe at LoretaTabuada, {he rgistered node of he tte over the morgaged real propery. The CA noted thatthe death certificate the Potions presented was not an authenticated copy on ‘secury paper issuedby te Natona States Oto (now Prilipine Statistics Authority): and thatthe name of tho ‘deceased on the doath coricat (LoretaYulo Tabada) ‘é¢ not mach the name of the rgitered tle holder (Coreta H.Tabuada)- I potted out that he 'smatvlas pus inoue he roa! ent of te Coote H.Tabuada who the plants cai ls ther predecessor interest and the person whose name appears in tho ath cerficate as LoretaYulo Tabada, consequent, this inconsistency puts in doubt the Plants appotoes' ownership over Lot No.42726-2 22 ‘The CA thereby underscoed that the pettoners od not prove Sofa Tabuada'slogal relationship wit the late Loreta Tabuada because she did not present ‘documentary evidence thereat carrer ‘The CA grossly ero. Under the Rules of Court, evidonce - as the means of ‘ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a ‘matter of fat-may be objoct, documentary, and testimonial. This required that evidence, fo be admissible, must be ‘relevant and competent. But the admissibily of evidence ‘Should not be confused with its probative value. Adissbity {eters 10 the question of whether cartain pusces of evidences {1010 be consldred ata, while probative vaio refers fo the ‘uestion of whether the aomited evsence proves an isu, ‘Thus. a paricusr tem of evidence may be acmissie, bute ‘evideniary weight dapends on judicial evaluation win the ‘uidlines provided bythe rules of evidence, [Atnough documentary evidence may be preferable as prof of {legal relationship cher evidence ofthe relationship that are ‘competontand relavantmay nt be excluded. Th preponderance ‘fevidence, th rule hats appleable incl cases, salsa Known 1s he greatar waht of evdenco. “Theresa proponderance of evidence when the tr offacsis led {ond atthe exstonce of he contested facts more probable ‘on ts nenexstonce. In shor, the ulerequiesthe consideration Of al ho facts and crcumstances ofthe cass, regardless of ‘whether hey ar eboc, documentary, oF estonia “The mere discrepancy - as perceived by the CA - between the nama othe decenead entredin the death orienta (Loreta Yu “Tabuada) andthe name ofthe tteholder(LoetaH. Tabada) ‘ot necessariy belie or cisprove the legal lationship between ‘Sofi Tabada an he lateLoretaTabuad. To establish fiat, the courte. te th RTC herein - should consider and analyze notony the relevent estmonies of nesses who are competent but other relevant evidence. ae well There was on record hrrein Sofia Tabuada'sunchalonged dedaraton af hr beng he aughterinlaw af he regstred Waelder Also on ecard was Ihe poorer bang nto actual possesson of Lot No 2726-2, ‘which hey hed boen sing ste st fore fam residence. Such ‘stblshod cumstances incated thatthe deoaased Loreta YU “otueda and WlholferLerta H. Tabuada coud ony be one ad ‘he sane prson Moreover even he Spouses Cataza were aware {hat respondents Eleanor Tabuada nd Tabac were te rlaives of ‘Sofa Tabada: snd ta ho respective ais of Eleanor Tabu, Tabuco and Sofia Tabada actualy rested on the sane Very. Ihe facts and creustancos sfc ane compete airmen ‘he loa relationship betwoon Sofi Tabuods andthe ate iho Lora Tabuada ‘Real estate mortgage was nul and void Under Article 2085 ofthe Civt Code, a morigage. to be val, must have tho flowing requites, namely (a) hat tbe Constuted to secure tho fallment of a principal obipation, (©) thatthe morgagor be the absolute owner of the thing ‘mortgaged, and (¢) that the person constitng the morgage has fee cispsal othe property and inthe absence oft ight ‘of fee disposal, thatthe person be legally authorized or the ‘urpose, Sect 1, Rule 193 ofthe Rules of Court states thet reponderance of evidence in cil cases 1s determined by ‘considering “al the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testiying, thelr intelligence, theirmeans and opportunity of knowing th facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability oF improbability oftheir testimony, their Interest oF want of interest. and also ther personel credibly $0 far as the same may legitimately eppear ‘upon the til. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the proponderance is not necessary Is uncontested that he late Loeta Tabueta had led In 1990, or four years boore the mengage was constituted: and {hat Eleanor Tabada and Trabuco admitted to pltioner Sofa Tabueda that they had mortgaged tho property lo the Spouses Cerezas. Acordngy the RTC was fl justi in dolanng the ‘lity of he morgage based on ts nding that Eleanor Tebuade ‘had fraudulent represented herset tthe Spouses Cereza 2s the late LorotaTabuada, the tleholde, That the tieholdet had been dead when the morgage was constituted on te Broperty by Eleanor Tabuada was not even contested by Eleanor Tabuada and Tabuco.In any event, Eleanor Tabuada ‘had not been legally auherized to mortgage the lt to the ‘Spouses Cestaza IMosi6HT- “Tholsson that may be learned fom tis cas ie as olows: {8 TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE Rule~ The. Supreme Court ruled that courts ought to take into account al kinds of evidence, Le, object. documentary and testimonial thatthe pary presented in court and not iiepck on carn innocuous dlacepances And by ‘Summing up everyung, then ard ely then shoul the 7. When i evidence “relevant”? Seaton 4 Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must Ihave such a relation tothe fact in issue as to induce beter ints existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral ‘matters shall not be alowed, except when it tends in ‘any reasonable degree to establish the probabilty or Jimprobabitty of the factin issue. (4) 7.1 1° part~ refers to direct evidence. Here, here is 0 need for deductions or conclusions, Ifa winess says he ‘saw the shooting, thatiscrect evidence whic is automatically relevant without hood of inferences ar deduction: 7.2 2part~ collateral matters: As 2 rule, matters which are along the periphery of the main fact in issue ‘are collateral matters. and often times, relevant and therefore inadissib 7.2.4 Excopt: those faling under what is known as Probabilistic Evidence-o:thase that may ‘be “collateral” as they may seem and yet they Yond to proven any reasonate degre the probabiy of 7.22 To iustate: f winess says he knows ‘ofthe accused to have "homicidal tendencies” then this may or may not prove the fact in fsue and 80 It 's a colateral matter which may be admissible only ‘when its logical connection to the fact oiling may be reasonably estabished thus requiring the application ‘of inferences, deductions or conclusions. 7.23 Probabilistic evidence may also come into play wen charactor evidence is material. An ‘exampleisthe good moral character ofan accused in ‘rape case because he is known tobe chaste, thus, its rather improbable that he could have committed the rape, or that of the vitim ina homicide case, that he was known tobe of troublesome nature, thus the ‘accused was jstfid inkling him, CHAPTER 73 But while evidence is relevant it may not ‘always be admissible in evidence because Section 3, Fue 128 provides that admissible evidence requires the concurence of the wnrequises of (1) relevance ‘and (2) must not be excluded by the rules. 17.4 “Auxiliary Probative Polley” "This phrase ‘refered to evidence thal. although relevant, the judge ‘oul exclude Because it might obscure rather than urinate the truth. The core of auiary polcy was the ‘tied of confusion of issues. unfair surprise. and, ‘undue preudice One of the mast prominent topics tinder auxiliary poly was the hearsay rule, which prohibited the admission of evidence of statements ‘made out of court. For instance, Andrew Johnson ould not testify, ‘Stanton told me that Booth murdered Uncan’f establish Booths culpably. Stanton had fo ‘appear in court himself ad subject his tostmony tothe ‘ors of eross-examination."? 7.5 LEGAL TRUTH v. REAL TRUTH. It can be said that Courts ought to examine the evidence through the fons or prism of the Rules on Evidence. ‘This highights the logaltuism that the personaly of the judge shoul be separated from tho court set ‘because whe the Judge may know certain facts based ‘on his own personal knowiedge, he should quarantine that al the back of his mind so a5 ott interfere wath the Evidence which was adduced at tal that had ‘mustered the test of relevancy and competence. Thus, while ideally the egal ruth must be withthe real uth, the two are no avays the same, AS already slated on the topic of AunilaryProbative Poy, hearsay evidence ‘may be relevant, and by some happenstance, even be factually tue, However tis generally inadmissible because according to Wigmore, it may befudde the issues as the author of the statement coud not be subjected tothe crucible of cross-examinaton. LGENERALFROVSIONS 7.5.1 Lady Justice therefore, it can be said, wile blind-olded, is not-totally blind. The bind {old could perhaps only be a symboism ofthe “cold ‘neutrality of an imparial judge". However, Lady Lustice may peer through that blnd-ol, trough the lens of the Rules on Evidence and accept factual propositions as tulsms when established by competent evidence 7.52. Thisis where Courts must demonstrate ‘mastery of the Rules on Evidence, Courts must ‘never veer away from the time-tested and universally proven methods of examining evidence. that “separates the grain from the chaff 76 Courts, therefore, must apply finest logic in applying the test of Relevancy. Ths because under the Rls, “Evence is amiable when evant 0 7.8.1 Points of Interest on “RELEVANCY” in evidence 7.6.1.1 How far must Courts go to ‘consider evidence as stil being within the ‘aim of relevancy? Our own Supreme Court ‘rapped with this issue when Phippine courts had thee fst brush withthe challenge ‘of admiting DNA Analysis as evidence. It's interesting to note how jurisprudence has ‘evolved to meet this challenge, as may be leaned from the folowing rulings: ccuarren In Agustin v. Court of Appeals,’ the Supreme ‘Court went to great lengths and camo up witha reasonable rationale in stretching the limits ofthe test of relevancy to ‘accommodate DNA Evidence ino the realm of admissible ‘evidence, thus “In assessing the probatve valve of DNA evidence, ‘outs should consider, intr ala, the folowing factors: how the samples were colecte, how they wore handed the posstlly of contaminaton of the. samples, the Brocedur followed in analyzing the samples, whether Droper standards and procedures wore foowed In conducting the tests, and te qualfcaton ofthe analyst ‘who condicte the toss Inthe case at bar Dr. Mara Corazon Abogado de Unria was duly qualfiedby the prosecution asan expert wines ‘on DNA rin or identetion techniques. Based on Or de Ungti' testimony, twas detained that the gene type and DNA profi of appoint are iderical to hat ofthe tracts subject of examination The blood sample taken from the appolant showed that ha was ofthe flowing ‘gene types: vWA 15/9, THOT 718, DHERP 29110 and ESF1PO 10/1, which re identical with semen taken fom the vicis vaginal canal. Very, @ DNA match ‘oxsts Between the semen found inthe vim and the blood sample given by the appellant in open court during the coutea of the ra. ‘Admitedy, we are just beginning 10 integrate these prevaling oct in the U.S. has proven stu. In Daubert. Merrel Dow (508 US. 579 (1983) 125 . Fd, 2 46) t was ned that perinent evsence based ‘on scintcaly val! principles could be used as fg ‘GENERALPROVISIONS as twas relevant and reliable. Judges, under Dauber, \wore allowed greater discrton over which testimony they would allow tal, inducing he teduction of ew kinds of stent tchniques. DNA typing Is one such novel procedure. Under Philippine law, evidonce Is relevant wien it relates directly to a fact n Issue as to Induce belet Init existence or non-existence Apying the Daubert {eattothe care atbar he DNAcvdence obtained tough PGR tecing and ung STR analysis, and which was apreciated by the cout a quo is felovant and relable since kf reasonably based on ‘ciontiicaly vaid principles of human genetics and ‘molecular logy. While in Herrera v. Alba, DNA Anelysis ‘as Evidence was also scrutinized in terms of is ‘competence and reliability 2s evidence under our Rules. Thus: DONA ie the fundamental bulding block of parsons entre genetic makeup. DNA i found In all human cas and is the samo in every cal of he same person. Genet identiy i unique. Hence, @ person's [BNA prfle can determine his identity. DONAanalyiss.a procs n which DNA exact from a bilgi! sample obtained om an cal ‘examined. The DNA\s processed to genera a patie, oF 'ONA pro forthe nda! om whom the sae taken. This DNA profi is unique for ech person, excpt or dorical wins. We quae relevant prin othe Wa courts ‘February 2000 Order with approvat Everyone is bor with @ distinct genetic blueprint ‘called DNA (deoxyribonuctete acid). It Is exclusive { an individual (except In the rare occurrence of Identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), ‘and ONA is unchanging throughout Me. Being 9 component of every cell inthe human body, the DNA ‘The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A (adenine), G (guanine), C(cystosine) ‘and T (thymine). The order in which the four bases ‘appear in an individual's DNA determines. his. or her physical makeup. And since DNA is a double- Stranded molecule, tis composed of two speciic paired bases, A‘T or TA and -C or C-6. These are alld genes. Every gone has a cortain number of the above base pairs distibuted in a pacular sequence. This glves 4 person his or her genetic code. Somewhere In How is ONA typing performed? From a DNA samplo obtained or extracted, @ molecular biologist may proceed to analyz itn several ways. There are five (6) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the [RFLP (restriction tragment length polymorphism); ‘reverse dot blot or HLA 0 aiPm locl whieh was {Used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by [37 courts In the US. as of November 1984; miDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem repeats); land the most recent which is known as the PCR: {(potymerase] chain reaction) based STR (shor tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, was ‘nailed of by mos forensic laboratories inthe world. PCR is the process of repicating or copying DNA in “anevidence sample. milion times through repeated ‘ycling of a reaction Involving the so-called DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in 13 separate places and can match {wo (2) samples with a reported theoretical errr rate ‘floss than one (1) in tion Just tke in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typi ‘matches are determined. To llustrate, when DNA ‘oF fingerprint tests are done to identify 9 suspect In a criminal case, tho evidence collected from the ‘rime scene is compared with the knownprint. M'& ‘substantial amount of the identying features are the same, the ONA or fingerprint is doomed to be 9 ‘match. But then, even if ony one feature ofthe ONA ‘oF fingerprint eiffrent, Its deemed not to have ome from the suspect. ‘As carer stated, certain regions of human DNA show lations between people. In each of these regions, 4 person possesses two genetic typos called alee, ‘one Inherited from each parent. Ina] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at 2/number of thes variable regions in an Individual to produce &\ DNA Profle. Comparing next the ONA profiles. of the mother and chile, tis possible to detarmine which half ofthe childs ONA was inheritod from the mother. ‘The other half must have been inherited from the biological father. The alleged fathor's profile fs then ‘examined to ascortan whether ho has the ONA types in his profile, which match the patra types inthe ‘hil the mans DNA types do net match that ofthe ‘child, the man is excluded as the father. H the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father. (Emphasis in the original. Although the trm DNA testing was mantoned in ‘he 1995 case of People v.Teehankee, J, a8 ony in ‘62001 case of Ting v. CourtorAppessthtmore an ‘2 passing mention was given to ONA analy, In Ting, ‘wo issued a wit of habeas corpus against reeponden \who abducted pettioners’younges on. Tesimonal and documentary evdenco and physi resemelance were sod to estabish parentage. However, wo observed hat Parentage will stil be resolved using conventional cuwrnen rmathods les we adopt the moder and scenic Taye avalabeForanaay, we ave now te fy Snverpertae nung DNAtwst for ldontenton and frente texting The Unter of the Prippines Neal lege neh ti U.N OMA Das tabortory hat now the Conduct ONA ping sing shot tandem repeat TR) Stays. oa For twos ssi atcour hou pp} {he one of science when completely obtaned i ‘ofetnion poser ne ort arent ‘Stocony progress, Thoughiti not necessary inthis ano to resort to ONA sg, ne] Kare would Se uefa toal concerned nthe prompt resolaon of Dorentage and erty sues ‘Aimissiitty of DNA Analysis as Evidence ‘The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo dscuscod ONA analysis as evidence, This may be considered a 180

    You might also like