EVIDENCE

BASIC PRINCIPLES
(RULE 128)
PREPARED BY: ATTY. JULIETTE A. ESPINELI
Section 1. Evidence defined.
— Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
EVIDENCE
 “sanctioned” – allowed by the Rules of Court
 it is not evidence, if it is excluded by law or by
the Rules, even if it proves the existence or non-
existence of a fact in issue.
 Purpose of evidence: to know the judicial or
legal truth, not the actual or real truth
Rules on Evidence apply only to judicial
proceeding
Technical rules on evidence and procedure does not apply to
administrative or quasi-judicial proceeding
Reason: in administrative proceeding, it can accept
documents which cannot be admitted in a judicial
proceeding where the Rules of Court are strictly
observed.
e.g – not binding on: Labor Tribunals (Sasan v. NLRC),
Board of Medicine, Civil Service Commission, etc.
Rules on Evidence does not apply:
 Cadastral proceeding
 Election cases
 Land registration proceeding
 Insolvency proceeding
 Naturalization proceeding (Ong Chia v. Republic)
 Other cases not provided, except by analogy or
suppletory character
Reason: these cases are non-judicial proceedings
Ong Chia vs. Republic, G.R. No. 127240, March
27, 2000
• The RTC granted the petitioner’s petition for
naturalization. The CA reversed the decision on the
ground that the RTC admitted evidence which were not
formally offered in evidence in violation of Sec. 34, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court.
• According to Supreme Court, the rule on formal offer of
evidence is not applicable to petition for naturalization
unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
The technical rules of evidence are not binding
on labor tribunals (Manalo vs. TNS Phil. G.R. No.
208567, November 26, 2014). Thus, written
statements of certain employees can be admitted
even if they were not cross-examined. The rules
of evidence 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 vs. Prudentialife
Plans, Inc., GR No. 196142, March 26, 2014).
In Sasan, Sr., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 176240,
October 17, 2008
the respondent submitted documents before
the NLRC which was not presented before
the Labor Arbiter. It was considered by the
NLRC. The SC ruled that in that situation, the
NLRC may consider evidence even for the
first time on appeal since technical rules of
evidence are not binding in labor cases.
 WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
1. When the case do not tender an issue of fact
Purely question of law – it is a mere application of the relevant statute
Ripe for judicial determination
2. Agreement of the parties – parties stipulated on certain facts
3. Matters of Judicial Notice
When judicial notice is mandatory
Sec.1 of Rule 129
4. Matters judicially admitted
Judicial Admission
Sec. 4 of Rule 129
 WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
5. When the LAW presumes the truth of a fact
Article 1756 of the NCC
 “In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently”
Article 1735 of the NCC
 The goods on board a common carrier are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
Presumption of Innocence of the Accused
6. When the RULE presumes the truth of a fact
Conclusive presumption
Disputable presumption
Section 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
(Principle of Uniformity)
Evidentiary differences
criminal proceedings
CIVIL CASES
preponderance of evidence
 an offer compromise is NOT:
 (a) not an admission of guilt;
 (b) not admissible in evidence
against the offeror
between civil and
CRIMINAL CASES
proof beyond reasonable doubt
 GR: offer of compromise by the
accused is an implied admission
of guilt
 XPN: quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence); reckless
imprudence or cases allowed by
law to compromise
 CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
 GR: no presumption for Accused enjoys the
or against the party constitutional
 XPN: in certain cases presumption of
provided by law innocence

Concept of “confession” A confession is a

does not apply declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged
 CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
Evidence of good or bad  GR: The prosecution is
moral character of a not allowed to prove
party is admissible as the moral character of
long as it is pertinent to the accused even if it is
the moral trait involved pertinent to the moral
trait involved
 XPN: can do so on
rebuttal
 CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
Physician-patient Not applicable
privileged is applicable

Not applicable Admission by

conspirator

Not applicable to the Extrajudicial confession

defendant applies to the accused
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROOF AND
PROOF
EVIDENCE
 not the evidence itself
 proof is the product of evidence
 merely probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the
mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence
 effect or result of evidence
EVIDENCE
 Evidence is the medium of proof
 signifies a relationship between two facts:
factum probandum
factum probans
 FACTUM PROBANDUM
The fact or proposition to be
established
-each allegation is the factum
probandum, unless admitted
(judicial admission of a party)
> in that case, it ceases to be a
factum probandum in the case
-no factum probandum arises
because of the admission
FACTUM PROBANS
The facts or material evidencing
the fact or proposition to be
established
-liability of defendant (general
proposition); prove it by
presentation of evidence
-the means to prove factum
probandum
 FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS
-fact to be proved the probative or evidentiary fact
-fact which is in issue in a case and tending to prove the fact in issue
to which the evidence is directed

Issue the totality of evidence (object,

documentary, or testimonial) to
prove the liability (evidence
offered by the party, constitutes
the materials to prove the liability
of another party).
 FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS
elements of a cause of action  
alleged in the complaint as
denied specifically by the
defendant
-if there is no specific denial,
there is no factum
probandum
-if there is specific denial,
there is factum probandum
Illustration
In a suit involving damage to property
caused by the negligence of the
defendant, the factum probandum is the
negligence of the defendant that caused
damage to the property of the plaintiff.
The factum probans are the evidence,
whether it be object, testimonial,
documentary, to prove the negligence of
the defendant.
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the Constitution, the law or these rules.
Section 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.
 REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
 The evidence is RELEVANT
 The witness testifies based on his personal knowledge
 Evidence, to be relevant must have such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence
 The immediate fact proved must have a connection to the ultimate issue
 Determination: matter of inference, not a matter of law
 Test: matter of logic (reasoning, common sense, and experience)
 The evidence is COMPETENT
 Test: not excluded by the Constitution, law or these Rules
FORMULA
•Evidence = relevant + competent
 if one of the requisites is lacking,
it is inadmissible in evidence (the
testimony is hearsay)
RELEVANCY
•To be relevant, evidence must relate to an
issue of fact. If not, then it is irrelevant.

•If you introduce evidence for a fact not

alleged in the pleading, then the
introduction of such evidence may be
objected for being irrelevant.
People vs. Feliciano, May 5, 2014, G.R. No.
196735
• In Anti-Hazing Law, disguise is an aggravating circumstances.
The information was not able to allege that the participants
in the hazing were wearing mask. But, they were able to
prove the same during trial.
Is it proper for the Court to appreciate the fact of wearing
mask as an aggravating circumstance?
• No. The failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if
duly proven during the trial, will not be appreciated as such.
It will violate the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
COMPETENCY
It is one that is not
excluded by the
law or rules.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
1. Relevant Evidence
2. Collateral matters
3. Competent Evidence
4. Multiple Admissibility
5. Conditional Admissibility
6. Curative Admissibility
7. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
8. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
9. Positive and Negative Evidence
COLLATERAL MATTERS
 Absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the
matter in dispute.
 GR: evidence on collateral matter is not allowed because it does
not have direct relevance to the issue of the case
 XPN: may be admitted if it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability and improbability of the fact in issue
 As when it would have the effect of corroborating or
supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY

a proferred evidence is admissible for

two or more purposes
example: circumstances of both dying
declaration and part of the res gestae
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
• the relevance of evidence is not apparent at
the time it is offered, but the relevance of
which will readily be seen when connected to
other evidence not yet offered.
• the relevance of which may be seen when
connected to other pieces of evidence not yet
offered.
 CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
• allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous
introduction of inadmissible evidence.
• thus, a party who first introduces either
irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial
cannot complain of the subsequent admission of
similar evidence from the adverse party relating
to the same subject matter
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE
DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Direct evidence Indirect evidence
Proves a fact without the need -need to resort to inference. A fact is established by
to make inference from making an inference from previously established fact
another fact -the rule on evidence that applies when no witness
saw the commission of a crime
-requisites:
(a) there is more than one circumstance
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
 CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE
EVIDENCE
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE
- same time of evidence for
the same fact
- refers to evidence of the
same kind and character as
that already given which
tends to prove the same
proposition
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
- different type of evidence
but proving the same fact
- one that is supplementary
to that already given,
tending to validate,
strengthen or confirm it
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
POSITIVE EVIDENCE NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
- when a witness -when a witness states
affirms in the stand that an event did not
that a certain state of occur or that the state
facts does exist or that of facts alleged to exist
certain event does not actually exist
happened
 Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
• “false in one thing, false in everything”
• It is particularly applied to the
testimony of a witness who may be
considered unworthy of belief as to all
the rest of his evidence if he is shown to
have testified falsely in one detail
 Alibi
• Defense that is inherently weak and must be rejected
when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily and
categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the
offense
• Positive identification prevails over alibi
• Alibi may serve as a basis for acquittal if it can really be
shown by clear and convincing evidence that it was
indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission
 Denial
• The usual refuge of offenders
• an inherently weak defense, and
must be buttressed by other
persuasive evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility
 Frame-up
• Common and standard defenses in most
dangerous drugs cases
• For this claim to prosper, the defense must
adduce clear and convincing evidence to
overcome the presumption that government
officials have performed their duties in a regular
and proper manner (presumption of regularity)
 Flight or non-flight of the accused
• Flight betrays a desire to evade
responsibility and is, therefore,
a strong indication of guilt
• Non-flight, on the other hand,
does not signify innocence