Pastoral & Villanueva

MBA-JD
EVIDENCE

6.1. General principles

6.1.1. Concept of evidence

Evidence means sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128)

When is evidence not required:
1. No factual issue exists in a case (vs. a question of law)
2. Pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact
3. By agreement of the parties
4. On matters of judicial notice

Rules of evidence not applicable in [formal offer of evidence] (Sec. 4, Rule 1):
1. Election cases
2. Land registration
3. Cadastral
4. Naturalization
5. Insolvency proceedings
6. Other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient (administrative or quasi-judicial
proceedings and labor)

Note: The rules of evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is
not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver.

6.1.2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence

Principle of uniformity the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings (Sec. 2, Rule 128)

6.1.3. Evidence in civil cases versus evidence in criminal cases

Civil Cases Criminal Cases
- proof: preponderance of evidence - proof: beyond reasonable doubt
- an offer of compromise is NOT an admission
of any liability, and is NOT admissible in
evidence against the offeror
- except quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by
the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt
- concept of presumption of innocence does
not apply and generally there is no
presumption for or against a party, except in
certain cases provided for by law
- accused enjoys the constitutional
presumption of innocence
Pastoral & Villanueva
MBA-JD
6.1.4. Proof versus evidence

Proof is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind
resulting from a consideration of the evidence.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) if the testimony of
a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury
may disregard all the witness testimony (Hargrave vs. Stockloss).

Note: modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness
may be partly believed and partly disbelieved, depending on the corroborative evidence
presented at the trial (People vs. Negosa).

6.1.5. Factum probans versus factum probandum

Factum probandum the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the
evidence is directed

Factum probans the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue; the
totality of the evidence to prove the liability

6.1.6. Admissibility of evidence

a) Requisites for admissibility of evidence

1. The evidence is relevant; and
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)

People vs. Aminnudin (inadmissible evidence in connection with an illegal search and not
being an incident to a lawful arrest): two days before arrest, constabulary officers received a
tip that the accused was on board an identified vessel on a particular date and time. They
waited for the accused, searched his bag and found 3 kilos of marijuana leaves. SC ruled that
the accused was not, at the moment of arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he
was about to do so or that he had just done so. Officers could have obtained a warrant.

People vs. Mengote (inadmissible evidence in connection with an illegal search and not
being an incident to a lawful arrest): tip was received that suspicious looking men were at a
street corner in Tondo shortly before noon. Police saw 3 men, one of whom was Mengote,
who was looking from side to side and clutching his abdomen. Police approached and
introduced themselves. 2 tried to ran away but were still apprehended. The revolver and fan
knife found in their possession were not admitted in evidence. SC held that the acts were
not sinister acts that could suggest that an offense had just been committed, or was at least
being attempted in their presence.
Pastoral & Villanueva
MBA-JD
b) Relevance of evidence and collateral matters

Evidence to be relevant must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence (Sec. 4, Rule 128). It deals with the rational relationship
between the evidence and the fact to be proved. Relevance further requires that the
immediate fact proven must have a connection to the ultimate issue.

Note: Evidence on the credibility or lack of it of a witness is always relevant. In every
proceeding, the credibility of the witness is always an issue.

The importance of the credibility of a witness in a judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules
which allow the adverse party to test such credibility through a process called cross
examination. Hence, under Sec. 6, Rule 132, a witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party not only on matters taken up in the direct examination. (Exception: accused
as witness and hostile witness)

Collateral matters when it is on a parallel or diverging line, merely additional or
auxiliary; connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the
matter in dispute.

General Rule: evidence on collateral matter is not allowed (Sec. 4, Rule 128), because it does
not have direct relevance to the issue.

Exception: if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue, as when it would have the effect of corroborating or supplementing
facts previously established by direct evidence.

c) Multiple admissibility

There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.
Sometimes it is inadmissible for one purpose but admissible for another. Evidence may also
be admissible against one party but not against another.

d) Conditional admissibility

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. The proponent of the evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally
admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy
and competency at a later time.

e) Curative admissibility

The doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the
opposing partys previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any
unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence (Adams vs.
Burlington)
Pastoral & Villanueva
MBA-JD
Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence 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 (Commonwealth vs. Alexander).

Note: in our jurisdiction, the doctrine should not be made to apply where the evidence was
admitted without objection, because the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the
inadmissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction, inadmissible evidence not objected to
becomes inadmissible.

f) Direct and circumstantial evidence

Direct evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact

Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the
fact finder draws from the evidence established

Note: in a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction, provided
the following requisites concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. The combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt

Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense vis--vis direct evidence (People vs. Matito).
As to probative value, the Court considers circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to
direct evidence. In both types of evidence, what is required is proof beyond reasonable
doubt (People vs. Bernal).

Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt and
the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted (People vs. Corpuz).

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.

Positive and negative evidence may likewise refer to the presence or absence of something.
Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is
accorded to evidence that is negative in character.

h) Competent and credible evidence

Competent evidence one that is not excluded by law in a particular case
Pastoral & Villanueva
MBA-JD
Note: competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence
to be received as such. However, when applied to a witness, the term competence refers to
the qualifications of the witness.

Note: general objections are viewed with disfavor because specific objections are required
by Sec. 36, Rule 132. Thus, for purposes of trial objections, evidence in never incompetent.
It is people who are.

Credibility (believability) worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness
worthy of belief; addressed to the judgment of the trial court

Note: admissibility does not guarantee credibility. After the competence of a witness is
allowed, the consideration of his credibility follows.

Admissibility vs. weight of the evidence (probative value)
Admissibility whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all;
depends on its relevance and competence
Probative value whether the admitted evidence proves an issue; pertains to its
tendency to convince and persuade

6.1.7. Burden of proof and burden of evidence

Burden of proof (onus probandi) the duty of a party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law; he who alleges must prove
what is alleged.

The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the
burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the defendant, an affirmative defense
is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, but
one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e., an avoidance of the claim.

Test for determining where burden of proof lies ask which party to an action or suit will
fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief
he seeks to obtain.

Note: the burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings (complaint and answer). The burdens of
proof of both parties do not shift during the course of the trial.

Burden of evidence the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the
prima facie evidence against him

Note: the burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from one side to the other as
the exigencies of the trial require, and shifts with alternating frequency.

Equipoise Rule or Equiponderance Doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In
Pastoral & Villanueva
MBA-JD
this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof. In a criminal
case, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.
Constitutional doctrine: no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law (Sec. 1, Art. III, Constitution of the Philippines)

6.1.8. Presumptions

a) Conclusive presumptions
b) Disputable presumptions

6.1.9. Liberal construction of the rules of evidence

Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial
justice. However, to justify relaxation of the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a
subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been required.

6.1.10. Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)

a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b) Preponderance of evidence
c) Substantial evidence
d) Clear and convincing evidence