Basic Principles

A. Sources of the Rules

1. Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
2. The Philippine Constitution particularly, its provisions on the Bill of Rights and
the Article on the Supreme Court
3. Special Laws passed by Congress which either create, amend or supplement
existing rules of evidence. The most recent include
(i) The Electronic Evidence Act and the
(ii) The Child Witness Law
4. Decisions of the Supreme Court
5. Circulars issued by the Supreme Court
B. RULE 128. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS in EVIDENCE
Section 1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Definition explained:
1. “means sanctioned by these rules”. The procedure for determining the truth is provided
for under Rules 128 to Rule 133, including the amendments thereto and their
interpretation given by the Courts.
2. “of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding”- the rules or procedure is applicable only to
controversies tried by the regular courts of law; the procedure or rules of evidence does
not apply in quasi-judicial or administrative tribunals or to courts martial. The latter may
adopt the rules in their discretion.
3. “The truth” The ultimate objective of the rules of evidence is to render justice by
arriving at the truth of a matter in dispute i.e. by knowing the facts and the meaning of
these facts.
4. “ respecting a matter of fact”… the fact to be established or the point in controversy must
be capable of being proven or ascertained by the rules of evidence. The rules do not
apply and cannot be used to answer questions or controversies involving religion or faith;
dogma, philosophy, literature, fantasy or fiction or those which are purely speculative.

Classification of Evidence
A. Direct and Circumstantial
1. Direct- that which proves a fact in issue or dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption. It is evidence to the precise point.
Examples: The eye witness account; the scar to show the wound
2. Circumstantial- proof of facts or fact from which taken singly or collectively, the existence of
the particular fact in issue may be inferred or presumed as a necessary or probable consequence
Important considerations on circumstantial evidence:
This applies only in criminal cases and is governed under Rule 133 (4) which for purposes of
supporting a finding of guilt, requires:
i). that there be more than one circumstance
ii).that the facts from which the inference are derived are proven
iii). the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt
Classification of Evidence
B. Positive vs. Negative Evidence
a). positive evidence - that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when a
witness declares that there was no fight which took place
b). negative - when the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when
the accused presents witnesses who testify that the accused was at their party when the crime was
committed. Denials and alibi are negative evidences.
The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence, or that a positive
assertion is given more weight over a plain denial.
C. Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence
a). primary- that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
E.g.: the original of a contract is the best evidence as to its contents; the marriage contract
as to the fact of marriage; a receipt as to the fact of payment; the birth certificate as to filiation.
b). secondary- that which is necessarily inferior and shows on its face that a better evidence
exists.
E.g.: Xerox copies of documents; narration of witnesses as to a written contract.

D. Conclusive vs. Prima facie

a).conclusive – may either be (a) that which the law does not allow to be contradicted as in
judicial admissions or (b) that the effect of which overwhelms any evidence to the contrary as the
DNA profile of a person as the natural father over a denial
b). prima facie- that which, standing alone and uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the
proposition affirmed. In the eyes of the law it is sufficient to establish a fact until it has been
disproved, rebutted or contradicted or overcome by contrary proof.
E. Cumulative vs. corroborative
a). Cumulative - additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the same point.
E.g.: testimonies of several eyewitnesses to the same incident
b). Corroborative - additional evidence of a different kind or character but tending to prove the
same point. It is evidence which confirms or supports. Thus:
 (i) the medico legal certificate describing the injuries to have been caused by a sharp pointed
instrument corroborates the statement that the accused used a knife to stab the victim
(ii) the positive results of a paraffin test corroborates the allegation that the person fired a
gun and
(iii) the ballistics examination on the gun of the suspect corroborates the statement that he
fired his gun at the victim
F. As to form:
a). documentary-
b). Object - those consisting of evidence which are addressed to the senses of the court
c). Testimonial - evidence consisting the narration made under oath by a witness
Scope of the Rules of Evidence
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.
I. General Rule
Section 2 provides the Rule on Uniformity in the Application of the Rules. The same
rules shall govern the trial in the lower courts and appellate courts, in civil and in criminal cases.
The reason is that the search for truth is subject to the same rules.
II. Exceptions:
A. As to whether the rules on the presentation of evidence shall be applied strictly
1. Cases covered by the Regular Procedure- the rules apply strictly
2. Cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure- the rules are relaxed and the
procedure is abbreviated

B. Between civil and criminal proceedings

1. As to the quantum of evidence for the plaintiff to win: proof of guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence
2. As to the presence of the parties: in civil cases the attendance of the parties is not
required and they attend on their own volition whereas in criminal cases, the
presence of the accused is required unless he waived the same.
3. As to the effect of the absence of a party: in civil cases, except during the pre-
trial, the proceedings may proceed even in the absence of the parties whereas in
criminal cases, trial cannot proceed if the accused was not notified.
4. As to the rule on confessions: this applies only in criminal cases
5. As to the effect of an offer of compromise by the defendant: in criminal cases the offer
is an implied admission of guilt whereas it does not simply any liability in civil cases
6. As to the presumption of innocence: this applies only in criminal cases
Related Concepts:
Distinction Between Evidence and Proof
Strictly evidence is the medium of proof whereas proof is the result of evidence. Thus the
materials consisting of the weapon used, the confession of the accused, the testimony of
 the complainant and witnesses, the result of the paraffin test, will constitute the evidence
of guilt. Their combined effect will be Proof of guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
The two terms are often used interchangeably.
“Factum Probandum and “Factum Probans”.
All litigations, whether civil or criminal, involve the relationship between these
two concepts.
a) Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition to be
established. That, which a party wants to prove to the court.
E.g.: guilt or innocence; existence of a breach of contract; existence of an
obligation; the fact of payment; the injury or damage incurred.
b) Factum Probans refers to the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum will
be proved. Examples: the written contract; the promissory note to prove the existence of
an unpaid debt.
“Factum Probandum and “Factum Probans”.
All litigations, whether civil or criminal, involve the relationship between these
two concepts.