Evidence: Rule 128 — General Provisions
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.
1.1 Evidence
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
It is the mode and manner of proving the competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings.
lt may also refer to something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that lends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.
1.2 Manner of Allegation in the Pleadings
Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides that every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be.
The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts:
the “ultimate facts”, and
The “evidentiary facts.”
1.3 Factum Probandum
This refers to ultimate facts which are the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests; the term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements.
Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant.
1.4 Factum Probans
Evidentiary facts are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts.
They are not proper as allegations in the pleadings as they may only result in confusing the statement of the cause of action or the defense.
They are not necessary therefor, and their exposition is actually premature as such facts must be found and drawn from testimonial and other evidence.
Those facts which are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
Factum proban is the evidentiary facts which are necessary to prove the factum probandum which is the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence of the existence of some other facts.
Evidence is always a relative term.
It signifies a relation between two facts:
the factum probandum, or proposition to be established, and
the factum proban, or material evidencing the proposition.
The former is necessarily to be conceived of as hypothetical; it is that which the one party affirms and the other denies, the tribunal being as yet not committed in either direction.
The latter is conceived of for practical purposes as existent and is offered as such for the consideration of the tribunal. The latter is brought forward as a reality for the purpose of convincing the tribunal that the former is also a reality.
Illustrations:
In order to establish that martial law was properly extended, two (2) facta probanda or ultimate facts necessary to be established. namely: (1) the persistence of an actual rebellion; and (2) that public safety requires the extension of martial law. The factum probans or the evidentiary fact is that there were, in fact violent incidents that occurred.
Issue: Whether the extension of martial law was proper.
Factum probandum:
The persistence of an actual rebellion.
That public safety requires the extension of martial law.
Factum proban: There were, in fact, violent incidents that occurred.
Mario allegedly stole the diamond ring of Maria in her jewelry store. In case of theft, the factum probandum or ultimate fact needed to be proven is that Mario unlawfully took the diamond ring of Maria. The factum probans or the evidentiary facts in order to prove the ultimate fact is either a testimony from a witness or a surveillance footage that affirms that Mario “as the only person inside Maria’s jewelry store at the alleged time of theft.”
Issue: Whether Mario unlawfully took the diamond ring of Maria (theft).
Factum probandum: Mario unlawfully took the diamond ring of Maria.
Factum proban: Testimony from a witness or surveillance footage showing Mario as the only person inside Maria’s jewelry store at the alleged time of theft.
Mario allegedly killed Maria by using his own gun. In case of murder/homicide, the factum probandum or ultimate fact needed to be proved is that it is indeed Mario who killed Maria. The factum probans or the evidentiary fact in order to prove the ultimate fact is either the presence of fingerprints of Mario on the gun used in the murder or that the gun is found in the possession and under the ownership of Mario.
Issue: Whether Mario killed Maria using his own gun (murder/homicide).
Factum probandum: Mario killed Maria.
Factum proban: Presence of Mario's fingerprints on the gun used in the murder or evidence that the gun is found in Mario's possession and under his ownership.
1.5 Liberal Interpretation of Rules on Evidence
Section 6, Rule 122 provides that the Rules of Court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive deposition of every action and proceeding.
The liberal construction of the Rules of Court is resorted to only to promote substantial justice, not to delay or undermine legal processes.
The Rules are designed to assure the orderly and predictable course of justice.
Unduly relaxing them would be an injustice to the innocent parties who honor and obey them, and unfairly reward those who neglect or fail to follow them.
1.6 Classification of Evidence
As to Form: ODT
Object or Real Evidence
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
Documentary Evidence
Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures. drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial evidence is that which is submitted to the coun through the testimony or deposition of a witness."
Note: Deposition is a mode of discovery.
Other Classifications of Evidence: RM-DC-CC-PC-OS-NP
Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is evidence that has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
It must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Material Evidence
Material evidence is evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings.
Direct Evidence
Direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.
Such evidence is founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
There is more than one circumstance;
The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Cumulative Evidence
Cumulative evidence is evidence of the same kind and to the same state of facts.
Corroborative Evidence
Corroborative evidence is additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.
Prima Facie Evidence
Prima facie evidence is evidence which is good and sufficient on its face.
Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact or the group or chain of facts constituting the party’s claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.
Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence.
Conclusive Evidence
Conclusive evidence is that class of evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.
Original/Best Evidence
Original document rule (formerly the Best Evidence Rule) provides that no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record.
It is that evidence which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
It is also known as primary evidence.
Secondary Evidence
When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
It is that evidence which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available.
It is also called substitutionary evidence.
Negative Evidence
It is considered negative evidence when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact.
Positive Evidence
lt is considered positive evidence when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.
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.
2.1 Scope of the Rules on Evidence
General Rule:
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.
Pursuant to section 1 of this Rule, the rules of evidence are specifically applicable only to judicial proceedings.
Exception: as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
Note:
Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that it shall apply to:
criminal and civil actions and proceeding
quasi-judicial and administrative cases
2.2 When Rules of Evidence Will Not Apply
Except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient, these Rules shall not apply to: NICLE-AL
Election Cases;
Land Registration Cases;
Cadastral Proceedings;
Naturalization Proceedings;
Insolvency Proceedings;
Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies and the Supreme Court (SC) has allowed cases to be decided on the basis of position papers and other documents without necessarily resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in the regular courts of justice.
Article 227 of the Labor Code provides that labor tribunals are not bound by technical rules of evidence, and they may use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case without regard to technicalities of law and procedure.
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence.
Evidence is admissible
when it is relevant to the issue
and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.
3.1 Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all.
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.
Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all.
Probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
3.2 Requisites for Admissibility
Evidence is admissible when:
It is relevant to the issue. (Relevancy)
Relevant evidence are those that has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non existence.
Illustration:
For a case of homicide filed by Maria against Mario, the copies and entries of the log-book of the employees who reported for work on the day of the incident is considered as relevant evidence to show that Mario, did not report for work on the day of the alleged killing of the victim.
Not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. (Competency)
Competent evidence are those generally admissible evidence.
It should not be excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.
Illustration:
❌ The video recording in the cellular phone of Juan is not competent evidence since the cellular phone was suddenly confiscated by police officers, as such the same is considered illegally obtained evidence, hence incompetent evidence.
3.3 Rules on Admissibility
There are certain doctrines or rules of admissibility which have been sanctioned by the Supreme Court and discussed by some authors: CMC
Conditional Admissibility
Multiple Admissibility
Curative Admissibility
Conditional Admissibility
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it relates to the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be stricken out.
It also refers to the evidentiary rule that when a piece of evidence is not itself admissible, but is admissible if certain other facts make it relevant, the evidence becomes admissible on condition that counsel later introduce the connecting facts.
Multiple Admissibility
Where 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 satisfies all the requirements of law for its admissibility therefor.
The evidentiary rule that although a piece of evidence is inadmissible under one rule for the purpose given in offering it, it is nevertheless admissible if relevant and offered for some other purpose not forbidden by the rules of evidence.
Curative Admissibility
This doctrine treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse patties.
What should determine the application of the rule are whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to, and whether regardless of the objections, admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.
This rule states that an inadmissible piece of evidence may be admitted if offered to cure or counteract the effect of some similar piece of the opponent's evidence that itself should not have been admitted.
It is sometimes said that, if irrelevant evidence is adduced by one party, his opponent may seek to dispel its effect by calling irrelevant evidence himself.
Whichever the position may be in certain American jurisdictions, this principle (which Wigmore described as one of ‘curative admissibility’) is not recognized by the English courts.
3.4 Exclusionary Rule
Any evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”).
Example:
A murder weapon is inadmissible if the map showing its location and used to find it was seized during an illegal search.
Exclusionary rule excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person's constitutional rights.
Purpose: The deterrence of unreasonable searches and seizures is a major purpose of the exclusionary rule.
But the rule serves other purposes as well.
The imperative of judicial integrity, namely, that the courts do not become ‘accomplices in willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.’
Assuring the people — all potential victims of unlawful government conduct — that the government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in the government.
Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.
Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is “the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
It ensures that the fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
Exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement in engaging in fishing expeditions, and ultimately, protect the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
3.5 Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution
The exclusionary rule is enunciated under Section 3 (2), Article lll of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
Section 3 (2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
This must be read in relation to Section 2, Article III, which provides:
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.
Simply put the exclusionary rule tells that any evidence obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional right �ainst warrantless search and seizures and warrantless arrests, the same shall be inadmissible in court.
Further, the provision excludes “any evidence” obtained in transgression of the privacy of communication or correspondence and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures evinces the intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution not to limit the exclusionary rule only to evidence directly obtained in violation of those rights.
So long as the evidence sought to be presented is fairly traceable to the illegal search or seizure or the intrusion into privacy, then the same must be excluded.
Indeed, no restrictions or limitations should be read into the law where there are none; especially so when what is at stake are fundamental liberties, such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Note:
It is elementary that the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article Ill of the Constitution only applies as a restraint against the State and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals, save for instances where such individuals are shown to have acted under the color of a state-related function.
3.6 Exclusionary Rules Under the Statutes
R.A. 9165 — Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Section 21 of RA 9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of evidence.
It details the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered drugs, thus:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. —
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs ,plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours.
In connection to this, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provides in part:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/ or Laboratory Equipment. —
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as confiscated, instruments/ paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
R.A. 4200 — Wiretapping Act
General Rule:
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise described.
It shall be unlawful for any person:
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire, record, disc record, or any other such record or copies thereof of any communication or spoken word secured xxx in the manner prohibited by this law; or
to replay the same for any other person or persons; or
to communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial to any other person.
Exceptions:
Any peace officer authorized by a written order of the Court to execute any of the acts declared unlawful in two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of: TEP-PM-RCI-SCI-KV
treason,
espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy,
mutiny in the high seas,
rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion,
sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security.
Thus. any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents. substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
R.A. 9995 — Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism:
Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
R.A. 7438 — Acts Defining the Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the: PES-MJSP
parents,
elder brothers and sisters,
his spouse,
the municipal mayor,
the municipal judge,
district school supervisor, or
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997
An instrument document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
R.A. 9745 — Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture.
R.A. 11479 — Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
The use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9745 otherwise known as the "Anti-Torture Act of 2009," at any time during the investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited and shall be penalized under said law.
Any evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such treatment shall be, in its entirely, inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall be inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras
Failure to observe the requirement of using body worn cameras or alternative recording devices, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.
3.7 Two Ways of Excluding Inadmissible Evidence
There are two ways of excluding inadmissible evidence.
One is by objection and the other is by a motion to strike out.
Time of Objection:
Oral evidence is objected to after its express formal offer before the witness testifies.
When thereafter the witness is allowed to testify, objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
Documentary and object evidence are objected to upon their formal offer after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
Failure to seasonably object to offered evidence amounts to a waiver of the grounds for objection.
The rules of exclusion are not self-operating.
They must be properly invoked.
Note:
The grounds for objection must be specified.
Examples:
"Objection, hearsay!"
"Objection, irrelevant!"
Grounds not raised are deemed waived.
However, repetition of objection is unnecessary when a continuing objection is properly made.
Objection to the purpose for which evidence is offered is not proper.
A Motion to Strike Out Answer or Testimony is proper in the following instances: PIU-AUU
The witness answers prematurely.
The answer is incompetent, irrelevant or improper.
The incompetency referred to here is limited to the incompetency of the witness to answer the question posed; it does not extend to the general concept of incompetency of evidence for being excluded by law or the Rules.
The answer given is unresponsive.
The ground for objection was not apparent when the question was asked.
Uncompleted testimony.
Unfulfilled condition in conditionally admitted testimony.
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 decree
to establish the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue.
4.1 Collateral Matters.
Any matter on which evidence could not have been introduced for a relevant purpose.
4.2 Evidence on Collateral Matters
General Rule:
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed.
Exception:
When it tends in any “reasonable decree” to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Illustrations:
Mario is being accused of the crime of robbery in a bank. Maria who is the eyewitness of the crime testified that while she was walking near the bank, she saw that the height and built of the accused matched Mario, coming and running out of the dark place where the crime was committed. During the trial, the defense seeks to introduce a medical certificate showing that Mario has sprain on the time and day when the alleged crime was committed. As a rule, the medical condition could be considered as a collateral matter. and is not allowed. While it does not directly pertain to whether Mario actually committed the robbery, the medical condition could be relevant to the probability or improbability on the identification of Mario as the accused, then the said collateral matter may be allowed.
Maria was the cashier-on-duty when a robbery took place. She testified that she was able to identify Mario who robbed the store. During trial, the defense presented that based on previous testimony of Maria, she has a history of making false identifications. As a rule, the evidence that Maria has a history of making false identification could be considered as a collateral matter, and is not allowed. However, since such evidence will tend to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue as to whether Mario is the robber the collateral matter may be allowed.
Mario was charged with the crime of theft for unlawfully taking a diamond ring from a jewelry store. During the presentation of evidence, the defense seeks to present a prior criminal record of Mario for unjust vexation. Here, the prior criminal record of Mario is a collateral matter and may not be allowed.
4.3 Proper Presentation of Evidence
Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain processes of presentation for its admissibility and admission.
Object or Real Evidence MI
Object evidence must generally be marked either during the pre-trial or during its presentation at the trial.
It must also be identified as the object evidence it is claimed to be
This requires a testimonial sponsor.
Testimonial Evidence FS
It is presented through the testimony of a witness.
It must be formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify.
Objections may then be raised against the testimony of the witness.
If the objection is valid, as when the witness' testimony is barred by the hearsay rule or the opinion rule, the witness will not be allowed to testify.
If the witness is otherwise allowed to testify, he shall be sworn in either by taking an oath or making an affirmation.
It is essential that the proper foundation for the testimony of a witness must be laid.
Documentary Evidence MIAF
Documentary Evidence is:
marked;
identified as the document which it is claimed to be;
Example:
When the witness asserts that the document presented to him is the same contract which he claims was executed between the two parties.
authenticated, if a private document by proving its due execution and genuineness: and
formally offered after all the proponent’s witnesses have testified.
Comments
Post a Comment