Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9



EVIDENCE medium of proof
Proof end result of evidence
Factum probans ultimate fact
Factum - evidentiary fact; the fact to be proved in court
Evidence must be Relevant and competent such a relation of fact in issue
Exclusionary rules:
1. constitution example: illegal search and seizure; violation of privacy and
2. statutes. Ex: ra 4200 anti wiretapping act
3. rules of court. Ex: collateral evidence rule; hearsay rule; improper character rule
4. sc issuances.
5. sc jurisprudence ex: Miranda warnings; fruit of the poisonous doctrine
Admissibility piece of evidence does not fall under a rule of exclusion;
weight of evidence
multiple admissibility
conditional admissibility
curative admissibility
made under oath
made in court
consist of matters of fact not opinion rule.
Facts Personally perceived
previous similar acts are not evidence
a person cannot be adversely affected by the acts of another.
Adversarial system the case is decided based on the evidence and arguments
presented by the lawyers. Judge is neutral and passive.

Sources of rules on evidence

1. consti
2. Rule 128-133
3. sec. 1 rule 115 rules of court
4. sc rules and circulars ex. Writ of Amparo, rule on evi cases
5. Statutes
6. jurisprudence

Sec. 3 rule 1. Covers all criminal and civil actions

Excluded cases. CLINEO
1. What facts must I prove for my cause of action or evidence to win my case?
Go to the substantive law to determine the facts needed to prove your case.
Review the rules of court on the weight and sufficiency of evidence.
2. what facts I need to prove without presenting evidence?
Judicial notice
Mandatory judicial notice
1. states
2. law of the nations
3. Admiralty
4. Political consti
5. Official acts of leg,
6. Laws of nature
7. Measure of time
8. geographical
Judicial notice may be mandated by statute.

Ordinances are not covered by mandatory judicial notice. Court is not required to do
if it has no access to them.

Discretionary judicial notice

1. Public knowledge
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration
3Out to be known by the judges because of their judicial functions
g.r. When in doubt the judge should receive evidence instead of taking judicial
test in determining whether apply certain judicial notice of certain facts:
1. whether fact is so notoriously known
Mere personal knowledge of the judge is not a judicial knowledge of the court.
Common knowledge
1. coming to the knowledge of man generally- knowledge came from experience
2. generally accepted of mankind as true and which are ready and unquestionable
demonstration scientific based
Information contained in Newspaper is hearsay
Motion for judicial notice must be allowed during the pretrial stage

Judicial admission there is no need for formal truth. It takes the place of evidence.
In criminal case they may be controverted.
It must be made by a party
Made in the same proceeding
Judicial made in court, pleading,
Extrajudicial out of court admissions.
1. contained in pleadings, papers
2. made in open court either by the counsel or the party himself

1. pleadings and papers
2. made in open court either by the counsel or the party himself
3. during the discovery stage
4. pretrial conference
5. In the course of trial
6. By adopting a 3rd partys declaration
Does not require proof and binding on the parties
It may only be contradicted by palpable mistake or there is no declaration is made
Effect of JA: admiisible as Original and substantive evidence of truth about the
statements made and the existence of the fact that they want to establish

Burden of proof duty to present evidence on the disputed facts necessary to

establish what is claimed or defense by the amount of evidence required by law
burden of persuasion convincing the trier of facts; it never shifts it is always with
the prosecution not with the defense.
burden of production it takes shifts as the trial progresses.
Presumptions known facts vs deduced fact; there must be proof of the known fact;
Conclusive binding on the parties cannot be rebutted; inference derived from a
known fact that cannot be overcome by a contrary evidence however strong
1. estoppel en pais - by his own

disputable presumptions satisfoactory if uncontradicted, but may may be
contradicted ad overcome by other evidence

testimony, documentary exhibits, demonstrative evidence circumstantial evidence

opponent may counter that evidence with the following:
1. opponent deny existence
2. explain a way the inference by showing that another influence is equally valid
3. establish rival facts that lead to the non-existence of the fact in issue.
Categories application of circumstantial evidence
1. to prove that the person did or did not do the certain act
How to prove
a. motive
2. to prove a human quality or condition. How to prove: character, emotion,
knowledge, belief, consciousness, intent, sanity, mental state, strength
3. Identity of persons things or animal
Means of proving: Opinion evidence by expert or ordinary witness
1. By way of introducing an expert or Opinions
2. Special marks or character unique to him or to that thing or animal
3. Showing of combination of marks or characteristics example: dna test, foot prints,
Used to prove facts which of an external nature. Likely to cause the occurrence of
the event;

4. facts or events of external nature

5. Value of real or personal property

Ways to prove the value of
1. introduce the testimony of experts who will give an opinion or appraisal of the

2. Market reports or pricelist

3. Introducing evidence of Sale of similar property in the open market
sale must be made between a willing seller and buyer
testimony of the owner on the true value of the property

evidence on motions:
if a motion is based on facts not part of the record,the movant must present
evidence on such facts.
If the motion is already based on facts that appear in the record there is no need to
present evidence to support the motion
What court must do: May either hear the matter on affidavits or depositions or
direct the parties to present their witness on the witness stand so they can be duly
Sec. 3 rule 15 read.

3. Who must establish the remaining facts that must be proved

4. What degree of proof is needed to establish this facts? What is probative value
Weight credit and value of the aggregate value on the . greater weight on evidence.
Evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.
Substantial evidence is not a license to disregard fundamental evidentiary rules.
While the rules in evidence in courts are not controlling in NLRC the evidence
presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility to be given some
probative value.
Circumstantial evidence 5. what available evidence is admissible to prove this facts?
Relevant, material and competent
Relevant if it has tendency to prove that fact exist in accordance with common
knowledge and experience

Material evidence if it is part of the issues joined in the case

Competent not excluded by the constitution, law or by the rules.
If evidence is obtained illegally: inadmissible
untimely objection is tantamount to a waiver of the right to question the
admissibility of the evidence.
Cross examine witness without any reservation may also be tantamount to waiver
Exclusionary rules:

Spousal disq it prevents spouse from becoming a witness against the outher
spouse; applies during marriage
Marital privilege they can testify but cannot reveal confidential communication;
applies during or after marriage
Protect the spouse from statements made in confidence to the other spouse and to
relieve the spouse to whom the communication is made or the obligation to reveal
them to the prejudice of the other sppoue or their marital relationship
When lawyer
1. client consents but his consent must come after a complete explanation of the
consequence of the disclosure
2. when it is required by law
3. when it is necessary to collect fees or to defend himself or his staff by judicial
4. When the client sues the lawyer when the disclosure is necessary for his

GR: Disclosure of cleints identity, the atty. Fees paid are not covered by privilege
1. strong probability exist that disclosing the clients name would implicate him in
the very activity for which he sought legal advice
2. disclosure will open client to civil liability

3. by the government lawyer has no case against the client and disclosure of his
identity by his counsel will furnish the only rate to implicate him to a crime
4. where clients name itself has an independent significance such that its disclosure
will reveal its client confidence

Clients name
Testimonial evidence, etc.
6. How do I get the evidence I need an preserve it for trial?

Extrajudicial fact investigation, judicial discovery perpetuation of testimony;

subpoena and search warrant

Inter alios acta rule

Extrajudicial is binding only upon the person who confesses and not with his coconspirators.
There has to be an idependent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to
prove the existence a conspiracy.
He should have performed an overt act:
1. active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself
Moral assistance to its co-conspirators by being present at the time of the
commission of the crime
Or asserting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators

Mere knowledge is not sufficient to constitute as a conspirator.

direct proof of a previous agreement need not be established for conspiracy may be
deduced from the act of the appellant pointing to a joint purpose concerted action
and community of interest
before a person can testify on the sanity he must show that the witness has
opportunity to observe that persons speech manner habit and conduct. It is
required that the witness details the factors and reasons on which he bases his
opinion before he can testify as to what his opinion is.

Ordinary witnesses who have come in contact and are familiar and was able to
observe the condition of an alleged mental retarded may testify and give opinion on
such mental condition.
Trial court may make its own observstion or examination.
Character evidence
In criminal case: Prosecution cannot present evidence of accuseds bad moral
character u nless the defendant presents an evidence of his good moral character
The good or bad moral character of an offended party is allowed if it tends to
establish in a reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
if your purpose in presenting similar acts is to prove that one did or did not do a the
same act at another time that is inadmissible
but if your purpose is to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like that is allowed or admitted

7. How do I present and offer my evidence in court?