Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Kwin
December 7, 2010 Why? Why do rules of court for that matter not applicable in
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS these specific kinds of cases even if these cases are judicial
A. EVIDENCE AS DEFINED BY THE REVISED RULES ON in nature?
EVIDENCE The reason there is that these specific types of judicial
The rules of evidence is just a small segment of the entire proceedings are governed by their own specific rules of
remedial law on the subject to the bar particularly the rules procedure.
of evidence which are very new provisions of the rules of
court; 128 129, 130, 131, 132 and 133. All these rules But the rules of court including the rules of evidence are not
comprise evidence as a subject. totally inapplicable. Because by virtue of sec 4 rule 1, it says
there that the rules of court including the rules of evidence
Evidence. The rule defines evidence as a means of apply by analogy or in a suppletory character whenever
ascertaining in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a practicable or convenient.
matter of fact.
When does suppletory application apply?
Form the definition, I’d like you to pay particular attention to The rule is that the controversy or cases filed or governed by
the following points, elements. the specific types of proceedings; they are governed by their
Take note the that evidence is just a means; just a tool to an specific rules and procedure. But sometimes there may
end; to an ultimate purpose. And the ultimate purpose is the questions or issues that may arise in the course of these
ascertainment of the fact which is an issue of the case. It is proceedings where their own rules of procedures are silent
not an end it is just a means. The end there is the proof. on the matter. When these happens the rules of court
including the rules of evidence come to the rescue. There
B. EVIDENCE AND PROOF lies the suppletory application if the rules of court including
So do not confuse evidence with proof although to layman, the rules of evidence. But as a general rule, they are not
they are interchangeable, but for us lawyers, technically governed by the rules of court and the rules of evidence.
evidence has to distinguished from proof.
Because evidence is just a means and proof is just the end
result of evidence. But you cannot equate evidence with
proof. It does not follow that if you have evidence, you have Second, since the rules specifically provide that the rules of
proof. Because before evidence can produce proof, evidence evidence apply only to judicial proceedings, it follows just as
has to go through some tests. clearly that the rules of evidence do not apply to non judicial
It is an erroneous thinking that because you already have proceedings. But again this is not an accurate statement
evidence, you automatically have proof. You may have because you have to distinguish 2 things.
evidence, but that evidence does not prove anything. When it comes to non judicial proceedings or proceedings in
bodies other than courts, their proceedings or cases filed
So it is a means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING before them are also governed by their own rules of
Take note the rules of evidence apply only in judicial procedure. So every quasi judicial or administrative bodies
proceedings. So when we talk about evidence, what comes have own rules of procedure governing cases filed and
to mind is a judicial proceedings. That’s the general rule, pending before them. So their proceedings should be
specifically the rules of evidence intended to govern cases or governed by their own respective rules of procedure.
controversies filed and pending before judicial bodies.
But two things may happen.
We have EXCEPTIONS. One, their own rules of procedure may expressly provide that
Number one, while the rule says that the rules of evidence their own rules of court including the rules on evidence may
should be uniform in all cause, Rule 1 sec 4 expressly apply in suppletory character. In which case, the general rule
provides that the rules of court including the rules of is in non judicial proceedings, the rules of court and the
evidence do not apply to the following specific cases: rules on evidence do not apply except in suppletory
1. election cases character. Why? Because theoir own rules of procedure say
2. naturalization cases so.
3. land registration cases Or it could also happen that their own rules of procedure
4. cadastral cases expressly forbid the application of the rules on evidence
5. insolvency cases even in suppletory character. This is illustrated in the case of
Reyes vs Court of Appeals.
Reyes involved a dispute filed and pending in an agrarian
court. So this is an agrarian case. When the case went all
the way up to SC, one of the issues raised by the petitioner
For example, in a prosecution fro reckless imprudence Example. In an action for collection of sum of money, P/N is
resulting in homicide, the prosecutor intends to prove that presented as an actionable document. An actionable
at the time of the incident, the driver was drunk. So for document is a document upon which the action is based. So
those purpose, the prosecutor presented a witness to testify the rule there is, you have to attach the actionable
that few minutes, he was with the accused in a party and document with the complaint. On the part of the defendant,
during the party they had this drinking session and the the defendant is required to admit or deny the allegations in
accused got drunk. That would be the testimony of the the complaint. If he admits, he should state such. In the
witness. other hand, if he denies the allegation, there are three ways
Is the testimony of the witness as to the fact that the accused of the denying the allegations in the complaint:
was drunk relevant? 1. denies it specifically and state what he believes to be the
Yes. As I said the test there is logic, common sense or human truth
experience. 2. denies the allegation of the complaint for lack of sufficient
So the court now should be concerned about these questions. information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
Is it logical that if the driver was drunk, he probably was at allegation
fault resulting with the accident? Is it consistent with 3. a special requirement-the rule when the defendant denies
common sense that when the driver was drunk, he was at the genuineness or due execution of the actionable
fault and therefore he caused the accident? Or is it document is that the denial should be under oath
consistent with human experience that the driver who was
drunk probably was guilty of fault resulting in the accident? Take note that as a general rule, an answer need not be
Logic, common sense and human experience would tell us verified. The defendant filing the answer need not file his
that a person who is drunk has a diminished capacity. And answer under oath. Unless the rules expressly provides or
therefore it is logical, it is consistent with common sense requires that the pleading should be under oath or verified
and human experience that the driver who was drunk at the as in the cases of summary procedure.
time of the incident probably was at fault. IOW based on
loigic, based on common sense and human experience, we Supposed the defendant in an action for collection of sum of
can now determine that the testimony of the witness who money did not deny the genuineness and due execution of a
would establish that the driver was drunk at the time of the promissory note appending to the complaint. The result
incident is relevant. It’s all those reason. there is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due
execution of the actionable document. Fast forward. The
On the other hand, in order to prove that the driver was at defendant presented the evidence consisting of a report of
fault at the time of the incident, the prosecutor would an NBI expert tending to prove that the P/N is a forgery. Is
present a witness who would testify that the driver was the report of the NBI or the testimony of the NBI expert
indebted to him a day before. Ah that’s irrelevant! The fact relevant?
that the driver made a loan to him a day before has nothing YES. It is relevant because it is connection to the fact in issue
to do with the incident. Our logic, common sense and – WON the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.
human experience will tell us that it has no rational The fact that a promissory note is a forgery, it tends to prove
connection at all to the fact that the driver was at fault or disprove the fact in issues.
which is the fact in issue of the case.
But is it material?
So that’s how to determine if the evidence is relevant or not. NO. It is not because when the defendant failed to deny the
genuineness and due execution of the P/N under oath, the
When is evidence MATERIAL? result there is he is deemed to have admitted the
When an evidence is material it simply means that the genuineness and due execution. Therefore he cannot later
evidence is directed to prove a fact in issue. on present evidence to prove that the document was a
forgery because forgery was incompatible with genuineness
Take note that the ultimate purpose of evidence is to prove and due execution which he already admitted and failed to
or disprove a fact in issue. So that if the evidence if the deny under oath.
evidence is presented to prove a fact which is not an issue,
the evidence is immaterial. You are supposed to present an So therefore, forgery of the document is not an issue of the
evidence to prove or disprove a fact in issue. So that if it is case and therefore any evidence tending to prove the fact of
not a fact in issue, that evidence is immaterial. forgery is immaterial because in the first place in no longer
an issue.
If the other party alleges and the other party admits it, there
is no factual issue. It is only when there is a denial of the
allegation of the plaintiff that there is a JOINDER OF ISSUE.
That determines the fact in issue in a particular case.
But is it material?
NO. Because in his answer he merely denied having
obtained a loan from the plaintiff. There was no issue at all
about payment. Because what is there to pay if the
defendants denied having obtained a loan. so if an
acknowledgment receipt is presented to prove that payment
is already made, that while relevant is material. Because it is
directed to prove a fact which is not an issue in the case.
COMPETENCY
An evidence is competent it is not excluded by the rules. So
while relevancy is governed by logic, common sense and
human experience, competency is simply governed by the
rules. So when confronted by the issue of WON the evidence
is competent, the only concern is whether there is specific
rule in law that specifically excludes it from admission. If
there is none, the generally the evidence is admissible. OW
it is deemed incompetent and therefore inadmissible.
II. ADMISIBILITY OF EVIDENCE So if it is admitted, the court is now enjoined to consider it.
How does evidence serve its purpose as a means of What happens after the stage of admissibility?
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a You have now new evidence duly accepted by the court
matter of fact? because it passes through the stage of admissibility, it will
Before an evidence could effectively serve its purpose, it now go through the second stage and this is now the
needs to pass through two essential tests. province of weight and sufficiency.
1. test of admissibility
2. test of weight and sufficiency What happens during this stage?
The court now evaluates the evidence and determines if the
These are two stages and for an evidence to serve evidence which it had already admitted is sufficient whether
effectively it s purpose, it should pass through both tests. the evidence is enough to support or establish the
IOW even if the evidence is admissible because it passed proposition sought to be proved or whether the evidence is
through the tests of admissibility, it will not serve its believable, trustworthy. So that if it is sufficient, credible,
purpose effectively if it will not pass through the test of believable, then the court will give it credence and the court
weight and sufficiency. Even if the evidence is admissible will consider it in the resolution of the case. OW if your
because it passes the test of admissibility doesn’t mean that evidence does not pass through weight and sufficiency
it automatically passes the test of weight and sufficiency. because although it has been admitted, it is not sufficient.
You may have your evidence admitted by the court but it Or although it has been admitted the curt disbelieves it
doesn’t follow that the court will give it credence and because the court upon evaluation of the evidence believe
consider it in the resolution of the case. that the evidence is not credible because the witness has
been established in court to having lied in his testimony. So
What do you achieve when evidence is admitted by the the court will now determining that while the evidence has
court? already been admitted is not believable. So if your evidence
Take note in the actual trial evidence should be PRESENTED is not believable, then it will not be considered by the court
in court. It should be FORMALLY OFFERED in court. When I as effectively having proved the proposition sought to be
say formally offered in court, it should be SYBMITTED TO established.
THE COURT and it should be OFFERED for the purposed for
which it is being intended. So you have to distinguish the rules of admissibility from the
rule of weight and sufficiency. Weight and sufficiency will be
Even if your evidence forms part of the records of the case the topic that we will discuss as we go along. We are now on
because it is physically attached to the records, if it is not admissibility.
formally offered, then it is not admitted by the court. And if
it is not admitted by the court, the court will not consider it
in the resolution of the case. A. RULE 128, SECS 1-4
So the first step then is that you need to formally offer the When may evidence be admissible?
evidence in the court. This requires the test of admissibility. Under rule 128…
Suppose your evidence passes the test of admissibility, what B. TWO AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY
do you actually achieve when the evidence is admitted by
the court? BTW, evidence is admissible when it is relevant and
You offer you evidence formally to the court and because it competent. These are expressed in the axioms of
passes through the test of admissibility, the court accepts it. admissibility of Wigmore which says that first, facts having
What you only achieve when the evidence is admitted is the rational probative value are relevant. This is the axiom of
COURT now is OBLIGED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE in the RELEVANCY. And second, all facts having rational probative
resolution of the case. value are admissible unless some specific rules forbid it. This
is the axiom of COMPETENCE.
On the other hand, if the evidence is formally offered but not
admitted by the court; it is excluded by the court because it
does not pass through the test of admissibility, your
evidence even if it is submitted physically to the court, even
if forms part of the records of the case, the court is enjoined
How does curative admissibility principle work? The sources of these exclusionary rules could be the
Under this principle, the adverse party against whom the constitution, the legislation or the special laws and the rules
evidence was admitted, although inadmissible, is also of court.
entitled to present an equally inadmissible evidence just to
controvert the evidence admitted by the party and which 2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
was erroneously admitted by the court.
The exclusionary rules under the constitution relate to the bill
For example, in an action for collection of sums of money, in of rights enumerated in art 3 of the constitution.
support of his allegation that the defendant is indebted to 1. exclusionary rule in relation to person’s constitutional right
the plaintiff, the plaintiff offered in court a photocopy of the against unreasonable search and seizure.
P/N. the beast evidence rule says that a photocopy is 2. exclusionary rule in relation to person’s constitutional right
inadmissible without accounting for the original. Yet despite available during custodial investigation
the objection of the defendant, the court admitted its 3. exclusionary rule in relation to person’s constitutional right
admission. The defendant now has a right to present a to privacy and inviolability of communication
photocopy of an acknowledgement receipt tending to prove 4. exclusionary rule in relation to person’s constitutional right
that the obligation sued upon has already been extinguished against self incrimination
by payment. The court is obliged to admit the photocopy of
the acknowledgment receipt even he failed to account for RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
the original under the principle of curative admissibility. The principle there is search and seizure can only be validly
conducted when there is a validly issued search warrant. But
Take note that this principle of curative admissibility applies there are recognized exceptions where search and seizure
only if the party against whom the otherwise inadmissible may be recognized even without valid warrant:
evidence is presented objects to its presentation and 1. search incident to lawful arrest
admission. Objections to admissibility of evidence are not 2. search under plain view doctrine
self executing provisions. They have to be invoked in order 3.search in moving vehicle
to work in favor of the party entitled to invoke. 4. custom search
5. search with consent
Failure to object results in a waiver so that you cannot, having 6. airport search
failed to object, having waived that right to object, you 7. stop and frisk search
cannot later on complain. So curative admissibility will apply
only if there is objection and despite such objection, the I’ll call your attention specifically to search incident to a
court admitted the OW inadmissible evidence nonetheless. lawful arrest.
SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST presupposes the
That’s the first component of admissibility, RELEVANCY situation where the person searched has been first arrested.
As the name suggests, the search is just an incident to an
arrest. The lawful arrest contemplated there is a lawful
warrantless arrest.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION So that if you sue the police officer for violating your right,
You take care of that. there’s abuse on the execution of the search warrant –
excessive force. Under your criminal law, that constitutes as
RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION a criminal offense – employing unreasonable force in
Basic principle on this right is that it applies and this can be implementing search warrant. The person aggrieved may file
invoked in all proceeding; criminal, civil or administrative. a criminal case against the police officer. The prosecution
The only distinction there is if it is criminal or administrative now may present evidence against the seized items as
proceedings penal in nature, the person under investigation evidence on the criminal prosecution against the police.
can altogether refuse to take the witness stand. The reason That is admissible because it is offered against the police,
is because if the accused is called to the witness stand by the not the person whose right has been violated. So disabuse
prosecution, the presumption there is that the prosecutor you mind of the erroneous notion of the phrase there in the
will really have to prosecute the accused. So the moment constitution that says – inadmissible for any purpose in any
the accused is called to the witness stand, he may altogether proceeding holds as an absolute principle. It is NOT. the
refuse because it is for no other purpose that to incriminate principle there is – in so long as the it is presented against
him. the person whose right is violated. Because precisely, thatis
Any evidence obtained in violation of the provision of the anti (F.) RA 9262 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
wire tapping act is inadmissible. We have the so called sexual abuse shield rule.
Take note of the relevant jurisprudence of this act. It says there that in any criminal prosecution involving child
and sexual abuse, evidence which would tend to prove that
In the case of Gaanan v. IAC 145 SCRA 112 (1986), it says the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence that
there that an extension line is not covered under the would tend to prove the victim’s sexual predisposition are
wiretapping act so that if a private conversation is overheard not admissible; except evidence of specific sexual conduct of
by a third party using an extension of a telephone line, that the victim to prove that the person other than the accuse it
evidence is admissible. Because according to SC, an the source of the semen, injury or other physical evidence.
extension line is not among the devises contemplated by law
as being prohibited to record or intercept conversation Take note that under these rules, this can be invoke only in a
under the wire tapping act. criminal prosecution for rape, insofar as rape shield rule;
and in criminal prosecution for child abuse case, insofar as
Second, Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995), the prohibition sexual abuse shield rule. So both are criminal prosecutions.
covers recorded conversation even if the party violating the
provision is one of the parties to the conversation. Take not (B.) RA 1405 LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
that while they had this altercation, the other party allegedly This is the act requiring the secrecy of bank deposits.
defamed, maligned the other, not knowing that the Generally, inquiring into or disclosure of information
conversation was recorded by the other, he is prosecuted regarding bank deposits are prohibited. Any information
for violation of anti wire taping act, the accused raised the obtained in violation is inadmissible.
defense that he cannot be punished because he is a party to
the conversation being recorded. SC said the law does not You take note of the exceptions.
distinguish whether the party responsible for the violation is 1. impeachment
a party to the conversation or not. It can be anybody. The 2. bribery
only requirement is that the recording is done WITHOUT 3. when bank deposit is subject of litgation
THE CONSENT of the parties to the conversation. 4. regular audit allowed by the monetary board
Etc.
In People vs. Navarro GR No.121087 (1999), wiretapping act
applies only if the conversation is private this case involves a (G.) RA 9327 HUMAN SECURITY ACT
case for homicide when the police killed a reporter. The Let me go back to wiretapping act.
killing was preceded by an altercation between the police
and the reporter. Unknown to both, the companion of the Take note also the exception to the provisions of wiretapping
victim, also a reporter secretly recorded the altercation. One act; take not of the provisions of the human security act.
of the evidence presented by the prosecution was the
recorded altercation of the police and the victim. The The human security act allows the act of listening to,
accused objected, invoking anti wiretapping act. He was intercepting or recording of any communication,
rebutted by SC saying that in the first place, the altercation conversation or messages between
was not a private conversation. Although SC did not 1. persons who are members of judicially declared an
endeavor to define what is a private conversation, but outlawed association, organization or group of person.
according to Riano, common sense tells us that private 2. persons suspected or charged with a crime of terrorism or
conversation is a conversation which is not intended to be conspiracy to commit terrorism.
heard by another who is not a party to the conversation. In
this case, there were other persons present other than the So despite the prohibition of the wiretapping act, it is allowed
parties to the altercation. under the parameters in the human security act.
The interception, listening or recording under this act is done 4. HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE
only upon order of the court of appeals which order takes Evidence which is hearsay is inadmissible
effect 30 days, extendible to another 30 days.
5. OFFER OF COMPROMISES IN CIVIL CASE
So just review the provisions.
6. RES INTER ALIAS ACTA RULE
(A.) SEC 201TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997 The act of one cannot prejudice the other. Inadmissible.
Another exclusionary rule is sec 201 of internal revenue code.
These so called taxable documents; documents requiring the 7. RULE ON DISQUALIFAICATION OF WITNESSES
documentary stamp tax. common of these taxable There are witnesses who are disqualified from testifying. Like
documents are deed of conveyances involving real property, the wife is disqualified from testifying for the husband
sale or lease of real property, certificate of stocks, bonds, because of marital disqualification.
insurance policies, special power of attorney, will, bill of
lading, etc. look at the provisions. There are so many listed 8. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
as taxable documents. Testimony between lawyer and client, priest and penitent,
physician and patient. Inadmissible.
For purposes of presenting any of these documents, the
requirement is the required documentary stamp tax should There are so many under the rules of evidence providingfor
be paid. and these should be evidenced by the stamp exclusionary rule. Any evidence like these presented are
affixed or appended with the document with an indication deemed inadmissible.
that the stamp has been cancelled, usually with 2 parallel
lines ( to avoid recycling). If you present taxable documents,
you need to comply with the requirement of the
documentary stamp tax.