EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE b. That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
some specific rule forbids them (AXIOM OF COMPETENCE)
A. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE v. PROBATIVE VALUE
When to determine admissibility of evidence
Admissibility of evidence  refers to the question of whether or not the
circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all a. At the time it is OFFERED to the court
b. In case of OBJECT EVIDENCE, when it is presented in court for its
Probative value of evidence  refers to the question of whether or not it viewing or evaluation
proves an issue c. In case of TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, at the time the witness is
called on the witness stand
Note: d. In case of DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, when it is formally offered
o A particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary and before resting of the case
weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided
by the rules on evidence Objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first
o Admissibility is one thing, weight is another time on appeal
o To admit evidence and not to believe it are not incompatible with
each other o When a party desires the court ton reject the evidence offered, he
o The admissibility of the evidence depends on its RELEVANCE and must so state in the form of objection
COMPETENCE o Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time
o The weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to persuade on appeal
o For preservation of integrity and evidentiary value

B. ADMISSIBILTY OF EVIDENCE v. CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Objection on the admissibility of evidence on the basis of Statute of
Fraud must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
Admissibility of evidence  refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow
the evidence o May be waived if not timely raised

Credibility of evidence  refers to the worthiness of belief of the evidence Objection not made deemed waived

C. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY o Objection against the admission of any piece of evidence must be
made at the proper time or else deemed waived
SEC. 3, RULE 128  Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by law or these rules
D. RELEVANCY
For evidence to be admissible, 2 requisites MUST CONCUR:
Test for determining the relevancy of evidence
a. The evidence is relevant
b. The evidence is competent or is not excluded by law or these rules o Because of the definition of relevant evidence under Section 4, Rule
128, it is obvious that relevance is a matter of relationship between
Wigmore’s 2 axioms of admissibility: the evidence and the fact in issue
o The determination of relevance is, thus, a matter of inference and not
a. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible of law
(AXIOM OF RELEVANCE) o The test is therefore one of LOGIC, COMMON SENSE and
EXPERIENCE

1
EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA
o The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the
offered evidence is one that is perceive only by the mind without
reference to a statute or rule
o Relevancy is largely at the discretion of the court
Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a witness
o In every proceeding, the credibility of the witness is always an issue
because it has the inherent tendency to prove or disprove
truthfulness of his assertion and consequently, the probative value of
the proffered evidence
o Every type of evidence sought to be admitted requires the testimony
of a witness who shall identify, testify, and affirm or deny the
authenticity of the evidence
o When the credibility of the sponsoring witness is found wanting, Sec.
11, Rule 132 authorizes his impeachment by contradictory evidence
(evidence that he has made statements inconsistent with the present
testimony)
o In the assessment of the testimonies of the witnesses, the Court is
guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must also be
credible in itself
CROSS-EXAMINATION  the process of allowing the adverse party to test
the credibility of a witness;
SEC. 6, RULE 132  A witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
NOT only on matters taken up in the direct examination
Instances where the questions of the cross-examiner are circumscribed
by the matters taken up in the direct examination (thus, questions
outside the subject matter of the direct examination are NOT allowed):
o An accused may testify as a witness on his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination (SEC.
1(D), RULE 115)
o A hostile witness may be impeached and cross-examined by the
adverse party, but such examination must only be on the subject
matter of his examination-in-chief
E. KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY
1. Conditional
o Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to
be immaterial of irrelevant, unless it is connected with
the other facts to be subsequently proved
o Such evidence may be received on condition that the
other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the
evidence already given will be stricken out
2. Multiple
o Where the evidence is relevant and competent for 2 or
more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for
any or all the purposes for which it is offered
o Provided, that it satisfies all the requirements of law for
its admissibility
o EXAMPLE  oral statement of a dying person may be
treated as a dying declaration if such person dies,
otherwise, it will be considered as part of res gestae
o Purpose of the evidence must be specified to
determine if it is for several purposes
 Because such evidence may be admissible
for several purposes under the DOCTRINE
OF MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILTY
 Or may be admissible for one purpose and not
for another, otherwise the adverse party
cannot interpose the proper objection
 Evidence admitted for one purpose may
not be considered for any other purpose
o EXAMPLE  An extrajudicial statement of a robbery
suspect is not admissible against his co-accused but
may be admissible against the declarant himself as an
admission pursuant to SEC. 26, RULE 130
3. Curative
o DOCTRINE OF 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 party
 This doctrine should NOT be invoked if
evidence was properly admitted
o It is allowed to answer the inadmissible evidence
o The incompetent evidence presented to by the adverse
party must be objected to by the party who will be
presenting rebutting incompetent evidence
o A party who first introduces either irrelevant or
incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of
2
EVIDENCE | JUDGE SIA

the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the

adverse party relating to the same subject matter
o EXAMPLE  In an action for damages arising from a
car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the
defendant, was allowed to introduce evidence to show
that, on several occasions, the defendant, in the past
had injured pedestrians because of his negligence
 the evidence was offered to prove the
defendant’s propensity for negligence
 under the rules, this kind of evidence is
admissible because evidence that a
person did a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he did the
same thing to another
 if we were to follow the concept of curative
admissibility, the court may be asked to give
the defendant the chance to contradict or
explain his alleged past acts and to show
evidence of his past acts of diligence to
counteract the prejudice which the improperly
admitted evidence may have caused
o If hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is
erroneously admitted despite objection, the court
should allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same
defendant (in curative)

Requisites of curative admissibility:

a. Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to

b. Whether, regardless of the objection, the admission of such evidence
will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it
was admitted

3 theories of curative admissibility

1. American Rule – the admission of incompetent evidence without

objection by the opponent, does not justify rebutting it by similar
incompetent evidence
2. English rule – if inadmissible evidence is admitted, the adverse
party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence
3. Massachusetts rule – similar incompetent evidence may be
admitted in order to avoid a plain and unfair prejudice caused by the
admission of the other party’s evidence