2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC PDF

Preview

Summary

2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC) BY: HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH Associate Justice, Court of Appeals Remedial Law Examiner, 2019 Bar Examination Remedial Law Department and Civil Law Department, Philippine Judicial Academy ASSISTED BY: ATTY. CANDICE BACABAC Ov...

Description

2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC) BY:

HON. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH Associate Justice, Court of Appeals Remedial Law Examiner, 2019 Bar Examination Remedial Law Department and Civil Law Department, Philippine Judicial Academy ASSISTED BY: ATTY. CANDICE BACABAC

Overview of Amendments •

Acknowledged technological advances, and incorporated developments in law, jurisprudence and international conventions.

•

New/Deleted/Renumbered provisions

•

Amendments for gender inclusivity

RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence Old Provision

Revised Provision

Evidence is admissible when it is Evidence is admissible when relevant relevant to the issue and is not excluded to the issue and not excluded by the by law or these rules. (3a) Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a)

Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence • Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has 'rational probative value' to the issue in controversy. Logic and human experience teach us that OCULAR INSPECTION (NOT the Certificate of Registration, development permit, license to sell, building permit, and Condominium Certificate of Title) is the best evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of condominium units. (OCA v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-072076, October 18, 2010) • Competent Evidence Competent evidence is evidence that is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the rules. Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. Testimony of one of the parties to the marriage, or one of the witnesses to the marriage, or the solemnizing officer, are admissible to prove the fact of marriage. xxx the best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract itself. (Uy v. Spouses Lacsamana, G. R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015)

Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence Relevant + Competent = Admissible Admissibility of Evidence is NOT Weight of Evidence (RULE 133) “The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.” (Mancol, Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204289, November 22, 2017, citing Dela Liana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013) "Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue." (Id., citing Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumapis, et al., G.R. No. 163210, August 13, 2008) "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.” (Id., citing De Guzman v. Tumolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011)

RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory Old Provision

Revised Provision

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

The phrase “national government of the Philippines” clarifies that the official acts referred to in the provision are those of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the national government of the Philippines. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public records on file in the same court. Since a copy of the tax declaration, which is a public record, was attached to the complaint, the same document is already considered as on file with the court, thus, the court can now take judicial notice of such. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 205966, March 2, 2016)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing mandatory Old Provision

Revised Provision

During the trial, the court, on its own During the pre-trial and the trial, the initiative, or on request of a party, may court, motu proprio, or upon motion, shall announce its intention to take judicial hear the parties on the propriety of taking notice of any matter and allow the parties judicial notice of any matter. to be heard thereon. Before judgment or on appeal, the After the trial, and before judgment or court, motu proprio or upon motion, may on appeal, the proper court, on its own take judicial notice of any matter and initiative or on request of a party, may shall hear the parties thereon if such take judicial notice of any matter and matter is decisive of a material issue in allow the parties to be heard thereon if the case. (3a) such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing mandatory The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the subject property, which is the very issue in the present case. The parties should thus have been given the opportunity to present evidence on the nature of the property before the lower court took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a portion of the subject landholdings. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 166259, November 12, 2012) • Inclusion of the word “pre-trial” – The court may properly indicate to the parties its intention, or the parties may request the court, to take judicial notice of a particular matter during pre-trial. • Use of the word “motion” – The word “motion” is more apt or accurate than “request.” • Use of the phrase “on the propriety of taking” – The phrase was added to provide clarification on the purpose of the hearing, i.e., whether the matter involved is a proper subject of a discretionary judicial notice. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Section 4. Judicial admissions Old Provision

Revised Provision

An admission, verbal or written, made An admission, oral or written, made by by a party in the course of the a party in the course of the proceedings proceedings in the same case does not in the same casem does not require require proof. proof. The admission may be contradicted The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was made. (2a) admission was not, in fact, made. (4a) • Use of the word “oral” – The term “verbal,” as used in the old provision, refers to the use of words, which can either be oral or written. Thus, the word “oral” is the more apt term to be used together with the word “written.” • Use of the phrase “the imputed…was not, in fact, made” – From the SubCommittee’s version “that the imputed admission was not made or intended,” the Rules Committee opted to be more objective, noting that “intended” is a condition of the mind. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Section 4. Judicial admissions “A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. It is well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, as in this case, no amount of rationalization can offset it. Also, in Republic of the Philippines v. De Guzman, citing Alfelor v. Halasan, this Court held that ‘a party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.’” (Tan v. People, G.R. No. 218902, October 17, 2016)

RULE 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Section 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When as object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.(1) Physical evidence ranks higher in hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. When physical evidence runs counter to witness' testimony, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld. In criminal cases xxx in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, the Court has [to] rely principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. (PO1 Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015) A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or of being under the age of consent to intercourse), is admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court. (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 2003)

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 2. Documentary evidence Old Provision

Revised Provision

Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)

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. (n)

Section 2. Documentary evidence • Expanded definition of documentary evidence • Taken from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and Rule 1001 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence (URE) • The purpose of expanding the definition is to embrace in the broadest possible terms every memorial that preserves written and spoken language, including recorded sounds • The inclusion of “photographs include still pictures, stored images, x-ray films, videotapes, and motion pictures” should be construed as merely exemplary, and NOT exclusive (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995]) • Photographs as documentary evidence • In Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 November 1995; College Assurance Plan v. Belfrant Development, G.R. No. 155604, 22 November 2007; People v. Zeta, G.R. No. 178541, 27 May 2008, the Supreme Court (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Section 2. Documentary evidence allowed the use of photographs as documentary evidence because they are relevant to the issue and are verified. The verification need not be made by the photographer himself; it can be made by any other competent witness who can testify as to its exactness and accuracy. • Use of the word “videos” instead of “videotapes” – “Videos” is the more modern term • Use of the word “drawings” – In Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd. (808 F.2d 1316 [9th Cir. 1987]), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “drawings” were “writings” within the meaning of the best evidence rule, specifically, Rule 1001, FRE. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE Old Title

Revised Title

Best Evidence Rule

Original Document Rule

The “Best Evidence Rule” (BER) is a misnomer because it misleadingly suggests that the doctrine applies to all types of evidence. BER only applies to documents or writings. As such, there is no requirement that parties introduce the best available evidence bearing on other matters that they seek to prove in court. The doctrine simply requires that the original be produced when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document and excludes secondary evidence except where the original is shown to be unavailable or secondary evidence is otherwise allowed by the rule or statute. The “Original Document Rule” is thus the more accurate or apt label for the doctrine. (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

1. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE Best Evidence Rule •With respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016; Scunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014) •The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court xxx. The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013)

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions Old Provision

Revised Provision

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, court, without bad faith on the part of or cannot be produced in court, the offeror; without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (a) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against (a) When the original is in the custody or whom the evidence is offered, and the under the control of the party against latter fails to produce it after whom the evidence is offered, and the reasonable notice; latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by judicial processes or procedure;

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions Old Provision

Revised Provision

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a) recorded in a public office. (e) When the original is not closelyrelated to a controlling issue. (3a)

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions • The additional exception “or the original cannot be obtained by judicial process or procedure” • In Philippine National Bank v. Olalia (No. L-8189, 23 March 1956; 98 Phil. 1002, unreported), the Supreme Court ruled that when the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is admissible. See also Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China v. Tuliarmo, 51 O.G.5211. • The additional exception “[w]hen the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue” • Known in the US as an exception for “collateral matter,” this amendment is intended to prevent an overly rigid or technical application of the original document rule. It allows for trial efficiency where the original is so tangential that its production would add little or nothing to the reliability of the fact-finding process. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence, Section 10.2 [1995]) (SOURCE: Explanatory Notes, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Section 4. Original of document Old Provision

Revised Provision

(a) The original of the document is one (a) An “original” of a document is the the contents of which are the subject document itself or any counterpart of inquiry. intended to have the same effect by a (b) When a document is in two or more person executing or issuing it. An copies executed at our about the “original” of a photograph includes the same time, with identical contents, all negative or any print therefrom. If data such copies are equally regarded as is stored in a computer or similar originals. device, any printout or other output (c) When an entry is repeated in the readable by sight or other means, regular course of business, one being shown to reflect the data accurately is copied from another at or near the an “original.” time of the transaction, all the entries (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart are likewise equally regarded as produced by the same impression as originals. (3a) the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by…

Section 4. Original of document Old Provision

Revised Provision …mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the origial. (4a)

Section 4. Original of document • The amendment in Section 4 (a) does not modify the meaning of the existing rule that “[t]he original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.” • Even as amended, the term “original” does not necessarily mean the first writing, recording or photograph that was made, but rather refers to the writing, recording, or photograph that is in issue in the litigation. • The inclusion of any output from a computer adopts Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) • The definition of “duplicate” follows Section 2, Rule 4 of the REE, which was adopted from the FRE. • The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate best evidence objections to copies made in clearly reliable ways, except where the objecting party can offer a g...