Evidence by Dean Riano Bar reviewer 2021 PDF

Preview

Summary

Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____Facultad de Derecho Civil 1UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASFaculty of Civil Law A. 2012- First SemesterLAW ON EVIDENCEChapter 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONSA. Miscellaneous Basic PrinciplesRULE 128General ProvisionsSECTION 1. Evidence defined**. — Evidence is the means, san...

Description

NOTES ON EVIDENCE Kenneth & King Hizon (3A)

_____________________________________________

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law A.Y. 2012-2013 First Semester

LAW ON EVIDENCE

Chapter 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

judicial proceedings because the findings of the court would depend on the evidence presented before it based on the accepted rules for admissibility.

A. Miscellaneous Basic Principles 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) Note: Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence. Q: What is required for a circumstance to be considered as evidence? A: It must be “sanctioned” or allowed by the Rules of Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. Thus, hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused and evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth is not a n evidence. The definition considers evidence not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. This applies to judicial proceedings. Q: What is the purpose of evidence? A: It is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence. The truth must be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof. Thus, the parties must prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence. Truth as the purpose of evidence Yet, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or the legal truth. Actual truth may not always be achieved in

Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35) Thus, a supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused will not be considered if not formally offered in evidence. Q: When is evidence required? When is it not required? A: As a means of proving fact, its introduction is needed when the court has to resolve a question of fact. Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved by mere application of the relevant statutes or rules in this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required. Note: When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial determination through a judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34). Evidence may also be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. They may agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence (Rule 30, sec. 6). It is also not required on matters of judicial notice (Rule 129, sec.1) and on matters judicially admitted (Rule 129 Sec. 4). Q: When are the Rules of evidence applicable? A: They apply only to judicial proceedings. Note: Please refer to Rule 1, sec.4.

Facultad de Derecho Civil

1

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

NOTES ON EVIDENCE Kenneth & King Hizon (3A)

_____________________________________________

Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial terms. Also, reliance on the technical rules of evidence in labor cases is misplaced.

A: According to such principle, as a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.

Ong Chia v. Republic (328 SCRA 749)

Sec. 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. (2a)

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for naturalization unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.

Q: Distinguish between evidence in civil cases from evidence in criminal cases.

Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 176240, 2008) Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases.

CIVIL CASES The party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence. An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible evidence against the offeror (Rule 130, Sec.27).

Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC (461 SCRA 272) The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. (403 SCRA 699) The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. In this case, the court disregarded the findings of the CA which considered the affidavits of the petitioners as mere hearsay and thus could not be admitted in evidence against their employers. The Court unequivocally ruled that in a labor case, it is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify and be crossedexamined by counsel for the adverse party on his affidavit. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law. Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, nonetheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded.

Concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and generally there is no presumption for or against a party except in cases provided for by law (Art. 1756-common carrier).

CRIMINAL CASES The guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt except those involving quasioffenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130, Sec. 27) The accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence (Sec. 14, Article 3).

Distinction between Proof and Evidence Q: What is proof? A: It is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from consideration of the evidence. On the other hand, evidence is the medium or means by which fact is proved or disproved. Proof is the effect of evidence because without evidence there is no proof. Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence Sec.2. Cases covered.- These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial an administrative cases. Scope of the Rules of Evidence

It means “false in one thing, false in everything.” It means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness’ testimony. The witness in such case is considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.

Q: Explain the Principle of uniformity.

Facultad de Derecho Civil

2

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

NOTES ON EVIDENCE Kenneth & King Hizon (3A)

_____________________________________________

Yet, this is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The modern trend favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial (People v. Negosa). Q: When can such maxim be applied?

1. 2.

The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

Note: It is not enough that he is somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. People v. Abellera, G.R. No. 166617

A: Before it can be applied, it must be shown that the witness have willfully falsified the truth on one or more material points. The principle presupposes the existence of a positive testimony on a material point contrary to subsequent declarations in the testimony.

The accused should have proven that he was in some place where it was physically impossible for him to at the locus criminis during the commission of the crime.

People v. Letigio (268 SCA 227)

People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 175325

The above maxim does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. While the witness may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless.

When the distance between the place where the crime was committed and the accused said he was only 1 and ½ km, the accused, who at the time had the use of a motorized vehicle, has not established the physical impossibility.

People v. Pacapac (248 SCRA 77) The maxim is not a positive rule of law or of universal application. It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, like where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. It is not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness of the circumstances so warrant. Alibi As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. Alibi may also serve as a basis for acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at that time. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. Such positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where the such identification is credible and categorical (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 173308).

Alibi is not always false and without merit. Sometimes, the fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the plain and unvarnished truth. Frame Up Frame up is also viewed with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a defense in most prosecutions arising from the Dangerous Drugs Act. The legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. For such claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner (People v. Del Monte). Self-Defense It is likewise inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. For it to prevail, the defense must establish that was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime

Q: What must be established for the defense of alibi to prosper? A:

Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible, for delay may be explained by the natural reticence of people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. More

Facultad de Derecho Civil

3

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

NOTES ON EVIDENCE Kenneth & King Hizon (3A)

than this, there is always the fear of reprisal. This is a matter of judicial notice (People v. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331). Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not necessarily an indiction that the charge is fabricated; it is possible for a rape victim to go through what psychologists describe as a “state of denial” which is a way of coping with the overwhelming emotional stress of an extremely shocking event. Also, it may be on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant. It must be viewed in the context of the victim’s perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time of the time immediately thereafter. A rape victim is sometimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. Ingal v. People (G.R No. 173282) Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness’ credibility. Also, people react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence. See: People v. Teehankee, Jr. (249 SCRA 54); People v. Ortoa (GR. No. 176266); People v. Satioquia (414 SCRA 60); People v. Sanidad (402 SCRA 381) Delay by a witness in divulging what he or she knows about a crime is not by itself a setback to the evidentiary value of such witness’ testimony, where the delay is sufficiently justified by any acceptable explanation. Also, Fear of reprisal or social humiliation are sufficient explanations. Filipinas, especially those in the rural areas, are by nature shy and coy, and rape stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator. Delay is not a sign of fabrication. Positive and Negative Defenses In Philippine jurisprudence, a positive testimony normally enjoys more weight than a negative testimony. A testimony that a fact exists enjoys more weight than a testimony that asserts that the same act does not exist. Positive evidence is more credible than negative evidence. The reason for this rule is that the witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed (Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R. No. 156282). A denial evidence is the weakest defense and can never overcome a positive testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of credible witness. Evidence that is negative

_____________________________________________

is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. It is inherently weak vis-à-vis positive identification. Factum Probans and Factum Probandum Evidence signifies a relationship between 2 facts: a. b.

The fact or proposition to be established (Factum probandum); and Facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established (Factum probans).

Q: What is Factum Probandum? A: It refers to the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed. Q: What is Factum Probans? A: It is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue. E.g. Kimmy claims to have been injured by the negligence of Dora who denies having been negligent, the negligence of Dora and the causal connection between such negligence, and the injuries of Kmmy taken as a whole, constitute the factum probandum of the suit. The evidence offered by Kimmy constitute the materials to prove liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to the factum probans. Yet, factum probandum in some cases may be affected by the judicial admissions of a party. If the factum probandum “signifies the fact or proposition to be established,” then matters of judicial notice, conclusive presumptions and judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of factum probandum of a particular case, because such matters need not be established or proved. Factum probandum refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the standpoint of the defendant. Q: What are the factum probandum in a suit for a collection of money, in the absence of any admission by the defendant? A: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The existence of the debt of the defendant; The maturity of the debt; The demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay; and The failure to pay despite the demand.

Facultad de Derecho Civil

4

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

NOTES ON EVIDENCE Kenneth & King Hizon (3A)

_____________________________________________

2. NOTE: From the side of the defendant, the fact of payment of the obligation or the prescription of the debt or the elements of any defense he may interpose would constitute the factum probandum. Q: Under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in every tort case, what should be proven by the plaintiff?

The delivery of the things sold and the payment therefor.

Q: Is the presentation of the informant in illegal drug cases indispensable for a successful prosecution? A: No, because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Multiple admissibility

A: 1. The damages suffered by the plaintiff 2. The fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond 3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault and the damages incurred. Art. 2176, NCC

Q: When is there multiple admissibility? A: There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a declaration may be admissible for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, as part of the res gestae, or as a declaration against interest.

XXX

Q: In criminal cases, what does factum probandum include? A: In criminal cases, factum probandum includes all matters that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction. Q: In case or robbery, what matters should be proven? A: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another. An extrajudicial statement of a robbery subject is not admissible against his co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130. NOTE: If the testimony is offered to prove that the subject was completed pursuant to the contract, it cannot be offered to prove that the project was delayed.

That there be personal property belonging to another That there is unlawful taking of that property That the taking is with intent to gain That there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 293, RPC)

It must be noted that the purposes for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for ...