Evidence (Revised Rules on Evidence and 2019 Amendments) Merimade PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Evidence (Revised Rules on Evidence and 2019 Amendments) Merimade PDF

Description

EVIDENCE (Revised Rules on Evidence and 2019 Amendments) A. General Principles 1. Concept of Evidence

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1) To be considered evidence, the same must be "sanctioned" or allowed by Rules of Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by Rules, even if it proves existence or non-existence of fact in issue. 2. Scope of Rules of Evidence

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. (Rule 128, Sec.2) [Principle of Uniformity] The Rules on Evidence, being components of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings. Rules of Court is not applicable to certain specified proceedings such as: election cases land registration cadastral cases naturalization cases insolvency proceedings admin agency proceedings proceedings in Civil Service Commission Labor cases 3. Distinguish: proof and evidence

PROOF

EVIDENCE

It is not evidence itself. It is merely the

Evidence is the medium or means by which

probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the

a fact is proved or disproved.

mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence. It is the effect or result of evidence.

It is the medium of proof.

4. Distinguish: factum probans and factum probandum

FACTUM PROBANDUM

FACTUM PROBANS

Fact or proposition to be established.

Facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.

Fact to be proved, fact which is in

Probative or evidentiary fact tending to

issue and to which evidence is directed.

prove the fact in issue.

Ultimate facts.

Intermediate or Evidentiary facts.

Illustration: If P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D who denies having been negligent, negligence is the fact to be established (factum probandum). The evidence offered by P constitutes material to prove liability of D. Totality of evidence to prove liability is factum probans. 5. Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or these Rules. (Rule 128, Sec. 3, Revised Rules of Evidence) Requisites for admissibility of evidence; exclusions under the Constitution, laws, and the Rules of Court (1) The evidence must be relevant; and (2) Not sanctioned by the Constitution, the law, or these Rules.

No evidence is admissible unless it is relevant. However, relevancy alone does not make the evidence admissible. An item of evidence may be relevant but not admissible. It is not admissible because, although relevant, it may be incompetent; i.e., it is excluded by law or by a particular rule or by both. Relevance of evidence and collateral matters GR:Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed as evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Collateral matters are not allowed as it does not have direct relevance to the issue of the case. XPN: Evidence on collateral matters will be allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish probability or improbability of the fact in issue. While the collateral evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the tendency to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have the effect of corroborating or supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence. Multiple admissibility Multiple admissibility of evidence is one that is relevant and competent for two or more purposes. If evidence is relevant and competent for 2 purposes, such will be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes. (People v. Animas, L-5591, March 28, 1955) Conditional admissibility Evidence which appears to be immaterial may be allowed by the court subject to the condition that its connection with other facts be subsequently proven and established. If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon motion of adverse party, strike out from the record of evidence that was previously conditionally admitted. Curative admissibility

The doctrine of curative admissibility allows party to introduce inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party's introduction of inadmissible evidence despite objections. A party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into trial cannot complain of subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter. Direct and circumstantial evidence Direct Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence

As to ability to

Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without

Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the

establish the fact in

drawing any inference (Planteras, Jr. v. People, GR

fact-finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence

dispute

238889, Oct. 03, 2018)

(Planteras, Jr. v. People, GR 238889, October 03, 2018)

As to

The probative value of direct

As to probative value, Court

probative value

evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to

considers circumstantial evidence as being of a nature identical to direct

circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between direct

evidence because no greater degree of certainty is required when evidence is circumstantial than when

evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which

it is direct.

the existence of a fact may be inferred". The same quantum of evidence is still required.

Positive and negative evidence POSITIVE EVIDENCE

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Exists when the witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a certain event happened. Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is accorded to evidence that is negative in character.

Exists when witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist. Denial is considered by the Court to be a very weak form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when latter comes from the mouth of a credible witness (Pp v. Mendoza, GR 14669394, July 31, 2003)

Competent and credible evidence COMPETENT EVIDENCE

CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Type of evidence that is not

Type of evidence where its quality renders a

excluded by law in a particular case. Competence, in relation to evidence refers to eligibility of an evidence to

witness worthy of belief.

be received as such.

6. Burden of proof and burden of evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts. Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence shifts from one party to the other in the course of the proceedings depending on the exigencies of the case. (Rule 131, Sec.1, Revised Rules of Evidence) 7. Presumptions

A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from proof of other facts. A presumption is not

evidence. In a sense, presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted. A party in whose favor the legal presumptions exist may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is a prima facie proof to the fact presumed (Diesel Construction Co., Inc. vs. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., 549 SCRA 12) Conclusive Presumptions This refers to a presumption which is irrebuttable and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible. Estoppel in pais: Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or commission, be permitted to falsify it; (Rule 131, Sec.2 (a), Revised Rules of Evidence) Estoppel by deed: Tenant is not permitted to deny title of his or her landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Rule 131, Sec. 2(b), Revised Rules of Evidence) Disputable Presumptions The disputable presumptions are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary evidence. They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior and its application on a given circumstance must be based on the existence of certain facts on which they are meant to operate. Disputable presumptions apply only in the absence of contrary evidence or explanations. (University of Mindanao v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, GR 194964-65, January 11, 2016) The effect of disputable presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created by the presumption. If no contrary proof is offered, the presumption will prevail (Diaz v. People, GR 208113, Dec. 2, 2015)

Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings; against an accused in criminal cases In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight neither presumption applies. (Rule 131, Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Evidence) If a presumed fact that establishes guilt in an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (Rule 131, Sec. 6, Revised Rules of Evidence) 8. Construction of rules of evidence

The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court) The Rules of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be avoided if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial justice. (Alcantara v. PCIB, GR 151349, Oct. 20, 2010) 9. Quantum of Evidence

For Criminal Cases: The quantum of evidence required to convict an accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not men such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces moral certainty.

For Civil Cases: The quantum of evidence required in civil cases is preponderance of evidence. It is the weight, credit, and value of aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term, "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence". Preponderance of evidence is the evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. (Chua v. Westmont Bank GR 182650, Feb. 27, 2012) For Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Bodies: In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Rule 133, Sec. 5, ROC) Clear and Convincing Evidence: It is that degree of evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases (Black's Law Dictionary, 2004). Instances when clear and convincing evidence is required: -When proving forgery; -When proving ownership over a land in annulment or reconveyance of title; -When invoking self-defense; -When proving allegation of frame-up and extortion by police officers in dangerous drugs cases; -When proving bad faith to warrant award of moral damages; -When proving that police officers did not properly perform duty or that they were inspired by improper motive.

B. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions -What need not be proved The following matters need not be proved: 1. Facts which are subject of Judicial Notice

2. Facts which are admitted 3. Matters not specifically denied in the answer 4. Facts which are legally presumed 5. Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties.

-Matters of judicial notice Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them (People v. Tundag, GR 135695-96, October 12, 2000. Judicial notice can either be mandatory or discretionary (Rule 129, Revised Rules of Evidence) Material Requisites of Judicial Notice: The matter must be one of common and general knowledge; It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court (Expertavel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, GR 152392, May 26, 2005) Mandatory A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, or 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, and political constitution and history of the Philippines, 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. (Rule 129, Sec.1, Revised Rules of Evidence) Discretionary A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (Rule 129, Sec. 2, Rules of Court) -Judicial Admissions These are admissions, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which does not require proof. (Rule 124, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Court)

Effect of judicial admissions Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same (Solivio v. CA, GR 83484, February 12, 1990) An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. (Rule 129, Sec.4, Revised Rules of Evidence) How judicial admissions may be contradicted The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (Rule 129, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Evidence) Pre-trial admissions Admissions in Pre-Trial of Civil Cases A pre-trial is mandatory and because it is mandatory, it is an important part of a civil proceeding. Admissions, therefore, in the pre-trial, as well as those made during the depositions, interrogatories, or requests for admission, are all deemed judicial admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings. Admissions made in a stipulation of facts by parties in the pretrial are treated as judicial admissions. Admissions in Pre-Trial of Criminal Cases Admissions made by the accused in the pre-trial of a criminal case is not necessarily admissible against him. To be admissible, the conditions set forth in Rule 118, Sec.2 must be complied with, that: all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be: -reduced in writing; and -signed by the accused and counsel. Otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. (Rule 118, Sec. 2, Rules of Criminal Procedure) *Admissions made in withdrawn or amended pleadings are considered as extrajudicial admissions. Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status, and cease to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as

extrajudicial admission, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence (Ching vs. Court of Appeals, GR 110844, Apr. 27, 2000)

C. Object (Real Evidence) Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the Court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the Court. (Rule 130, Sec. 1, ROC) -Nature of Object Evidence Real or object evidence is not a verbal description of something. It is not a replica or a mere representation of something. Object or real evidence is exactly what its name suggests. It is the real thing itself like the knife used to slash the victim's throat, the ring actually stolen by the accused, the bullet extracted from the victim's chest, the mangled fender of a truck that is rear ended by a bulldozer, or the blood splattered on the wall of the room where the victim was found. Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Instead of relying on the recollection of witness, an object evidence will enable the court to have its own first-hand perception of the evidence. -Requisites for Admissibility The requisites for admissibility of object/real evidence are: Evidence must be relevant; (Rule 128, Sec. 3, RROE) Evidence must be authenticated; Evidence must be made by a competent witness; and Object evidence must be formally offered.(Rule 132, Sec. 34, ROC) -Categories of Object Evidence Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique object)(e.g. serial number of a .45 caliber pistol); Objects that are made readily available (objects made unique)(e.g. placing identifiable marks on evidence); Objects with no identifying marks (non-unique objects)(i.e. can be proved through chain of custody) -Chain of Custody in relation to Section 21 of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 The doctrine of chain of custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment for each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in

the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction (DDB Regulation No.1, Series of 2002, Sec.1) Links in the Chain of Custody: 1. Seizure and Marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from the accusedApprehending officer or poseur-buyer must place his or her initials and signature on the item/s seized. Apprehending team having initial custody and control of drugs, shall immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of accused or his representative/counsel, elected public official, and representative of the national prosecution service or media. 2. Turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the

investigating officer; 3. Turnover by investigating officer of illegal drug to Forensic Chemist for laboratory examinations; and 4. Turnover and submission of marked illegal drug by forensic chemist to the Court.

(RA 9165, Sec. 21) -DNA ...