Lecture Outline on
EVIDENCE
Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III
University of San Agustin
College of Law
INTRODUCTION,
DEFINITION & KINDS OF EVIDENCE,
RELEVANCY&
ADMISSIBILITY
Introductory
Note:
The
courtroom is a legal arena which is strict on protocol. Lady Justice is
blind-folded not because she is blind to justice but rather because she should
render justice based only on the EVIDENCE brought forth before her. She is
blind-folded because she must only peer through what is presented before her
through the prism of the Rules on Evidence. Her own personal knowledge of the
facts should never be a factor in her decision.
For
example, your law book cannot be taken at face value as evidence in court. It
has to undergo the crucible or test of admissibility and competency by applying
the rules on evidence. The attorney cannot just un-sheath the law book from his
briefcase and hand it over to the judge as evidence.
1.In order to prove that it is a book, it has to be DEMONSTRATED
AS A LAW BOOK according to the rules on evidence. It has to be IDENTIFIED by
showing its title, its author, number of pages and other features. This is
known as “Presentation of OBJECT EVIDENCE”.
2.In order to prove that the writings therein are authentic and
genuine, the attorney must present evidence that the law book does not contain
any intercalations or erasures and that they were written by the very author
himself. This is, in turn, known as “Presentation and Authentication of
Documentary Evidence”.
3.Lastly, In order that the OPINION of the writer of the law book
can be taken as evidence, the author’s credentials must be proven such that he
has proven competence, experience, training and expertise that he can give his
opinion on an issue which is being litigated before the Court. This is known as
“Proving Expertise of a Witness”.
Thus, the Rules on Evidence is a vital tool in winning a case. A
case is won not by the one on whose side the truth lies, but rather by the one
who presents evidence convincingly.
This lecture will start with the
definition of the nature of evidence and its different kinds.
It is primordial to note that the
study of the law on evidence is all about the GENERAL RULE that evidence is
ADMISSIBLE IN COURT if RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE and NOT EXCLUDED BY THE RULES.
Thus, it is important to know only two things, viz: 1. When is evidence relevant? ; and 2. What are the Exclusionary
Rules?
If you
can master these two things, you would have already a firm grasp of the law on
evidence because all you need to do is make a checklist of EXCLUSIONS. If such
kind of evidence is NOT EXCLUDED, and is RELEVANT, then it is ADMISSIBLE IN
COURT.
Thus,
I. “Evidence is the MEANS, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact.[1]”
II. “Evidence represents
any KNOWABLE FACT or GROUP OF FACTS, not a legal or a logical principle,
considered with a view to its being offered before a legal tribunal for the
purpose of producing a conviction, positive or negative, on the part of the
tribunal, as to the truth of a proposition, NOT OF LAW OR OF LOGIC, on which
the determination of the tribunal is to be asked”[2].
QUERY: Can a Judge APPLY
HIS OWN BIASES AND PREJUDICES IN DECIDING A CASE?
2.1.- General Rule: Personal
Knowledge of Judge is not Knowledge of Court
-
Thus, a Judge
must BE VERY PATIENT, and not make premature conclusions until after all of the
evidence from both parties is offered before the court lest he be accused of
ACTING IN UNDUE HASTE or worse, of BIAS OR PARTIALITY. The Judge must first
ascertain whether the evidence being presented before him, is ADMISSIBLE, i.e,
RELEVANT and is NOT EXCLUDED by the Rules pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 128 which
states: “Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the rules”.
-
Only
after an ascertainment is made that evidence being presented is COMPETENT, that
the Judge can apply his own BIASES and PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in ARRIVING at a
CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER the PROPOSITION BEING FOSTERED BY A PARTY IS TRUE OR
NOT.
“The
life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt
necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions
of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share
with their fellowmen, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in
determining the rules by which men should be governed.”
§
US Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
2.2. Exceptions:
2.2.1.Judicial Notice-
-
Section
1, Rule 129 was discussed in Silkair
Singapore Ltd (Pte) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[3],
Furthermore, the
documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires the
Court to take judicial notice of, without any introduction of evidence, as
petitioner would have the CTA do. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court reads:
SECTION
1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. 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.
Neither
could it be said that petitioners SEC Registration and operating permits from
the CAB are documents which are of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to the judges because of their judicial
functions, in order to allow the CTA to take discretionary judicial notice of
the said documents.
Moreover,
Section 3 of the same Rule provides that a hearing is necessary before
judicial notice of any matter may be taken by the court. This requirement
of a hearing is needed so that the parties can be heard thereon if such matter
is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Given
the above rules, it is clear that the CTA En Banc correctly
did not admit petitioners SEC Registration and operating permits from the CAB
which were merely photocopies, without the presentation of the original copies
for comparison and verification. As aptly held by the CTA En Banc,
petitioner cannot rely on the principle of judicial notice so as to evade its
responsibility of properly complying with the rules of evidence. Indeed,
petitioners contention that the said documents were previously marked in other
cases before the CTA tended to confirm that the originals of these documents
were readily available and their non-presentation in these proceedings was
unjustified. Consequently, petitioners failure to compare the photocopied
documents with their original renders the subject exhibits inadmissible in
evidence.
2.2.2. Section
2, Rule 129, Rules on Evidence. Judicial Admissions- “Admissions made by
the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other
proceedings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously
shown to have been made through palpable mistake”.
“A judicial admission is
an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with
respect to the matter or fact admitted. It
may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made.
During
the pre-trial, respondents categorically admitted the existence of the Order
dated June 30, 1989 only. The Court cannot extend such admission to the existence
of Cadastral Case No. 10, considering the circumstances under which the
admission was made. In construing an admission, the court should consider the
purpose for which the admission is used and the surrounding circumstances and
statements.[40] Respondents
have constantly insisted that, in making the admission, they relied in good
faith on the veracity of the Order which
was presented by petitioners. Moreover, they relied on the presumption that the
Order has been issued by Judge Enrique T. Jocson in the regular performance of
his duties. It would therefore be prejudicial and unfair to respondents if they
would be prevented from proving that the Order is in fact spurious by showing
that there was no Cadastral Case No. 10 before the RTC, Branch 47, of Bacolod City”[4].
III. Evidence v. Proof-
“Proof is the effect of or result
of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof”[5].
-e.g., RESULT OF EVIDENCE-
In Criminal cases, was the totality of the multitude of testimonial,
documentary and real or object evidence adduced by the prosecution, enough to
constitute as Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
IV. Factum Probandum v.
Factum Probans- “Evidence is always a relative term. It signifies a relation
between facts, the factum probandum, or proposition to be established and the
factum probans, or material evidencing the proposition. The former is
necessarily to be conceived of as hypothetical; it is that which the one party
affirms and the other denies, the tribunal being as yet not committed in either
direction. The latter is conceived of for practical purposes as existent, and
is offered as such for the consideration of the tribunal. The latter is brought
forward as reality for the purpose of convincing the tribunal that the former
is also a reality. No correct and sure comprehension of the nature of any
evidential question can ever be had unless this double or relative aspect of it
is distinctly pictured. On each occasion the questions must be asked, What is
the proposition desired to be proved? What is the evidentiary fact offered to
prove it? Part of the confusion which often is found arises from the
circumstance that each evidentiary fact may in turn become a proposition to be
proved, until finally some ultimate evidentiary fact is reached.[6]”
V. Kinds of Evidence.
5.1. Direct v.
Circumstantial Evidence-
-DIRECT EVIDENCE is that
which proves the fact in dispute WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY INFERENCE OR
PRESUMPTION.
-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- In
a recent case[7],
it was ruled that:
“Preliminarily,
we note that the lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar
the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution
establishes the appellants participation in the crime through credible and
sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable
conclusion that the appellant committed the imputed crime, the latter should be
convicted.
According
to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. In this regard, we give great weight to the findings of fact made
by the RTC, as upheld by the CA, viz.:
(a) the
appellant and eight other armed people stayed at Demencitas house in Sitio Caran-caran
on October 3, 2000, but only the appellant and Melanio stayed there until the
early morning of October 9, 2000;
(b) the
appellant, Melanio, and three (3) others, who were armed with Garand and M14
Armalite rifles, passed by Joses house in Sitio Caran-caran in
the afternoon of October 9, 2000, and were walking behind the hog-tied Resuelo,
Sr.;
(c) Resuelo
Sr. was never seen alive again;
(d) two
armed men borrowed a bolo from Francisco at midnight of October 9, 2000, and
told him that they would bury Resuelo, Sr.s body;
(e) Francisco
saw Resuelo, Sr.s body buried in his farm on October 10, 2000, and requested
the three persons whom he saw near the shallow grave to transfer the cadaver to
another place;
(f) Francisco
saw the victims body buried in another portion of his farm on October 11, 2000,
and reported the matter to the barangay captain;
(g) Resuelo,
Jr. reported to Leonora on October 11, 2000 that Resuelo, Sr. had been missing
since October 9, 2000;
(h) Leonora
informed Barangay Captain Acyo that her husband had been
missing for two days;
(i) Nonito
told Barangay Captain Acyo during a meeting that a man was
buried at Franciscos farm; and
(j) Resuelo,
Jr., Barangay Captain Acyo, and some barangay officials
went to Franciscos farm on October 11, 2000, and exhumed the victims body.
The
combination of these ten (10) circumstances constitutes an unbroken chain
leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the
crime of murder.
First, Joses testimony sufficiently
establishes that Resuelo, Sr. was last seen alive with the appellant and his
companions. Jose unequivocally stated that he saw the appellant and his
companions with Resuelo, Sr. walk in front of his house on the day of the
murder. Jose positively declared that he saw the victim hog-tied at the
time. This was in the afternoon of October 9, 2000.
Second, Demencitas unequivocal statements
that the appellant and his co-accused Melanio stayed at her house on October 3,
2000 and left only in the morning of October 9, 2000, the day of the murder
confirm the appellants presence in the locality at the time of the murder. He
was next seen in the same locality by Jose, this time with the hog-tied victim,
in the afternoon of the same day.
Third, Franciscos testimony establishes the
immediate aftermath of the murder. Not only did the armed men borrow a
bolo from him at midnight of October 9, 2000, they also told him that they
would bury Resuelo, Sr.s body and warned him not to dig it up from its buried
site. In the morning of October 10, 2000, he confirmed the presence of the
dead body on his property when he saw the shallow grave and the victims hand
protruding from it. When the body was disinterred from where the armed man
had transferred it (the lower portion of Franciscos property), Francisco
clearly identified the victim as Resuelo, Sr. The disinterred body not only
showed significant damage to its face and wounds on its armpit; the victims
hands and feet were also hog-tied.
Fourth, Franciscos testimony that Resuelo,
Sr.s body was buried in his farm was corroborated by Nonitos testimony that he
saw someone being buried in the same place where Resuelo Sr.s body was found.
Thus,
the evidence presented shows a sequence of events that can only lead to the
conclusion that the armed men of which the appellant was one of them killed and
buried the victim Resuelo, Sr. The sufficiency of the presented evidence to
prove the appellants guilt is fully supported by jurisprudence.
In People
v. Solangon, we convicted accused Ricardo Solangon on the strength of
circumstantial evidence. In Solangon, even though no direct
evidence was presented to prove that the accused (alleged to have been members
of the NPA) actually killed the victim, we still upheld the conviction.
In People v.
Oliva, we upheld the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial
evidence. In Oliva, the victim was abducted from his home, was last
seen alive in the custody of the accused, and was hog-tied with coralon
rope. Although no one saw the actual killing, we held that there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
In yet another
case People v. Corfin we upheld the conviction of the
accused based on evidence showing that: (1) the accused was the last person seen
with the victim; (2) the accused and the victim were seen together near a dry
creek; (3) the accused was seen leaving the place alone; and (4) the body of
the victim was later found in the dry creek.
All
these cases show that the Court, when presented with sufficient circumstantial
evidence, will not shirk from upholding an accuseds conviction for
murder. There are more than enough reasons to similarly act in this case
where the law and the attendant facts, considered in relation to one another,
lead to the single conclusion that the appellant participated in the killing of
Resuelo, Sr.”
5.2. Primary v. Secondary
Evidence
Primary or Best evidence-
In Anita U. Lorenzana v. Rodolfo Lelina,
G.R. No. 187850, August 17, 2016, case law teaches about the Best
Evidence Rule, thus:
“The best evidence rule requires that when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document itself except in instances mentioned in
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of
documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless,
evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by
the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in
evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it
was formally offered.”
Secondary evidence- That
which is inferior to primary evidence. In the example above, the mere
photocopies of the original document constitute as secondary evidence.
5.3. Positive v. Negative
Evidence
-DENIAL and ALIBI as
defenses; Their Treatment.
In People v. Elizalde et al, G.R. No. 210434, December 5, 2016, the Court
explained the frailty of Denial and Alibi as very weak defenses for being
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE, viz:
-“This is especially so when, as noted by the
trial court, the appellants' defenses of alibi and denial were not even
corroborated by any credible witness. Well settled is the rule that alibi and
denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the
prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the
accused. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative
testimony. In the instant case, it seems as if appellants urge Us
to accept - hook, line, and sinker - their self-serving statements that
Elizalde was merely selling peanuts while Piacente was simply driving his
neighbor's tricycle without even attempting to corroborate the same with any
supporting evidence. As aptly pointed out by the RTC, Elizalde's cousin or
Placente's neighbor could have been presented to substantiate their stories.
Regrettably, appellants failed to convince.”
5.4. Corroborative v.
Cumulative Evidence
-“Corroborative evidence
is additional evidence of a different kind and character, tending to prove the
same point. Cumulative Evidence is evidence of the same kind and character as
that already given, and tends to prove the same proposition.[8]”
BUT, case law often treats
the two as interchangeable.
5.5. Prima Facie Evidence
v. Conclusive Evidence
-
“Prima
facie evidence is that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until
contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
-
Conclusive
evidence is that which is incontrovertible. Ex. Sec. 2, Rule 131, Rules on
Evidence- “The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the
time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.”
5.6. Relevant Evidence and
Material Evidence
-
See 5.7.
5.7. Competent Evidence
-Sec. 3, Rule 128. Admissibility of Evidence. – Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the rules.
Two requisites. A.
Evidence must be RELEVANT to the issue
B. It must be COMPETENT, i.e, it does not
belong to that class of evidence of which is EXCLUDED by the Rules on Evidence.
RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE- “Evidence must have
such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non-existence; therefore collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when
they tend in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.[9]”
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE WHICH ARE EXCLUDED BY
THE RULES- Hearsay, Secondary Evidence, Opinion of Non-Expert, Mental and
Physical Incapacity, Infancy, DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF INTEREST or
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION –Sections 18 to 21, Rule 128, Rules on Evidence.
(This will be taken-up at-length in later lectures).
5.8. Irrelevant, Incompetent,
Inadmissible and Immaterial Evidence
-“Irrelevant, in
strictness, signifies that the offered piece of evidence has no probative
value.
-Incompetent evidence- in
strictness, signifies that an offered WITNESS, is not qualified, under the
rules of testimonial evidence. But it is constantly used loosely as
equivalent to “inadmissible’ on any ground. This use should be avoided.
-Inadmissible, in
strictness, signifies that the offered evidence is excluded by some rule of
evidence, no matter what the rule.
-Immaterial, in
strictness, signifies that the offered evidential fact is directed to prove
some probandum which is not properly in issue. The rules of substantive law and
of pleading are what determine immateriality; and if the probandum is
immaterial, of course, no evidence to prove it is wanted.[10]”
5.9. Rebuttal and
Sur-Rebuttal Evidence
-“Rebuttal evidence is
that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in
evidence by the adverse party. It is also defined as evidence in denial of some
affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove.
Rebuttal evidence is, generally speaking, receivable only where new matter has
been developed by the evidence of one of the parties and is generally limited
to reply to new points”[11].
5.10. Real Evidence
-Real evidence is that
which is addressed to the sense of the tribunal, as where objects are presented
for the inspection of the court.
5.11. Expert Evidence
-“Expert evidence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to
a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually
acquired by other persons.[12]”
-As a rule, a witness can only testify based on his own personal
knowledge, that is, must be based on his own perception. The test should be the
witness’s own perceived senses of sight, touch, smelling or hearing and NOT
GIVE HIS OPINION. The exception is in the case of an EXPERT WITNESS who can
draw conclusions and formulate opinions based on facts already before the
court.
Anecdotal example of
perception-
A baker files a civil
lawsuit against a poor man whose habit was to drop by the former’s bakery and
smell the bread without paying. When the case reached the Judge and he heard
the facts, the Judge said: “But this seems a trivial case Mr. Baker, why did
you really bring this case before me? The baker was insistent as he cried that
an injustice was caused him because his bread was not bought but only smelled
and the poor man must pay for the smell. “Indeed, according to the Judge, Mr.
Poorman, you must pay Mr. Baker for the smell of his bread. Give me all the
coins in your pocket.” The poor man had no choice but to empty his pocket sadly
and handed the coins to the Judge. The baker was so happy but when he tried to
take the coins from the Judge, the latter said: “Oh no Mr. Baker, I did not say
that these coins will be paid to you. I will just rattle and jingle the coins
so listen to them closely.” The Judge rattled them aloud and then said: “Since
what was robbed from you was only some smell, then it is but fitting that your
payment should be to hear the clinging of the coins only. The punishment must
be proportionate to the crime.”[13]
[1]
Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules on Evidence
[2]
1 Wigmore on Evidence
[3]
G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010
[4]
Manuel Ybiernas v. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon,G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011
[5]
1 Jones on Evidence
[6]
Wigmore on Evidence
[7]
People v. Melanio Galo, G.R. No. 187497, October 12, 2011
[8]
P. 5, Evidence by Francisco, Volume VII Part I, 1973 Edition
[9]
Section4, Rule 128, Rules on Evidence
[10]
P. 8, Francisco, Ibid.
[11]
P. 9, Francisco, Ibid.
[12]
U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530
[13]
Fair is Fair (World Folktales of Justice by Sharon Creeden)
No comments:
Post a Comment