Requisites for admissibility of evidence
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
Constitution, the law of these rules.
Difference between Admissibility and Probative
Value
Admissibility
Admissibility answers the question of whether
certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all.
Requisites
of Admissibility of Evidence
1. Relevancy - such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence; and
2. Competency - meaning the evidence that is to
be presented is not excluded by the Constitution, by law or by the rules of
court.
Probative Value
Weight or probative value answers the question
of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue by the quantum of evidence
required by law.
Relevance of evidence
and collateral matters
Relevance of Evidence:
Evidence is considered relevant if it has a direct bearing on the fact in
issue, meaning it can make the existence of that fact more or less probable.
Relevant evidence directly influences the determination of the case's outcome.
Example:
In a theft case, testimony from an eyewitness who saw the accused taking the
property is relevant, as it directly pertains to whether the accused committed
the theft.
Collateral Matters:
Collateral matters are facts that are not directly in issue but may relate
to the case. Generally, evidence concerning collateral matters is inadmissible
because it can distract from the main issues and prolong proceedings. However,
if such evidence reasonably tends to establish the probability or improbability
of a fact in issue, it may be admitted.
Example:
In a murder trial, evidence that the accused had a motive, such as a prior
argument with the victim, is a collateral matter. While the argument itself is
not the fact in issue, it may be admitted because it establishes a possible
motive, thereby making the accused's involvement more probable.
Jurisprudence:
In Herrera v. Alba (G.R.
No. 148220, June 15, 2005), the Supreme Court discussed the admissibility of
DNA paternity testing as evidence. The Court held that such evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by law or the
rules. This case illustrates the application of Rule 130, Section 4,
emphasizing that evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence.
Multiple admissibility
Multiple admissibility
Evidence that is plainly relevant and competent
for two or more purposes 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 of
admissibility for other purposes.
Example:
You have a piece of paper. It says, “Pay to B or
to his order, the amount of P50,000. Signed by A.” what is that evidence of?
It’s evidence of a negotiable instrument, right? The obligation upon the holder
of that negotiable instrument to pay B or his order, the amount of P50,000.
That is clearly documentary evidence. It’s a document that proves the existence
of a contract, of the existence of an obligation. But there are several
requisites in order for the court to admit documentary evidence.
o It has to be the original - Original Document
Rule (after the amendment)
It should be original. Since you only brought
the photocopy, Will you be able to prove? As a general rule, that obligation on
the part of the holder of the negotiable instrument exists, you won’t be able
to prove it. Why? Because it’s a mere photocopy. It is not an original of the
document. But, when you present it for another purpose, let’s say, you are not
going to prove what is written in the document. All that you’re trying to prove
is that that document exists; that it is written on paper without reference to
what it contains.
Will that be admissible in that situation? The
answer is YES. Why? Because you’re not presenting it as a documentary evidence;
you’re presenting it as an object evidence. Meaning, you are presenting the
paper as an object addressed to the senses of the court; particularly, the
sense of sight. The court will see that as it is.
That’s what multiple admissibility is all about.
It may not be admissible as paper or document, but it is admissible as an
object. That’s multiple admissibility.
Conditional admissibility
Conditional admissibility
Evidence that appears to be immaterial, is admitted to the court subject to the
condition that its connection with another fact subsequent to be proved will be
established. Otherwise, such fact already received, will be stricken off the
record at the initiative of the adverse party.
Example: For a case for the probate of a will.
Remember, when you make a will, during probate, you have to prove to the
proponent that the testator was of sound and disposing mind. Meaning, he knows
what he is doing. he knows the consequences of creating a will. That’s what you
call the requisite that the testator must be of sound and disposing mind. So, when
the testator died. The oppositors to the will calls a witness to the witness
stand. And then, he ask for a question. On a particular date, let’s say, August
15, 1995, what did the testator tell you? Take not that that is supposed to be
a hearsay answer. If he answers, the question calls for a hearsay answer.
What is hearsay? Evidence that someone merely
told you about. You don't have a personal knowledge. You don't know it first
hand. It’s not you who knows about that fact. It was simply relayed to you by
another person. It is secondhand information. And so, the adverse party
objected. “Objection, Your Honor. The question calls for a hearsay answer
because the witness cannot testify as to what that person told her/him. It
cannot be verified anymore inasmuch as the decedent or the testator has already
died.” He already died. He will not corroborate. It is possible that the
testimony is a fraud. It could be a lie. But, what if the Court allows it? So,
the Court says, “Objection is overruled for now. It seems to be hearsay but I
will allow the witness to answer the question. And then if the witness answers,
“On that particular date, the testator said, that he is Gong Yoo.”
What does he mean when he says he’s Gong Yoo
when clearly he’s not Gong Yoo. What does is say when the testator believes
that he is somebody else that he is a Korean Movie Star, it means he is not of
sound mind.
That is conditional admissibility even if it is
inadmissible at first because it appears to be immaterial and it is admitted by
the court subject to the condition that the connection to another fact makes
sense of it all. Since the testator thought he is somebody else he is not of
sound mind and therefore the will is not valid.
Curative admissibility
Curative admissibility
Evidence that is otherwise improper is admitted
(despite objection from the other party) to contradict improper evidence
presented or introduced by the other party, to cure, contradict, or neutralize
such improper evidence.
This is what you call fighting fire with fire.
The court made a mistake procedurally by admitting inadmissible evidence. By
doing so, it has prejudiced the rights of the adverse party. Now, what the
court should do is to allow the other party to present improper or supposed to
be inadmissible evidence.
Discussion: I handled a case and it involved a
violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure in an MTC in GenSan. I tried to
present evidence that has no pre-mark and previously identified during
pretrial. The witness that was going to identify the said evidence did not
previously execute an affidavit.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, if what
evidence only identified or who executed the affidavit that's the only thing
that will be accepted.
But the court allowed me to present. But clearly,
that will prejudice the other party. So the lawyer of the other party
vehemently objected to it. But the court told him that in the interest of
justice he is allowed to resort to similarly characterized evidence, under the
principle of curative admissibility of evidence.
Q: What should determine the application of the
rule of curative admissibility?
1. Whether the incompetent evidence was
seasonably objected to; and
2. Whether regardless of the objection, the
admission of such evidence shall cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the
party against whom it is admitted.
Direct and circumstantial evidence
DIRECT EVIDENCE – proof of the fact or point in issue, as
distinguished from circumstantial proof; that if believed, establishes the
truth or falsity of a fact in issue and does not arise from presumption.
In an eyewitness testimony there is no need to
infer or presume.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – evidence not being
directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from
which the judge might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.
o Require inference or drawing presumption from
attendant facts.
o Not directly probative of a certain fact and
needs more analysis.
DIRECT EVIDENCE
Establishes the existence of a fact in issue
without the aid of any inference or presumption
The witness testifies directly of his own
knowledge as to the main facts to be proved.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Does not prove the existence of a fact in issue
directly, but merely provides for logical inference that such fact really
exists
Each proof is given of facts and circumstances
from which the court may infer other connected facts which reasonably follow,
according to the common experience of mankind.
Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on
circumstantial evidence is sufficient if:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven;
c. The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Positive and negative
evidence
Positive Evidence
Positive evidence involves an affirmative
assertion regarding the occurrence or non-occurrence of a fact. It is provided
by a witness who directly testifies to having perceived an event or fact. For
instance, if a witness testifies, "I saw the accused at the scene of the
crime," this constitutes positive evidence affirming the accused's
presence.
Negative Evidence
Negative evidence, conversely, entails a
witness's statement that they did not perceive or are unaware of a particular
fact or event. For example, a witness stating, "I was present at the
location but did not see the accused there," offers negative evidence
suggesting the accused's absence.
Evidentiary Weight in Philippine Jurisprudence
Philippine courts generally accord greater
weight to positive evidence over negative evidence. This principle is based on
the premise that an individual who asserts the occurrence of an event is more
likely to be accurate than one who asserts its non-occurrence, especially when
the latter's assertion is based solely on the absence of perception.
In Revilla v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme
Court elucidated this distinction: "Evidence is negative when the witness
states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact, and positive when
the witness affirms that a fact did not occur."
Application in Legal Proceedings
This distinction is particularly significant in
criminal cases. For example, an accused may present an alibi (a form of
negative evidence) claiming they were elsewhere when the crime occurred.
However, if a credible witness provides positive identification placing the
accused at the crime scene, the positive evidence typically prevails. As noted
in People v. Ramos, "Positive identification where categorical and
consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over a denial."
Case Study I remember handing this case in 2005.
Y is my client. X was murdered and the primary suspect was Y. They were
neighbors and had a long-standing grudge. They were seen in public having
altercations. Y was reputed to be a gun-for-hire in the community. There were,
however, no eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting. Y was accused of the crime. The
prosecutor’s evidence consisted in testimony offered to prove that the accused
was at the vicinity when the crime was committed, that a person wearing a
helmet with the accused’s same height and built was seeing fleeing in a
motorcycle away from the scene of the crime. There was also a testimony offered
to prove the history of animosity between the parties.
Our defense:
ALIBI (a negative defense). The accused said
that he was in a different municipality at the time of the shooting. We
presented witnesses placing him elsewhere attending a barrio fiesta than at the
place of the incident.
Evidence for the prosecution
What was the purpose of the testimony that the
accused was at the vicinity and that a person matching the accused’s
description was seen feeling from the crime scene? Take note no one directly
saw the accused shooting the victim.
It was an attempt
to prove OPPORTUNITY. The prosecution wanted to place the accused at the scene
of the crime to prove that it was possible that he was the one who shot the
victim.
What was the purpose of the testimony that the
accused and the victim has a history of animosity?
It was an attempt
to prove MOTIVE. The prosecution wanted to impress upon the judge that their
longstanding grudge may have been the reason why the accused shot the victim.
Would evidence on motive and opportunity be
material? In other words, did the testimonial evidence of the prosecution prove
the fact in issue in the case which is whether the accused was the one who shot
the victim?
Of course not.
Direct evidence of the shooting would have been an eyewitness account that the
accused shot his brother-in-law or maybe a video or photograph of the shooting
itself. So these are 2 circumstantial events, motive and opportunity, to pin
the blame upon the client.
Were the testimonies offered by the prosecution
on motive and opportunity admitted by the court considering that they were
immaterial?
Yes. They may have
been immaterial but they were still relevant. That the accused had opportunity
and motive were collateral matters on, in more familiar terms, circumstantial
evidence of the fact in issue. Although they do not tend to prove the fact in
issue directly, they have the tendency in reason to establish the probability
or improbability of the fact in use. That made them admissible.
Did I win the case? Of course.
What about the negative defense of alibi?
The evidence of the prosecution as purely
circumstantial. No one can directly identify that my client was the one who
shot the victim.
The negative defense of alibi, although
inherently weak as a defense and frowned upon, but that was my only defense.
Our defense was a negative one which is weak but
one that negative defense is defeated only by positive evidence. It was
therefore very easy to cross-examine the witnesses by asking “did any one of
you see the accused shoot the victim?”. Because none of them actually saw the
accused actually shoot the victim and none of them can also say that it was
someone else, what type of evidence is produces from their testimony? Also
negative because they can neither confirm
nor deny that specific fact in issue in the case.
That was enough to create a reasonable doubt in
the mind of the judge that my client did
not shoot the victim.
Competent and credible evidence
Competent Evidence
Competent evidence refers to evidence that is
admissible in court because it complies with all legal requirements and is not
excluded by any law or rule. For evidence to be considered competent, it must
be both relevant to the issue at hand and not barred by any exclusionary rules,
such as those against hearsay or violations of the best evidence rule.
Example: A properly authenticated contract
presented in a breach of contract case serves as competent evidence. It is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by any rule, thereby meeting the
criteria for admissibility.
Credible
Evidence
Credible evidence is that which is worthy of
belief and convinces the court of its truthfulness. The credibility of evidence
depends on its inherent plausibility and the reliability of its source. For
testimonial evidence, this means the witness must testify in a clear,
straightforward, and consistent manner, without indications of bias or deceit.
Example: An eyewitness who provides a consistent
and detailed account of a crime, without any apparent motive to lie, offers
credible evidence. The court is likely to find such testimony believable and
give it significant weight in its deliberations.
Distinction Between Competent and Credible
Evidence
While competent evidence pertains to the
admissibility of evidence based on legal standards, credible evidence relates
to the believability and persuasive value of the evidence once admitted.
Evidence must first be competent to be admitted; thereafter, its credibility
determines the weight it will carry in the court's decision-making process.
Application in Legal Proceedings
In practice, Philippine courts assess both the
competence and credibility of evidence. For instance, in People of the
Philippines v. Pacifico Sancajo Jr., the Supreme Court emphasized that
"evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness, but it must be credible in itself—such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances."
Comments
Post a Comment