Notes in Evidence and Trial Technique Based onbook on Evidence by Dean Willard B.

Riano
Rivad, Sherine L. | Arellano University School of Law | 1
st
Sem, AY 2014 2015
1

CHAPTER 1: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

A. Basic Principles



Sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court -> not excluded by law or
by the Rules; not includes hearsay evidence, coerced confession,
evidence obtain in violation of Constitutional rights
Not applicable in all types of proceedings, i.e. judicial proceeding only
Presumption: Court is not aware of the veracity of facts involved in a
case
Not necessarily the actual truth but the judicial or legal truth -> depend
on the evidence presented

Scope and Applicability of Rules of Evidence
Principle of Uniformity -> Same in all courts and in all trials and hearings



Not applicable in the following instances:
o Election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization(Ong
Chia vs. Republic) and insolvency proceedings (Sec. 4 Rule 1 of
Rules)
XPN: By analogy or suppletory character, or whenever
convenient or practicable
o Administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings
Administrative agencies (SRA vs. Tormon, GR No. 195640)
Labor cases (Mayon Hotel vs. Adana,458 SCRA 609)
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor
cases if the decision to grant the petition proceeds
from an examination of its sufficiency as well as a
careful look into the arguments contained in position
papers and other documents.(Sasan vs. NLRC)

When evidence is required; When not required:
When the court has to resolve a question of fact
Not required if pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact ->
judgment on the pleadings
Presentation of evidence may be dispensed with by agreement of
parties
Not also required on matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially
admitted
Not required when a law or rule presumes the truth of a fact
o Ex.: Art. 1756 of the Civil Code, i.e. common carriers in case of
death or injuries of passengers

Rules on electronic evidence, in contrary to rules on evidence in the Rules
of Court, does not apply to criminal actions but only to civil actions, quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings (Ang vs. CA)

Evidence in Civil Cases Evidence in Criminal Cases
Preponderance of evidence Guilt of accused has to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt
Offer of compromise is not an
admission of liability and not
admissible in evidence against the
offeror
GR: Offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt
XPN: Quasi-offenses or allowed by law
to be compromised
Presumption of innocence does not
apply
Accused enjoys the constitutional
presumption of innocence

Proof is not the evidence itself. It is the effect or result of evidence.

Relationship of Facts: Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum

Factum Probandum Factum Probans
Fact or proposition to be established Fact or material evidencing the fact or
proposition to be established
In civil case: Refers to the elements of
a cause of action from point of view of
plaintiff and elements of defense
from standpoint of defendant

In criminal case: Includes all matters
that prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable dout


Rules on Evidence must be liberally construed
No vested right in the rules on evidence
o Reason: Subject to change by the SC
o Change in rules is subject to constitutional limitation on the
enactment of ex post facto laws

Waiver of the Rules on Evidence
May be waived -> objectionable evidence is not objected to, evidence
becomes admissible because of waiver
o Ex. Failure to object to hearsay evidence -> admissible
Parties may stipulate waiving rules on evidence provided that:
o no law or principles of morality, good customs and public policy
are transgressed, or
o no rights of third persons are violated
Failure to object with respect to privileged communication involving
state secrets communicated to a public officer in official confidence ->
not be construed as waiver of the privileged character of the
communication
o Reason: Public policy consideration

B. Admissibility of Evidence



Requisites for the Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence is relevant
o Requires existence of a fact in issue, a disputed fact
o
Evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)
o Examples of Incompetent evidence:
Hearsay (Sec. 36, Rule 130)
Privileged between husband and wife (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130)
Oral evidence which does not conform to statute of frauds
(Art. 1403(2), Civil Code)
Those obtains in violation of constitutional guarantees (Sec.
3(2), Art. III, Philippine Constitution)
ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ABAS A. CANDAO AND ISRAEL B. HARON vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 186659-710 | October 19, 2011

Facts: The Sandiganbayan found herein petitioners guilty of malversation of
public funds under Art. 217 of the RPCfor illegal withdrawing from the
depository accounts of ORG-ARMMthrough the issuance of checks payable to
the order of petitioner Haron without the required disbursement vouchers.

Issue: W/N the equipoise rule is applicable in the case

Held: Petitioners did not accomplish the proper liquidation of the entire amount
withdrawn, during the expanded audit or any time thereafter. There is
therefore no merit in petitioners argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in not
applying the equipoise rule.

Equipoise rule where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise
or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof loses.
It finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does
not suffice to produce a conviction.

Sec. 3 .Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the law of these rules
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.
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.
Notes in Evidence and Trial Technique Based onbook on Evidence by Dean Willard B. Riano
Rivad, Sherine L. | Arellano University School of Law | 1
st
Sem, AY 2014 2015
2

Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was able to prove
by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds
under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the amount illegally
withdrawn from the said funds.

In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient
proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not
have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he
could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal
misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.
Petition is denied.

ONG CHIA, petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 127240 | March 27, 2000

Facts:The Regional Trial Court admitted herein petitioner Ong Chia to Philippine
citizenship but however this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.In
this petition, Ong Chia assails that the CA gravely abused its discretion in ruling
that in naturalization cases, the appellate court can deny an application for
Philippine citizenship on the basis of the documents not presented before the
trial court and not forming part of the records of the case, as provided under
Sec. 34 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Issue: W/N petitioners contention is meritorious

Held: No

Based on Rule 143 of the Rules of Court, the rule on formal offer of
evidence (Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not
applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization.
The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or
suppletorily in such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient."

That is not the case here, since reliance upon the documents presented by the
State for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical and
convenient course of action considering that decisions in naturalization
proceedings are not covered by the rule on res judicata. Consequently, a final
favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later on moving for a
revocation of the grant of naturalization on the basis of the same documents.

Petitioner claims that as a result of the failure of the State to present and
formally offer its documentary evidence before the trial court, he was denied
the right to object against their authenticity, effectively depriving him of his
fundamental right to procedural due process.

The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which has
not been formally offered is to afford the opposite party the chance to
object to their admissibility.
Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the right to object to
the authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate court by
the State. He could have included his objections, as he, in fact, did, in
the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals

Petition is denied.

SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONet. al vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 148021 | December 6, 2006

Facts: This is a petition for review under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the
Decision of the Court of Appeals ,which affirmed the Resolution of the National
Labor Relations Commission, dismissing the consolidated complaints for illegal
lockout, illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against Sime Darby for lack of
merit. Herein petitioners now claim that the labor arbiter erred when it failed to
consider as admitted the matters contained in their Request for Admission after
respondents failed to file a sworn answer thereto.

Issue: W/N petitioners Request for Admission should have been granted and
the evidence included therein should have been admitted since respondents
reply/objection thereto were not made under oath

Held: No
Petitioner's request constitutes "an utter redundancy and a useless,
pointless process which the respondent should not be subjected to."
o Rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended "to expedite
trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will
not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained
by reasonable inquiry."
Well-settled is the rule that hearings and resolutions of labor disputes
are not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence and
procedure observed in the regular courts of law. Technical rules of
procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by
analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need
to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and
convenient solution to a labor problem.
In view of the nature of the matters requested for admission by the
petitioners, their request for admission would have only served to
delay the proceedings.

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 110662 | August 4, 1994

Facts: Herein private respondent orally formally offered in evidence in an
annulment case against petitioner three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitioner
submitted her Objection/Comment to private respondent's oral offer of
evidencewhich was denied.

A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals
assailing the admission in evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes. This
was also denied by the respondent court hence this petition.

Issue: W/N respondent Court is correct in ruling that a petition for certiorari is
notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence
adduced during trial.

Held: No
GR: The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to
challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court.
o Proper remedy: Ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment,
incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the
interlocutory order
o XPN: Where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous
and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of
redress

In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order admitting all of the
evidence offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of telephone
conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons.
Rep. Act No. 4200makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence -
> CA failed to consider
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of
the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 129296 | September 25, 2000

Facts:For automatic review is the decision by the RTC finding herein appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, i.e. in flagrante delicto and without authority of law, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously plant, cultivate and culture seven fully
grown marijuana plants.

Herein appellant assails such decision contending that the trial court gravely
erred in admitting as evidence the marijuana plants despite their inadmissibility
being products of illegal search, thus failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Issue: W/N prosecutions evidence is sufficient to prove appellant's guilt

Held: No
It is fundamental in criminal prosecutions that before an accused may
be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must establish by proof
Notes in Evidence and Trial Technique Based onbook on Evidence by Dean Willard B. Riano
Rivad, Sherine L. | Arellano University School of Law | 1
st
Sem, AY 2014 2015
3

beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the
accused is the author thereof.
o Evidence arrayed against the accused, however, must not only
stand the test of reason, it must likewise be credible and
competent.
o Competent evidence is "generally admissible" evidence.
o Admissible evidence, in turn, is evidence "of such a character that
the court or judge is bound to receive it, that is, allow it to be
introduced at trial.

In the instant case, the trial court relied on two pieces of probative matter to
convict appellant of the offense charged:
The seized marijuana plants -> in violation of appellant's constitutional
rights against unreasonable searches and seizures
Appellant's purportedly voluntary confession of ownership of said
marijuana plants to the police ->not only hearsay but also violative of
the Bill of Rights (without counsel)
Other than these proofs, there was no other evidence presented to link
appellant with the offense charged. In sum, both the object evidence and the
testimonial evidence as to appellant's voluntary confession of ownership of the
prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant's guilt failed to meet the test of
Constitutional competence.

CECILIA ZULUETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN
G.R. No. 107383| February 20, 1996

Facts: Herein petitioner used as evidence the documents and papers she seized
from private respondent in a case for legal separation and for disqualification
from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
An action for recovery was then filed by Martin which was granted by the trial
court and affirmed by herein respondent court. Hence this petition.

Issue: W/N the documents and papers seized by petitioner from the respondent
is admissible, citing the case of Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.

Held: No

The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication
and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply
because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's
infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is
to be enforced.
o XPN: There is a "lawful order from a court or when public safety
or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GODOFREDO B. ADOR and DIOSDADO B. ADOR
G.R. Nos. 140538-39| June 14, 2004

Facts: Herein defendants, convicted of murder of Abe Cuya, contend in this
appeal that the trial court gravely erred in convicting them of murder based on
circumstantial evidence: The testimony of prosecution witness Pablo Calsis that
he saw them running away from the scene of the crime was concocted. The
handgun turned in by Godofredo was not the same gun presented by the
prosecution during the trial. The unusual discovery of a slug from the head of
the deceased - three (3) days after the autopsy was conducted and after the
cadaver was turned over to the family of the victim - was quite doubtful. Even
the supposed dying declaration of the victim specifically pointed to neither
Diosdado III nor Godofredo; and, the trial court erred in admitting in evidence
those taken against them in violation of their constitutional rights to counsel
during custodial investigation.

Issue: W/N circumstantial evidence presented against defendants is sufficient to
convict them of murder

Held: No
The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial
evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. It may be the basis of a
conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances
proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances must be consistent with each other:
o Consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty
of the offense charged, and at the same time
o Inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocent
and with every other possible, rational hypothesis except
that of guilt
For circumstantial evidence to suffice:
o there should be more than one circumstance;
o the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
o the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on
record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the
circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
Guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence:
o it should be acted upon with caution;
o all the essential facts must be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt;
o the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and
o the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the
accused as to convince the judgment beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who
committed the offense

Measured against the guidelines set, we cannot uphold the conviction of the
accused based on the circumstantial evidence presented.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUEL BACONGUIS y INSON
G.R. No. 149889 | December 2, 2003

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"
G.R. No. 150224 | May 19, 2004

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MORENO L. TUMIMPAD
G.R. No. 109144 |August 19, 1994
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL SARTAGODA y BOCANEGRA
G.R. No. 97525 | April 7, 1993

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME CARPO, OSCAR IBAO, WARLITO IBAO and
ROCHE IBAO
G.R. No. 132676 | April 4, 2001

Facts:

Issue:

Held:
Notes in Evidence and Trial Technique Based onbook on Evidence by Dean Willard B. Riano
Rivad, Sherine L. | Arellano University School of Law | 1
st
Sem, AY 2014 2015
4