Evidence

Purpose: To ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact.

Sources:

Reason: There is a presumption that the court is not aware of the

veracity of the facts involved in a case, thus, it is incumbent upon the
parties to prove a facts in issue through the presentation of
admissible evidence.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Rules of Court 128-133

Constitution
Special Laws
RPC CC
Jurisprudence
SC Circulars

Rule 128
Section 1. EVIDENCE DEFINED
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.
Any material which tends to persuade the court of the truth or
probability of some facts asserted before it.
Four Component Elements:
1. Evidence as a means of ascertainment includes not only
the procedure or manner of ascertainment but also the
evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of
fact may be ascertained.
2. Sanctioned by these rules not excluded but must be
allowed by the rules of court or by law.
3. In a judicial proceeding contemplates an action or
proceeding filed in a court of law; not a mere dispute
between two contending parties.
4. The truth respecting a matter of fact refers to an issue of
fact and is both:
a. Substantive determines the facts to be established;
and
b. Procedural governs the manner of proving said facts.

General Rule: all facts in issue and relevant facts must be proven by
evidence.
Exceptions: (JAPAKI)
1. Facts which are subject to judicial notice;
2. Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the
answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged;
3. Facts which are legally presumed;
4. Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts
between the parties as well as those admitted by the party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case;
5. Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party;
and
6. Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial
to the issues.
Distinctions:
Evidence is the medium by which a fact is proved or disproved.
Proof is the effect or result of evidence. It is the probative effect of
conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from the consideration
of the evidence.
Evidence is a comprehensive term that includes testimony.
Testimony is only a part of evidence. It is a kind of evidence
presented in a trial by witnesses verbally.

Evidence is the means by which the tribunal is sought to be

persuaded as to some fact-in-issue. It merely presents the elemental
facts for the tribunals appreciation.
Argument is the invocation of counsel of ordinary rules of logic and
rhetoric in the combination of assumed facts to enable the tribunal to
draw the desired inference.
Factum Probandum is the ultimate fact or proposition sought to be
established. Hypothetical.
Factum Probans is the material evidencing the proposition. It is the
evidentiary fact by which the factum probandum is established.
Existent.
Classification of evidence:
As to its ability to establish the fact in dispute
Direct evidence: evidence which proves the fact in dispute without
the aid of any inference or presumption.
Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from
premises known or assumed to be true.

Illustration: x testified that he saw A holding a knife while running

from the place where B was found lying on his own blood; that As
hands are full of blood; and days after the incident, A flee from the
Philippines. When these facts are taken together, they will show that
A is the one who killed B.
As to the degree of the value in establishing a disputed fact
Prima Facie Evidence (on its face)
That which, standing alone unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. By itself, it is factum
probandum if no evidence to the contrary appears.
Note: those which are enumerated under rule 131, section 3 are
prima facie presumptions.
Conclusive evidence is evidence of which is incontrovertible or one
which the law does not allow to be contradicted.
Note: those which are enumerated under rule 131 section 2 are
conclusive presumptions.
As to the similarity of character or nature of the additional evidence

Illustration: x saw a attack b with a hammer. The testimony of x is a

direct evidence against a for the crime of homicide.

Corroborative evidence additional evidence of a different kind and

character from that already given, tending to prove the same point.

Circumstantial evidence: proof of fact or facts from which, taken

either singly or collectively, the existence of the particular fact in
dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.

Illustration: the testimonies of the witness that he victims died of

gunshot wounds may be corroborated by the death certificates of the
victims.

As to probative value (RELEVANCE), the court considers

circumstantial evidence as being of a nature identical to direct
evidence because no greater degree of certainty is required when
the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct.

Cumulative evidence additional evidence of the same kind and

character as that already given and tends to prove the same
proposition.

Illustration: the testimony of A as to who shot B is cumulative to the

testimony of C as to who he was seen at the place where the crime
is committed.

Admissible evidence one that is relevant and competent. 1)

relevant evidence one which has a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence (rule 128, section 4)

As to its weight and accountability

Competent evidence evidence not excluded by law or rules in a

particular case.

Primary or best evidence of which affords the created certainty of

the fact in question.
Note: in an action on a written contract, the best evidence of its
contents is the original instrument.
Secondary or substitutionary evidence of which is inferior to primary
evidence and admissible only in the absence of the latter.
Note: a photocopy of the written contract on which the action arises
is a secondary evidence of its contents.
As to nature
Object evidence is such which directly addressed to the senses of
the court and is capable of being exhibited to, examined or viewed
by the court.
Illustration: A knife that is alleged to be used in the killing o B was
produced in the court. The knife is the object evidence
Documentary evidence it consist of writings or any material
containing letter, words, numbers, figures symbols or other modes of
written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
Illustration: the promissory note written by A to B was produced in
evidence to prove that the amount stated thereon is already due and
demandable.
As to quality

Material evidence is evidence which tends to prove or disprove a

fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and
pleadings.
Credible evidence it is not only admissible evidence but also
believable and used by the court in deciding a case.
The following are some of the evidence excluded by rules:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Best evidence rule 130 section 3

Parol evidence rule 130 section 9
Hearsay evidence rules 130 section 36
Offer of compromise in civil cases 130 section 27
Disqualification of witness by reason of mental incapacity
130 section 21
6. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse
party 130 section 23
7. Disqualification by reason of marriage 130 section 22
8. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications 130
section 24
The following are the evidence excluded by the constitution
1. Those obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures 3, section 2
2. Those obtained in violation of the right to privacy of
communication and correspondence 3 section 3
3. Confession and admissions obtained in violation of the rights
of a person under investigation for the commission of an
offense 3 article 12

4. Those obtained in violation of the right against selfincrimination 3 section 17

Other classifications of evidence
1. Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence is that kind which is
given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in
evidence by the adverse party. It is evidence in denial of
some affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has
attempted to prove.
sur-rebuttal evidence is a reply to rebuttal evidence. When the
plaintiff in rebuttal is permitted to introduce new matter,
defendants should be permitted to introduce evidence in surrebuttal and to decline to permit them to do so is error, especially
when the evidence in sur-rebuttal is for the first time made
competent by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in rebuttal,
but defendant should not ask for the right to meet the new
matter.
2. Positive and negative evidence
Positive evidence is when a witness affirms in the stand that a
certain state of facts does exist or that a certain event happened.
Negative evidence is when the witness states that an event did not
occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
Note: generally, the testimony of those who swear negatively that
they did not see or hear is not to be accorded credible persons,
having the same opportunities of seeing and observing that a thing
was or was not done.
Illustration: a testified that he saw B set fire of the house of X on a
specific date and time, this testimony is a positive evidence and
accordingly the testimony of C that he was on that occasion at the

place where the house of X was burned and the place where the
house of X was burned is a negative evidence.
3. Expert evidence it is the testimony of one possessing in
regard to a particular subject or usually acquired by other
person.
4. Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion.
Rules of evidence have been classified into: Rules of Probative
Policy and rules of Extrinsic policy
A. Rules of Probative Policy
1. Exclusionary rules exclude certain kinds of evidence
on grounds partly of relevancy and partly of policy
(example: character evidence is generally not admissible
unless the character is the issue)
2. Preferential rules require one kind of evidence in
preference to any other (example: under the best
evidence rule, when the content of a document is the
subject of inquiry, the best evidence is the original
document).
3. Analytic rules subject certain kinds of evidence to rigid
scrutiny, so as to expose its possible weakness and
shortcoming (example: the rules require that an
opportunity must be given to cross-examine the witness,
without this opportunity, the testimony is hearsay and
generally excluded.)
4. Prophylactic rules apply beforehand to prevent risk of
falsify or mistake (example: it is required that a witness
take an oath or affirmation before testifying.)
5. Quantitative rules require certain kinds of evidence to be
produced in specific quantity. These rules require then to
be associated with other evidence when presented
(example: an extra judicial; confession made by an

accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,

unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti).
B. Rules of extrinsic policy these rules seek to exclude useful
evidence for the sake of upholding other policies considered
more paramount and are either absolute or conditional.
Under the total exclusionary rule, illegally seized evidence is
inadmissible in any proceedings.
Absence of vested rights in the rules on evidence
General rule: no vested rights in the rules of evidence.
Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in
accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is
presented. Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the law at
the time the action accrued, may be received in evidence
provided that it is admissible under the law in force at that
time it is presented. The rules are subject to change by the
SC subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment
of ex post facto laws.
Exception: in criminal cases, if the alteration of the rules of
evidence would, for instance, permit the reception of a lesser
quantum of evidence than what the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense in order to convict, then the
retroactive application of such amendatory law would be
unconstitutional for being ex post facto.
Liberal construction of the rules of evidence: like all other
provisions under the rules of court, the rules of evidence
must be liberally construed (1, section 6) rules of procedures
are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate
the attainment of justice. However, to justify the relaxation of
the rules, a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent
fulfillment of the requirements have always been required.
Waiver of the rules of evidence
General rule: rules of evidence that are merely for protection
of the parties may be waived either during trial or in a

contract. A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of

eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning the
death of the insured person, is valid.
The applicability of the rules is deemed waived upon failure
to seasonably raise the objection. The rules of evidence are
established for the protection of the parties (example: failure
to object to the inadmissibility of secondary evidence in
documentary evidence.)
Exception: if the rule waived by the parties has been
established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is
void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against
disclosure of secrets is void.
Section 2. scope
Uniformity of rules of evidence in judicial proceedings: 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 such as those enumerated under section 4 Rule
1 which are: (NICOLE)
1. Naturalization proceedings
2. Insolvency proceedings
3. Cadastral proceedings
4. Other cases as may be provided by law
5. Land registration cases
6. Election cases
Applicability of the rules on evidence:
1. In civil cases covered by the rules on summary procedure
where the parties are required to submit position papers
attaching thereto affidavits of witnesses, thus obviating the
application of the rules on evidence still apply. Therefore,
any document or object evidence presented by the parties in
their respective position papers must still conform to the
rules on evidence.

2. In criminal cases covered by the rules on summary

procedure while the affidavits of the parties and their
witnesses constitute their direct testimony, they may still be
subject to cross-examination, redirect or re-cross
examination. The rules on evidence still apply on any
document or object evidence presented.
3. Small claims cases the small claims process is designed to
function quickly and informally. There are no lawyers, no
formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence.
4. Administrative cases the rules of evidence are not strictly
observed in proceedings before administrative bodies.
Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties
of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of
law.
While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the
NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the
adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed
as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The
evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for
it to have probative value.
Quasi-judicial bodies are given the authority to make rules of
procedure. However , they have no power to make their own rules
concerning quantum if evidence. Such power is vested in the SC
Article 8 section 5
Section 3. admissibility of evidence
Requisites for admissibility of evidence the evidence must be
relevant and competent.
1. Relevant such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. A matter of
relationship between the evidence and a fact in issue.
Evidence having value in reason as tending to prove any
matter provable in an action. A simple test of relevancy is the

ability of evidence to persuade or if it can be of help to the

fact-finder in establishing the probability or improbability of a
fact in issue.
Two components of relevant evidence:
a. Materiality looks to the relation between the
propositions for which the evidence is offered and the
issues of the case. The test of materiality relates to
whether the evidence is offered upon a matter properly
in issue i.e. whether it is directed toward a fact within
the range of allowable controversy.
b. Probativeness probative value is the tendency of
evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to
prove.
2. Competent not excluded by the rules on evidence, the law
and the constitution.
Relevancy is an affair of logic, human experience and common
sense, while competence is determined by law.
a. Two axioms of admissibility by wigmore
1. Axiom of relevancy none but facts having rational
probative value are admissible. It merely prescribes that
whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented
on the hypothesis that it is calculated according to the
prevailing standards of reasoning to effect rational
persuasion.
2. Axiom of competency all facts having rational
probative value are admissible unless some specific rule
forbids their admission.
b. Types of admissibility
1. Multiple admissibility of evidence where the evidence
is relevant and competent for two or more purposes,
such evidence may be admitted for any or all the
purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all
the requirements of law for its admissibility thereof.
Example: a confession of an accused may not be
competent as against his co-accused being a hearsay as

to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between then without

the conspiracy being established by other evidence,
nonetheless, the confession of the accused may be
admitted as evidence of his own guilt. yatco
2. Conditional admissibility of evidence where the
evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial
or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to
be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received
on the condition that the other facts will be proved
thereafter; otherwise, the evidence given will be stricken
out from the record. Note: the offering counsel may be
required by the court, as a condition precedent (1) to
state the supposed connecting facts, and (2) to promise
to evidence them later. If a promise thus made is not
fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted, if the motion is made by the
opposite party.
3. Curative admissibility of evidence (fighting fire with fire)
where improper evidence was admitted over the
objection of the opposing party, he should be permitted
to contradict it with similar improper evidence.
Otherwise, it would result in disparity of rulings to his
prejudice. This is evidence introduced to cure, contradict
or neutralize improper evidence presented by the other
party. Illustration: a sues b for the letters alleged refusal
to pay for merchandise supplied by A. B denies having
received the merchandise. In the course of the trial, A
introduces evidence showing that B swindled C on a
similar transaction before. This should not have been
admitted. B now offers to explain that he entered into a
fair transaction with C. in fairness to B, this should be
admitted.
Admissibility refers to the question of whether or not the evidence
is to be considered at all.

- it is determined by its relevance and competence.

- It depends on logic and law.
Weight (probative value) it refers to the question of whether or not
is proves an issue. It pertains to its tendency to convince and
persuade. It depends on the guidelines provided in rule 133 and
doctrines laid down by the SC.
c.

Rules of exclusion v exclusionary rules

1. Rules of exclusion in the system of evidence, they are
rules of exception to a general admissibility of all that is
rational and probative.
2. Exclusionary rules these are commonly used for
evidence excluded by the constitution. In its simplest
form, these rules are applied to cases where the
challenged evidence is quite clearly direct or primary in
its relationship to the prior arrest or search.

The following are rules that exclude certain types of evidence:

a. Best evidence rule when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document (130, 3)
b. Parole evidence when the terms of the agreement have
been reduce to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement. 130, 9
c. Hearsay evidence a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that which is
derived from his own perception. 130, 36
d. Offer of compromise in civil cases in civil cases, an offer of
compromise is not admission of any liability and is not
admissible evidence against the offeror. 130, 27
e. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of the adverse
party 130, 23

f. Disqualification by reason of marriage 130, 22

g. Disqualification of witness by reason of mental incapacity
130, 21
h. Disqualification by reason of privilege communication 130,
24
The following are the provisions of the constitution and law that
exclude evidence:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Right against unreasonable search and seizure 3, 2

Right to privacy and inviolability of communication 3,3
Right of a person under investigation for an offense 3,12
Right against self-incrimination 3, 17
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result
of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any
proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against
a person or persons accused in committing torture (antitorture act. 9745 section 8)
f. Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications,
messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written
words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact
complained therein, including their existence, content,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning which have been
secured in violation of the provision of Human Security Act
shall absolutely be inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial.
Legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry,
proceeding or hearing (9372, section 15)
g. Evidence obtained in violation of ra 4200 (anti-wiretapping)
shall not be admissible in evidence in the following
proceedings:
1. Judicial
2. Quasi-judicial
3. Legislative
4. Administrative
Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also
inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained
as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the fruit of the poisonous
tree is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but
is equally in admissible. The rule is based on the principle that
evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain
other evidence because the originally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained.
The fruit of the poisonous tree is likewise known as the but for test
or taint doctrine. The test is whether or not the evidence could not
have been obtained but for the illegal action of the police.
Admissibility of electronic documents an electronic document is
admissible evidence if:
a. It complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
rules of court and related laws;
b. It is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules on
electronic evidence (rule 3, section 2 on rules on electronic
evidence).
Admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of RA 1405: law on
secrecy on bank deposits
GR: all deposits with banking institutions in the Philippines including
investments in bonds issued by the government of the Philippines
are considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not
be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government
official, bureau or office.
Exception: upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of
impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery
or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Section 2

Note: nowhere in RA 1405 provides that an unlawful examination of

bank accounts shall render the evidence obtained therefrom
inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of RA 1405 only states that any
violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an
imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than
twenty thousand pesos or both. Ejercito
Section 4. relevancy; collateral matters
Relevancy the evidence is relevant when it related directly to a fact
in issue; or to a fact from which, by the process of logic, an inference
may be made as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
The court will admit only evidence which bears such sufficient
relationship to the matters in dispute that it may be deemed relevant.
This is the first exclusionary rule in the law of evidence, i.e. only
relevant evidence is admissible.
Test of relevancy
1. Experience and rule of logic whatever naturally and
logically tends to establish a fact in issue is relevant, and
that which fails to quality in this respect is not relevant.
2. The rational or logical relevancy test in determining a
dispute concerning the relevancy of proffered evidence, the
question to be resolved is whether there is logical or rational
connection between the fact which is sought to be proved
and a matter of fact which has been made an issue in the
case.
3. The logical connection test in collateral matters the test of
relevancy is logical connection where the question is
whether evidence is admissible to show collateral fact, or
where proffered evidence is relevant to a collateral issue.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Collateral matters refer to matters other than the fact in

issue. These are matters outside the controversy, or are not
directly connected with the principal matter or issue in
dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
Kinds of collateral matters
1. Prospectant/antecedent those preceding the fact in
issue but pointing forward to it (example: moral
character, habit, customs, motive, conspiracy);
2. Concomitant those accompanying the fact in issue and
pointing to it (example: alibi, opportunity, incompatibility).
3. Retrospectant/subsequent circumstance taking place
after the disputed fact occurred which may show the
truth or falsity of the facts or controversy (example: flight,
concealment, nervousness, bloodstains, offer of
compromise).
Fact in issue are those which the plaintiff must prove in order to
establish his claim and those facts which the defendant must prove
in order to establish a defense set up by him, but only when the fact
alleged by one party is not admitted by the other party.
Facts relevant to the issue are those which render probable the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or some other relevant
fact.