33:00 – 53:00

If you talk about evidence, as a rule, you apply the rule on uniformity. But there must be distinctions
such as in quantum of evidence, presumption of innocence is only applicable in criminal cases, offer
of compromise, circumstantial evidence.

Application of preponderance of evidence – equipoise rule.

In criminal cases, the effect is balance – the tilt is in favor of the accused.

In civil cases, the party who loses is the one who has the burden of proof.

What are the requisites of admissibility of evidence?

When is an evidence considered inadmissible?

1. Relevancy
2. Competency

If you say relevancy, evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. The gun used in killing A is a relevant evidence. It is not enough that the
evidence is relevant, it must also be competent.

The evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the law of the rules.

Relaxed rules in writ of amparo petitions.

The general rule is in order for evidence to be considered, it should be both relevant and competent.
But is it possible for an evidence to be admissible even though it is not competent but relevant?

YES. You have the new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence in amparo petitions: relevancy
and consistency.

In Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to
enable amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the State’s direct or indirect
involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair and proper rule in amparo cases “to
consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality” and “to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced.” Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules
for as long as it satisfies “the most basic test of reason – i.e., relevance of the evidence to the issue at
hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.”

A went to barangay to report that B has a possession of unlicensed gun. The police officers proceeded
to the house of B. Pumasok ang mga pulis hinanap ang baril. Kinuha yung unlicensed gun. Thereafter,
they brought B to the police station. B admitted that he is the owner of the unlicensed gun. He likewise
cite a waiver of his right to counsel. Is the evidence considered admissible against the accused?

Is it relevant? Yes.

Is it competent? No, there was no search warrant. His statement admitting he is in possession of the
unlicensed gun is likewise not admissible because he was no assisted by a competent counsel.

Ang tanong lang lagi sa evidence (a) arrest (b) search (c) admissibility.

1. If the search is legal, then the search made is also legal, then the evidence obtained is
admissible.
 2. If the arrest is illegal, then the search made is also illegal, the evidence obtained is
inadmissible.
3. The arrest is legal but the search is illegal such as invalid application of plain view doctrine.
The evidence obtained is inadmissible because it is a product of a poisonous tree –
exclusionary principle applies.

Kinds of admissibility of evidence

1. Multiple admissibility – a particular evidence is admissible for 2 or more purposes

2. Conditional admissibility – the admissibility of evidence is not apparent at the time it was
presented or offered but subject to the condition that you will establish the admissibility
3. Curative admissibility – if there is inadmissible evidence which was allowed or admitted by
the court over the objection of the other party, in order to cure the injustice to other party,
the court will also allow that other party to explain or rebut the testimony or present
inadmissible evidence likewise.

Hierarchy of evidentiary values

1. Proof beyond unreasonable doubt

2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
4. Substantial evidence

Burden of proof

1. In civil cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant have their respective burdens of proof

Rule 131, Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law.

When we talk about burden of proof, whatever is written in the pleading, that is your burden
of proof. Whatever is your defense in the answer is your burden of proof.

The defendant for example was able to discharge his onus probandi, what will happen now?
The burden of evidence will shift in the hands of the plaintiff to dispute the prima facie
presumption.

a. If it is an exercise of a privilege – attorney and client relationship

b. If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties

Presumption – suppression of evidence. Remember, evidence wilfully suppressed is adverse if

produced. Except:

1. If it is merely corroborative or cumulative

There was an informant who told the police officers that X is a drug pusher. There was a buy-
bust operation thereafter. Binigay yung marked money – huli. During trial, the informant was
not presented as a witness of the prosecution. He was convicted. On appeal, he faulted the
trial court because there was wilful suppression of evidence when the informant was not
presented as a witness.

People v. Noel Bartolome (2013)

 The presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success
of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court
for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the
culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is
protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the
testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of
the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded. Here, however, the
informant's testimony as a witness against the accused would only be corroborative of the
sufficient testimony of Paras as the poseur-buyer; hence, such testimony was unnecessary.

People v. Pablito Andaya (2014)

The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not ordinarily weaken
the State's case against the accused. However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the accused
based on the pre-arranged signal from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur
buyer, his non-presentation must be credibly explained and the transaction established by
other ways in order to satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the
arresting lawmen did not themselves participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused.

Presumption of regularity

Rosaroso v. Soria (2013)

Under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the following are disputable presumptions: (1) private
transactions have been fair and regular; (2) the ordinary course of business has been followed; and
(3) there was sufficient consideration for a contract. In this case, the respondents failed to trounce the
said presumption. Aside from their bare allegation that the sale was made without a consideration,
they failed to supply clear and convincing evidence to back up this claim. It is elementary in procedural
law that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of
Court.

Judicial Notice

Is there a need for you to prove that the capital of the Philippines is Manila? No. Mandatory judicial
notice.

Can the court take judicial notice of the fact that rape can be committed in public places?

People v. Rudy Nuyok (2015)

Rape can be committed in a cramped dwelling despite the probable presence of other occupants
because seclusion is not an element of the crime. Its commission can be established by circumstantial
evidence even if the victim, being the sole witness, was rendered unconscious during its commission.