CHAPTER TWO

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL

REASONING
 BURDEN OF PROOF
IT 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. (SECTION 1, RULE 131, RULES OF COURT)

IT IS SETTLED THAT THE PARTY ALLEGING A FACT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING
IT AND MERE ALLEGATION IS NOT EVIDENCE.
 WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?

IN CIVIL CASES, THE PLAINTIFF MAKES THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT AND
BEARS THE INITIAL BURDEN. THE DEFENDANT THEN FILES A RESPONSIVE PLEADING DENYING
SOME OR ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND THE BURDEN SHIFT TO THEM TO PROVE THEIR
DEFENSES OR COUNTERCLAIM.

IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PROSECUTION, AND UNLESS IT

DISCHARGES THAT BURDEN THE ACCUSED NEED NOT EVEN OFFER EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF, AND
HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL.

IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE
FACTS COMPLAINED OF RESTS ON THE COMPLAINANT.
 EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE

WHICH STATES THAT WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE ARE SO
EVENLY BALANCED THE APPRECIATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE CALLS FOR TILTING OF THE SCALES
IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.

IT IS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (SEC 14 (2), ARTICLE III).

 EVIDENCE
IS THE MEANS, SANCTIONED BY THE RULES OF COURT, OF ASCERTAINING IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING THE TRUTH RESPECTING A MATTER OF FACT. (SECTION 1, RULE 128, RULES OF
COURT)

TYPES OF EVIDENCE: (RULE 130 OF THE RULES OF COURT)

1) OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
2) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
3) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
A RULE OF EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRES AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, PHOTOGRAPH, RECORDING, OR
OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE BE INTRODUCED TO THE COURT TO PROVE THE CONTENTS OF THAT
SAME ITEM.

IT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE INQUIRY.
EXAMPLE
MAGGIE AND BRIAN, HER EX-BOYFRIEND, ARE IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT. THEY ARE ARGUING
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MAGGIE GAVE BRIAN AN EXPENSIVE SMARTPHONE AS A GIFT, OR
WHETHER SHE INTENDED THAT HE REPAY HER. BRIAN PRESENTS THE JUDGE WITH A PRINTOUT
OF A TEXT CONVERSATION WHEREIN IT APPEARS MAGGIE TELLS ME “NO PROBLEM, DON’T
WORRY ABOUT IT.” BRIAN CLAIMS THIS REGARDS THE “GIFT” OF THE CELL PHONE.

THE JUDGE ASKS THE PARTIES TO HAND HIM THEIR CELL PHONES, CUED UP TO THE
CONVERSATION. HE DISCOVERS THAT TEXT BUBBLES APPEARING ON THE PAPER COPY
PROVIDED BY BRIAN WERE PART OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. IN FACT,
MAGGIE’S ORIGINAL TEXTS – PROVIDED ON HER PHONE, RATHER THAN PRINTED OUT – SHOW
BRIAN TELLING HER HE’LL PAY HER WHEN HE IS ABLE.
 ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND IF IT IS NOT EXCLUDED BY
PROVISION OF LAW OR BY THE RULES OF COURT. (SECTION 3, RULE 128, RULES OF COURT)

TO BE RELEVANT, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST HAVE A RELATION TO THE FACT IN ISSUE AS TO INDUCE
BELIEF IN ITS EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE.

RELEVANCY IS THAT QUALITY IN EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO THE

TRUTH OR FALSITY OF MATTERS AT ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. A FACT IS RELEVANT WHEN IT
HELPS TO PROVE AN ISSUE. IT IS SUCH EVIDENCE THAT BEARS DIRECTLY UPON THE POINT OF
FACT IN ISSUE AND PROVES OR HAS A TENDENCY TO PROVE THE POINT ALLEGED.
EXAMPLES
RUBY IS CHARGED WITH STEALING COSTUME MAKEUP FROM A DRUGSTORE THE NIGHT BEFORE
HALLOWEEN. THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO OFFER EVIDENCE THAT RUBY’S MOM HAD REFUSED
TO BUY HER A HALLOWEEN COSTUME. THE EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT TO PROVE THAT RUBY HAD
A MOTIVE FOR STEALING THE MAKEUP.

CLARE IS CHARGED WITH CAR THEFT. SHE WAS ARRESTED IN HER HOME, AND THE PROSECUTION
WANTS TO OFFER EVIDENCE THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER FOUND MARIJUANA AND AN
UNREGISTERED HANDGUN THERE. UNLESS THE PROSECUTION CAN ESTABLISH THAT THE GUN
AND DRUGS WERE SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN THE THEFT, THERE’S NOTHING TO CONNECT THEM
WITH THE CRIME.
 TESTIMONY OF WITNESS
IT IS GENERALLY CONFINED TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. A WITNESS CAN TESTIFY
ONLY TO THOSE FACTS WHICH HE KNOWS OF HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH
ARE DERIVED FROM HIS OWN PERCEPTION, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER
THE RULES OF COURT. (SECTION 36, RULE 130, RULES OF COURT)

HEARSAY RULE - A WITNESS THEREFORE MAY NOT TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE MERELY

LEARNED FROM OTHERS EITHER BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD, OR HE READ OR HEARD THE
SAME. SUCH TESTIMONY MAY NOT BE RECEIVED AS PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF WHAT HE
HAS LEARNED.
 EXPERT TESTIMONY
REFERS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONSIDERED AS EXPERTS IN A
PARTICULAR FIELD.

THE OPINION OF A WITNESS ON A MATTER REQUIRING SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, EXPERIENCE

OR TRAINING WHICH HE IS SHOWN TO POSSESS, MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE. (SEC 49, RULE
130, RULES OF COURT)

IN THE SAME RULE, PUBLISHED TREATISE, PERIODICAL OR PAMPHLET ON A SUBJECT OF HISTORY,

LAW, SCIENCE , OR ART IS ADMISSIBLE AS TENDING TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF A MATTER STATED
THEREIN IF THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE, OR A WITNESS EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT
TESTIFIES, THAT THE WRITER OF THE STATEMENT IN THE TREATISE, PERIODICAL OR PAMPHLET IS
RECOGNIZED IN HIS PROFESSION OR CALLING AS EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON

OJ SIMPSON'S WIFE, NICOLE BROWN, AND HER FRIEND, RONALD GOLDMAN, WERE MURDERED IN 1994. AMPLE DNA EVIDENCE WERE
FOUND AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

ONE OF THE PROSECUTION’S INTENDED STAR WITNESSES WAS DENNIS FUNG, A FORENSIC SCIENTIST FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING THE BLOOD AND DNA EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. THE
DEFENSE’S CASE THEORY ARGUED THAT SIMPSON WAS BEING FRAMED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

BARRY SCHECK, ONE OF SIMPSON’S DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, QUESTIONED FUNG EXTENSIVELY ON HIS PRESERVATION METHODS DURING
CROSS EXAMINATION. WHILE BEING CROSS EXAMINED, FUNG ADMITTED THAT HE STORED BLOOD SAMPLES ON THE FLOOR OF A WARM
EVIDENCE TRUCK FOR SEVEN HOURS, HAD LEFT A VIAL OF SIMPSON’S BLOOD UNREFRIGERATED OVERNIGHT, AND FAILED TO COLLECT
BLOOD STAINS FROM THE GATE OF THE CRIME SCENE UNTIL THREE WEEKS AFTER THE MURDERS. AFTER NINE GRUELING DAYS ON THE
WITNESS STAND, FUNG FAMOUSLY SHOOK HANDS WITH SIMPSON AND HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL.

THE DEFENSE TEAM CALLED THEIR OWN EXPERT, FORENSIC SCIENTIST, HENRY CHANG-YU LEE, WHO POINTED OUT A NUMBER OF ISSUES
SURROUNDING THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE PROSECUTION’S KEY PIECES OF EVIDENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, LEE TESTIFIED THAT
A PAIR OF SOCKS FOUND AT SIMPSON’S HOME CAME IN CONTACT WITH BLOOD WHILE THEY WERE LYING FLAT, OPPOSED TO WHILE
THEY WERE BEING WORN, SUGGESTING THAT THE POLICE MAY HAVE TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE.

LEE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT A PAPER HOLDER WHICH CONTAINED EVIDENCE HAD EXHIBITED AN INEXPLICABLE SMUDGE, FURTHER
BOLSTERING THE DEFENSE’S CASE THEORY THAT BLOOD EVIDENCE WAS TAMPERED WITH IN THE LABORATORY. LEE’S TESTIMONY WAS
CONSIDERED DAMAGING TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE.
 EXAMINATION
THE ORDER IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS MAY BE EXAMINED:
1) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROPONENT – REFERS TO THE EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF A WITNESS
BY THE PARTY PRESENTING HIM ON THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE; (SEC 5, RULE 132)
2) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE OPPONENT – UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION,
THE WITNESS IS TO BE CORSS-EXAMINED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY AS TO ANY MATTERS STATED IN THE
DIRECT EXAMINATION, OR CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SUFFICIENT FULLNESS AND FREEDOM TO TEST
HIS ACCURACY AND TRUTHFULNESS AND FREEDOM FROM INTEREST OR BIAS, OR THE REVERSE, AND TO
ELICIT ALL IMPORTANT FACTS BEARING UPON THE ISSUE. (SEC 6, RULE 132)
3) RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROPONENT – AFTER THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, HE MAY BE RE-
EXAMINED BY THE PARTY CALLING HIM TO EXPLAIN OR SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS GIVEN DURING THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION. HERE, THE QUESTIONS ON MATTERS NOT DEALT WITH DURING CROSS-
EXAMINATION MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION. (SEC 7, RULE 132)
4) RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE OPPONENT – UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE PREVIOUS
EXAMINATION, THE ADVERSE PARTY MAY CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS ON MATTERS STATED IN
HIS RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION, AND ALSO ON SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE
COURT IN ITS DISCRETION. (SEC 8, RULE 132)

SEC 9, RULE 132 OF THE RULES OF COURT STATES THAT AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS ON
BOTH SIDES, THE WITNESS CANNOT BE RECALLED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. THE COURT WILL
GRANT OR WITHHOLD LEAVE IN ITS DISCRETION, AS THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.
 IMPEACHMENT OF A WITNESS
SECTION 11, RULE 132 OF THE RULES OF COURT STATES:
A WITNESS MAY BE IMPEACHED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM HE WAS CALLED, BY CONTRADICTORY
EVIDENCE, BY EVIDENCE THAT HIS GENERAL REPUTATION FOR TRUTH, HONESTY, OR INTEGRITY IS BAD, OR BY
EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS MADE AT OTHER TIMES STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PRESENT TESTIMONY,
BUT NOT BY EVIDENCE OF PARTICULAR WRONGFUL ACTS, EXCEPT THAT IT MAY BE SHOWN BY THE
EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS, OR THE RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT, THAT HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN
OFFENSE.

HOWEVER, BEFORE A WITNESS CAN BE IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS MADE AT OTHER TIMES
STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PRESENT TESTIMONY, THE STATEMENTS MUST BE RELATED TO HIM, WITH
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIMES AND PLACES AND THE PERSONS PRESENT, AND HE MUST BE ASKED
WHETHER HE MADE SUCH STATEMENTS, AND IF SO, ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN THEM. IF THE STATEMENTS BE IN
WRITING, THEY MUST BE SHOWN TO THE WITNESS BEFORE AND QUESTION IS PUT TO HIM CONCERNING
THEM. (SEC 13, RULE 132, RULES OF COURT)
 DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
IT HAS BECOME A GENERAL RULE THAT WHEN A POINT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY A DECISION, IT BECOMES A
PRECEDENT WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT CASES BEFORE THE COURT.

IT IS ECHOED BY ARTICLE 8 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

"JUDICIAL DECISIONS APPLYING OR INTERPRETING THE LAWS OR THE CONSTITUTION SHALL FORM A PART OF
THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES."

THE RULE IS BASED WHOLLY ON POLICY, IN THE INTEREST OF UNIFORMITY, AND CERTAINTY OF THE LAW.
THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE IS WHEN THE COURT HAS ONCE LAID DOWN A
PRINCIPLE, IT SHALL APPLY TO ALL FUTURE CASES, WHERE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER THE PARTIES AND PROPERTIES ARE THE SAME. TO FOLLOW PAST PRECEDENTS AND TO NOT
DISTURB WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY BEEN SETTLED.
HOWEVER, SUCH RULE DOES NOT ELICIT BLIND ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENTS.
IN MORITZ VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
MORITZ IS A SINGLE MAN TAKING CARE OF HIS AGED MOTHER. HIS WORK AS AN EDITOR REQUIRES HIM TO
TRAVEL FOR WORK AND HE OFTEN LEAVES THE CARE OF HIS MOTHER TO A CAREGIVER. HE DEDUCTS HIS
TAXES TO PAY FOR THE CAREGIVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT TAKE WELL.
PETITIONER CLAIMS DISCRIMINATION IN THAT HE, A SINGLE MALE, IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME TAX
TREATMENT UNDER SECTION 214 AS OTHER SINGLE PERSONS, WIDOWERS AND SINGLE WOMEN, ARE
ENTITLED.
HE ARGUED THAT TO GIVE A MANDATORY PREFERENCE TO MEMBERS OF EITHER SEX OVER MEMBERS OF THE
OTHER IS TO MAKE THE VERY KIND OF ARBITRARY LEGISLATIVE CHOICE FORBIDDEN BY THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND WHATEVER MAY BE SAID AS TO THE POSITIVE
VALUES OF AVOIDING INTRAFAMILY CONTROVERSY, THE CHOICE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE
MANDATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SEX.
THE COURT THEN DECLARED SUCH SECTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT
HELD THAT SUCH CLASSIFICATION IS AN INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND INVALID UNDER DUE PROCESS
PRINCIPLES.