EVIDENCE by Francisco Rule 128

EYIDENCE RULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES RULES 128-134

Ry

RICARDO J. FBANCISCO Associate-J'ustice Supreme Court Prolessor of l-aw Ateneo de Manila UniversitY

THII{,D EDITION

1996

ir',iilibi" at: Building Fourth Floor i.jbertad St. corner CalbaYog \landaluy'ong CitY 5 -r 19 i 63 Loc. 501 or \,rs. TeL:-i:tL5-1 -il I ;22 :-i:.Il-$: PGNIC

EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE T28 Dvidence is the means, s"r,nctioned by Section 1. E,,*idence defined. - proceeding the truth respecting a lhese rules, of ascertaining in a judicial matter of fact. 1. Evidence defined. 2. Evidence distinguished from proof. 3. l'actum probandum distinguiah€d from factum probans. 4. Kinds of evidence. evidence. ia) Direct evidence and circumstantialevidence. (b) Primary evidence and secondary (.) Positive evidence and negative evidence. (di Conoborative evidence and cumulative evidence. iei frima facie evidence and conclusive evidcnce. (ri Relevant evidence and material evidence. (g) Competent evidence. (f,) neUuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. (i) Object (Real) evidence. (j) DocumentarY evidence. (k) Testimonial evidence. (m) Substantial

evidence.

5. What the rules of evidence determine. 6. Sources of the rules of evidence. Define eLidence. QUESTION \. The term ,,evidence" has given rise to a variety of ANS$,/En. meaiint;. This-sectionl of tle mle defines one. Murphy, in his yolk $ i,ro.ti"ii gpproach to Evidence defines evidence as "any material which tentls to persuacie the court of the truth or probability of some facts asserted before it"; gnd, Carter, in his treatise Cases and Statutes on bvidence as "the means'l:y which nny alleged matter of fact, the truth of .ufri.f. is submittetl to investigation, is established or disproved." Dist'inguislt eaidence from proof. QUESTION 2. Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence ANSWER. is the medium of Proof.r Distinguish facturn probanilum from factunx proQUESTION 3.

uo"o**ruER.

-

Evidence is always a relative term. It signifies'a facts, the factum pr;bandum, or proposition to be ep!a\ relation between lished and the factum probans, or material eyidencing the proposition.' it is that tft" io*"r is necessariiy to be conceived of as hypothetical; tle tribunal being

*fti.fi tU. one party affirms and the other denie!, -as is conceived of for V*f "oi .ommiited-in either direction. The latterfor the eonsideration iractical purposes as existent, and is offered as such

bt ttte tribunbl. The latter is brought fonvard as reality for th,e purpose oi i""tit.ing the tribunal that the former is also a reality. . No eorrect and sure coriprehension of the nature of any evidential-question can evel b"-h"d unf..i this double or relative aspeci of it is distinctly pictured. occasion the question must be asked: What is the proposition O" "o.ttlo be proved? lVtrat is the evidentiary fact offered to prove it?r' A.iiira 1

Sec, 1, Rule 128, Ruies

of Courb, as amended.

on Evidence, p. 5. s lVigmore on Evidence, Sec. 2. s 1 Jones

o

sEc. I, RULE

N,ULES OF COURT

QUESTION 4.

e*ample of each?

-

Wh.at are th.e kinils

of

128

euirlenee and, gi,ue an

ANS\\rER. They ar€ as follor,vs: (a) Direct eaid,ence and, cireumstantial eaidence. Dit,ect euid.ence - of any inferenc,e is that which proves the fact in dispute rvithout the aid ol'presumption.a Thus, the testimony of N that he saw A attack B with a bolo, killing hirn, is d.,irect eaidence in the charge for homicide against A. Circumstantial eai,ilence is the proof of facts from rvhich, takeu collectively, the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.o Thus, the testimony of N that he saw B running away from the place where A was found dead with wounds; that the clothing of B was stained with blood, and that B had a bolo also stained rvith blood, all these facts are circumstantial e"-idence which taken together show that B is the one who killed A. (b) Primary eaidence ancJ secondary euid,ence. Primary or best , euidenee is that x'hich afforcls the greatest certainty -of the fact in question. 'fhus, in an action on a written contract the original instrument rS prirnarE eaidencc of its contents. Secondary euidcnce is that evidence rvhich is necessarily inferior to primary evidence and shows on its face that better evidence exists.,; Iu an action on a written contract, a copy of the written instrument or the testimotty of a rritness as to its content-s constitutes secondary euidence. (c) Positiue euidencc and, negatiue ec-irJence Evidence is Ttositiue - occur. Evidence is u'hen the witness affirms that a fact did or. did not negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of l fact.7 Generally speaking, the testimony of those who swear negatively that they did not see or hear is not to be accorded as great weight as the testimony of equally credible per.sons, having the same opportunities of seeing and observing that a tl-ring was or w:rs not done. For instance, the testimony of N that he saw A set fire the house of 13 on a specific date and time, is a positiue eaid,ence. And, accordingly, the testimony of N that he was on that occasion at the place where the house of B was burned and that he did not see A set fire on said house is a negatiue e,uidence. Negative evidence is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude thc existence of fact sworn to by the other side. On the other hand, the witness who testifies affirmatively that something did happen and that he sarw it, if he be otherwise credible, should be believed, because it is unlikely that tr witness will remember what never happened. The rule does not apply where two witnesses with equal opportunity for knowledge contradict each other ss 1.o the existence or nonexistence of a fact.8 (d) Corroboratiae eaiclence and c'umulatiae euidence. Corrobora- character, tiue euid.ence is additional evidence of a different kind and tending to prove the same point.e For instance, in a case, the Court I Lake County vs, Nellon, 44 Or., L4, 21, ,i4, p. 212. !lt Stlte vs. Avery, 113, Mo. 476, 494,21 S.W. 193; Reynolds Trial Ev., sec. 4, p. 1 Jones on Evidence, scc, 8. ? Moore on Facts, p. 133G. r Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., Vol. I, pp. 10-11.

e

lVyne vs. Newman, ?5 Va. 811, 81?,

108.

sEC. 1, RULE

EVIDENCE

198

concluded: "The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victims died because of stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who entered their residence on the night of December 4, lg6b remain uncontroverted. xxx Their death certificates therefore are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.,,ro cumulatiue euid,ence is evidence of the same kind and character as that- already given, and tends to prove the same proposition.' Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain paper, evidence of his school fellows as to his capacity is cumulative to that of hii teachers and medical men upon the same question.rz (e) Prima facie euid.ence and eonclusiue euid,ence, primo facic .-

euid,ence is that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until ccntradicted and overcome by other evidence.la For example: entrlies in the course of business ryqde by a person in his professional capacity in the performance of duty and in the ordinary br regular cour." ,rf -or business or _{.u!r, are prima facie eaidcnce of the- facts sTated therein,s entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by pubiic officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the per{ormance of a auty specially enjoined by law ate Ttrima facie euiileice of the facts stateil therein,ls instruments acknowledged or proved and certified in the manner provided- by larr* arc prima facie ea'id..ence of the execution of thc instrument.l6 Conclusiue eaid,ence is f,hat u'hich is incontrovertible.l? When evidence is received which the law does not allow to be contradicted, it is said to be "conclusive." Accordingly, a party intr.oducing in eviclence : letter written by his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements contained therein.l8 Also, in an action to rccover money p:rid in setilement of an account in stock transactions, plaintiff is bound by his own testimony that the transactions were gambling tr:ansactions, so as to preclude recovery by him.tc (f) Releuant cuiclenee and,material eaid,ence. Evidence is releuant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the- plobability or improbability of a fact in issue.2, The terms rnaterial and, inrmaterial, as used in the law of evidence, do not appear to have been defined or distin* guishecl from the terms relevancy and irrelevancy, either by courts or text rvriters. That materiality has been used interchangeably with relevancy is apparent in numerous cases and texts. (g) Competent e.r*idence. Evidence is "competent,, when it is not excluded by law in a particular-case.21 In other words, evidence excluded by law or rules is incompetent.22 By way of illustrations we have the following rules: loPeople vs. Watson, 2?8 Ala. 425, 118 So. 2d 819, SZ1 (1965).

of

11 Cal. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2839. 1e Gardner vs. Gardner, Gtay (Mass. l'3 Sec. 1833, Code Civil Procedure

of

2

434).

of California.

la Sec. 43, Rule 130, Rules of Court, as amended. r5 Sec. 44, Rule 180, ibid. 16 Sec. 80, Rule 132, ibid. l7 1 Jones on Evidence, Sec. 18. rc Lilian Realty Co. vs. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. ?49. le Atwater vs. A. G. Edwards Brokerage Co., L47 Mo.

A.

1 Elliot on Evidence, p. 1g?. 21 Porter vs. Valentine, 18 Misc. Rep. 213, 41 N.y.S. 507. 22 See Sec. 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court, as amended. zo

4A6, 126 S.W. gZ2.

4

I

sEc. 1, liul,E

NULES O}'COUIIT

198

(a) Best eaidence rul.e. When the subject of inquiry is the contents ot - be admissible other than the original document a document, no evidence shall itself . . . (Sec. 3, Rule 130, as amended) (b) Parol evid,enca ru,le.-Iilhen the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the ternrs agreed upon and there can !e, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the rvritten agreement... (Sec. 9, Rule 130, as amended)

(c)

Haorsay eoid.ence. A rvitness can testify only to those facts which of his personal knowledge; that is, which are. derived from his own

he knows

perception... (Sec. 36, Rule 130, as amended) (d) Offer of conlryorrLise.-In civil case an offer of conrpromise is not admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence :rgainst the offeror. . . (Sec. 27, Rule 130, as amended) (e) Disqualification of .witnesses by reason immaturity... (Sec. 21, Rule 130, as amended)

(f) Disqualification by

reason

of mental incapacity

of marriage...

or

(Sec. 22, Bule 130, as

amended)

(g) Disqualification by reason (Sec. 23, Rule 130, as amended) (h) Disqualification by reason

of death or insanity of

adverse

party...

of privileged communication... (Sec.24, Rule 130, as amended) (i) Exclusionary provisions in the Constitution, sueh as evidencc obtained

*

in violation of the right ogainst unreasonatrle searehes and seizures and the privacy of communication and correspondence (Secs. 2 and 3 of Art. III); confessions and admissions obtained in violation of the rights of a p€rsou under investigation forthe commission of an offense (Sec.12, Art. III); and the right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17, Art. III).

/ $)

Rebu,ttal d,ncl srlr'-r'ebuttal, er;id,ence. Rebuttal e'uidence is that which is given to explain, repel, counteract -or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.23 It is also defined as evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove.2{ Rebuttal evidence is, generally speaking, receivable only where new matter has been developed by the evidence of one of the parties and is generally limited to a reply to new points.z6 Ordinarily, the rebutting evidence offered by him upon whom tlle burden of proof rests eoncludes the intruduction of evidence, but noi always, and for god reasons, in the fuftherxnce of justice, the couri may, in its discretion, allow evidence in reply to that called forth by the rebuttal testimony. When plaintiff in reb',rttal is permitted to introductr new matter, defendant should be permitted to introduce eviclence iir sur-rebuttal, and to decline to permit him to do so is error, especiaily wher€ the evidence offered in sur-rebuttal is for tl:re first time made competent by the evidence introduced by plaintiff in rebuttal but defendant should ask for the right to meet the new matter.3o In a homicide case, the accused put up the defense of alibi and he and two witnesses testified that at the time the crime charged was committe(i -- around 10:30 p.n. the accused was attending a baptismal palty in a Xlunicipality five kilometers away from the place of the crimer The pt'osecution introduced in rebuttal the testimonl' of two witnesses who testified that the accused had really attended said baptismal party on the day of the crirne but that he left the party at 7 o'clock p.m., and boardeil Stete vs. Silva, 2l Id,a,247,120, p. 835. 2aCarver vs. United States, 160 U.S. 653,40 L. eC.532, 16 S.Ct. 382. 2564 C.J., Sec. 1?6. 2oFraneisco's Trial Technique and Practice Court, pp. 726-127. zs

sEc. 1, RULE

EVIDENCE

128

a jeepney. The

accused in sur-rebuttal, may introduce the testimony of the persons who attended the party to the effect that those witnesses lvho testified in rebuttal for the prosecution had never been in that party.rr

(i) Obiect (Real) eaid,ence. Obiect (Real) eaidence is that which is addressed to the senses of the tribunal, as where objects are presented for the inspection of the court.28 For instance, in a case where a weapon is used, the weapon, if it is a firearm the bullet and shells. (j ) Documenta,rg euid,ence. Do_cumentary eoid,ence is evidence supplied by written instruments, -or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are presented on material substances. It includes books, papers, accounts, and the like.s Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.so (k) Testi'monial eai'dence. Testi,monial euiilence is the testimony given in court or the deposition-by one who has observed that to which he ls testifying; or one who, though he has not observed the facts, is nevertheless qualified to give an opinion relative to such facts.3l (l) Etpert euidence. Enpert euid,ence is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a -particular subject or department of human activity, linowledge not usually acquired by other persons.s2 For instance a handwriting expert may testify on the genuineness of a signature, identity of thumbmark and fingerprints . (m) Su.bstantial, eui,d,ence. Substantial euidence is that amount o1 relevant eviclence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion;s evidence which is substantial, that is, affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. (National Labor Relations Board vs. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Co., Inc., 306 U.S. 292-306).$4 QUESTION 5. * What clo the ru,les of eaid,ence d,etermine? --laNSwnR. All rights ancl liabilities are dependent upon and ar.ise

*t

-

$"iil'tsiuoiciat proceeding wh:rtever has for its pur?ose the or"itaining of some right or liabiliiy. If the proceeding is Criminal, thq. object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain some right of property or of status, or the right of one party, and the liability of the other, to some form of relief. In order to effect this result, provision must be made by law for the following objects: First, the legal effeet of particular classes ot

-

27 Ibid., pp. 141-142. 28 1 Jones on Evidence, 2s 22 C.J. 79!.

2nd ed., Sec.

16.

Sec. 2, Rule 130, Rules of Court, as amended. 3r Gilbert, Law Summaries on Evidence, p. 2.

3rr

3? U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530. Rul_e 133, Rules.of Court, as amended; Philippine Overseas Drilling and _1,,S9".5, ^.- Development corp. oil vs. l\{inistry of Labor, 146 scRA ?g;-caflete vs. workmeu,s-compensation Commission, 136 SCRA 302. 3+ united states Lirles, et al. vs. Associat€d watchman and security union, Nos. L-12208-lL, May 21, 1958.

RULES OF COURT

sEc. 2, RULE

128

facts in establishing rights and liabilities must be determined. This is the province of what has been called substantive law. Secondly, a

ccurse of procedure must be laid down by which persons interested may apply the substantive law to particular cases. The law of proeedure includes, amongst others, two main branches: (1) the law of pleading, which determines rvhat in particular cases are the questions in dispute between the parties, and (2) the law of evidence, which determines how the parties ate to convince the Court of the existence of that state of facts which, according to the provisions of substantive law, would establish the existence of the right or liability which they allege to exist.st Consequently, the rules of evidence determine the following: (a) The relevancy of facts, or what sort of facts may be ploverl in order to establish the existence of the right, duty, or liability defined by substantive law.' (b) The proof of facts, that is what sort of proof is to be given ;. of those facts. (c) The production of proof of relevant facts, that is rvho is to give it and how it is to be given; and the effect of improper admission or rejection of evidence.s Thus, before the rules of evidence can be understood or applied-to any partiiular case, it is necessary to know so much of the substantive law as determines what, under given states of facts, would be the rights of the parties, and so much of the law of procedure as is sufficient to determine what questions it is open to them to raise in the particular proceeding.3i

the sorrl'ces of ow rules of eaidence? 6. ,,..QUESTION - What are AI{SWER. The sources of the rules of evidence are: (a) The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines; (b) Rules 128 to 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, effective on January 1", 1964, foi'merly Rule 123 of the (1940) Rules of Court (Evidence); (c) Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March L4, 1989 approving the Proposed Rules on Evidence submitted by the Rules of Court Revision Committee on August 31, 1987; (d) Rule 115, Sec. 1, formerly Rule 111, Sec. t of the Rules of Court (Rights of defendant at the trial) ; (e) Substantive and remedial statutes; (f) Judicial decisions. The former rules of evidence were found in Sections 173 to 347 and Secs. 381-383 of Act No. L90, known as the Code of Civil Procedure.

The rules of evidence shall be the same in all Sec. 2. Scope. - and hearings, except as otherwise provided by eourts and in all trials law cr these rules. 1. Rule of evidence same in all courts and trials. 2. Reasons for the rule. 36 Woodroffe's, 36 lbid. 87 lbid.

Law on Evidence, p,

14.

_tr

DVIDENCE

sEc.2, RULE 128

3. Rules of evidence in civil and criininal eases distinguished' 4. No vested right of property in rules of evidence. D.

6. 7.

evidence sinciion6d by the Constitution cannot be altered by legis' lation. Rules of evidence may be waived. Foiicy to be observed Ly courts in the enforcement of the rules of evidence.

nut"" of

Are the rules of eaid,ence the sam,e in all courts QUESTION l. heari'ngs? anil trtals all anil, in ANSWER. Yes, they are, unless otherwise provided by law .o-r ttrese rutes (Rules of Cburt). Foi instance, there are laws--which-provide other rules'of evidence to govern certain proceedings. Under Sec. 16, p.O. ga6, affidavits and counter-affidavits, which are otllerwise inadmisrinf", *ny be allowed and are admissible in evidence. Direct testimonies oi *itn"si"s may be in narrative form subiect to cross-examination. Or, itre nutes of Summary Procedure where the decisioll can be reached iii"oogii position paperi, affidavits and counter-affidavits of the pafiies. In this connection, the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in p"o.."ainE* before the Labor Arbiter and the Nationnl Labor Relations Employees, Compensation Commission,? Securities and Exbommissi6n,t -Co"*issi-on,i CommisJion on Elections,a Agrarian cases,t Immi' P-robatiol court,a Board of "ft"og" of Tax App94s/Court Fioceedingsio ;;iifi Commission,ll and Industry oil il;;n""t"tioo,n ?6ti." Commission,'d bodies. other similar ,,::qUESTION 2. - WhA shoulil th'e mtles of eaid'ence be uniform'? The rules of evidence must be applied uniformly i" ?lt ANSWER. courts and in all triais and hcarings for the following reasons: (1) the ,l"lutiott between the evidentiary fact and a particular proposition- is the kind of litigation in rvhich tliat J;;yr the same, without regard to proved; (2) if the rules of evidence be to p""p".iti* lu.rir.r materiaf that must be and are the truth, the arrive af to course best ttte ii'.J""iti" same in all cases and in all civilized countries.l2 What are some of the dtfferences in the rutes of QUESTION 3. and ciail case? euidence in criminal The principle that the rules .of evidence shou6 6e ANSWER. uniform in all -trials and hearings does not mean that said principle ;;;t;i;.; "o .liffe"etrces between civil and criminal proceedings, for therq il ilG"ial differences which must n6t be overloohed' In civil proceedings the parties attend by accord, while in criminal p"o.."aingt ti" accuseid attends by compul.lion; in .civil proceedings there il;;-p-;il*piio" as to either pirty, while in criminal proceedings the I Ltt. g

221, P.D. No. 442, Labor Code. Ftritippine O""r"ea. S"itllng- ana Oil Development Corporation vs. nfinister of

Labor, --- 146 SCRA ?9.

lS;5,-Rule

1'8, Rules

of

Procedure

of

Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gerorno vs. Commission on Electiols, et al., 118 SCRA 165' 5 Bagsican vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 226.

4

c Mov Yoke Shue vs. Johnson, 290 Fed. 621. ? Sec: 8, Republic Act No' 1125. e Sec. 1'5, p'.O. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1257 (Probation Law)' o Sec. 29, Public Service Act, as arnended by P.D. No., 1.

* S".. ioi Executive Order lio. 113 (Rules ind Reguldtions for City and Munieipal Agencies). Police - --- rt gJluiiic ict No. 61?3, as amended by P.D, 1128 (Oil Industry Commission). ls R. V. Burdett, 4 B & Ald, 95, L22.

SEC. 2, RULE 128

RULES OF COURT

presumption of innocence attends the accused throughout the trial until the same has been overcome by prima facie evidence of his guilt; and, finally, an offer to compromise in civil cases does not, as iI general rule, asrount to an admission of liability, whereas, in criminal cases it is ar"r implied admission of guilt. In civil cases the plaintiff must prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence; in criminal cases the government must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The rule that a preponderance of evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict in a civil suit is due partly to the fact that there is no presumption in civil cases corresponding to the presumption of innocence, and partly to the fact that the ploof will only-result in a judgment for pecuniary damages or establish a civil right. In a criminal trial the accused starts with a legal presumption that he is innocent of the crime charged, which some authorities regard as evidence in his favor and which must'be overcome even though he should offer ho evidence in his own behalf. So the reputation, the future livelihood and career, and, perhaps, even the life of the accused are involved, while in civil cases any loss-the party may sustain, however great, may often bE retrieved by his future efforts.ls Ma.y euid,erzce inad,nuissible aecortling to the latt:s QUESTTON 4. in foice at the time -the cause of uction accrued be aclnzitterl at tlre tintc of the tr,iat of the case tf ba the laws tft,en in force the sum,e is alreod?J made admissible? Yes. There is no vested right of property in lttles ANSWER. any evidence inadmissible according to the iaws in of evidence. Hence, force at the time the action accrued, but admissible according to the larvs in force at the time of the trial, is receivable. Thus, at the trial ofl {r case after the Codc of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) took effect, parol evidence of the contents of a document was admitted after pleliminary proof of execution and destruction has been made, although the cause of action accrued when Articte 7221 of the Civil Code was still in force, under which parol evidence could not be given to prove the contents of a destroyed instrument.la The reason is that the rules of evidence are merely methods for ascertaining facts. It must be supposed that change of law merely makes it more likely that the fact will be truly ascertained, either by admittittg evidence whose former suppression, or by suppressing evidence whose former admission, helped to conceal the truth. In either case no fact has been taken away from the party; it is merely that good evidence hers been given the one, or bad evidence been taken from the other.rt lilhat. rules of eaidence. sanctionetl by thc Con' QUESTION 5. stitution cannot be -altered by ordinarg lngislcr,tion? ANSWER. A constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of evihas legal effect of naking it unalterable by ordinary statutot'1' dence the legislation. It also has the practical effect of inducing most Courts to construe the rule (if one of exclttsion) with unusual care to avoid the evasion of the Constitution, and with unusual and sometimes reprehe,tsible technicality in favor of the party benefitted by the rule. 13

Undelhill's Crinrinal Evidence, 6th Ed., Vol. 1, p.

15

Wigmore on Evidence, Sec.

8.

u Aldeguer vs. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas vs. 7.

Case,

8 Phil.

19?.

f

SEC. 3, RULE

128

EVIDENCE

The rules of evidence which have been expressly sanctioned by the various Constitutions are comparatively few. They include usually the pr.ivilege against self-incrimination, with occasional limitations of its i"op.;"the accused's right to confrontation, or cross-examination of witnesses; the rrrle for two witnesses in treason; the lccused's right to p"oceg for compelling the 2lfsniance of witnesses; and the right of iestifying without regard to theological belief. Apart from these rules expressly thus protected -against statutory legislative change, the Legislature has the power to alter or create any ru'i" of eviclencJ This is io for reasons inherent in the ntrture of legislative functions.lc QUESTION 6/ May the rules of etticlence bc -wat'acil?,. There are rules of evidence established merely for the ANSWER. parties. If, according to the .w-ell-,established doctrinc', protection of the 'the parties may liaive such rules during the trial of a case. there.is no reas6n why they cannot m4ke the waiver in a contract. For instance, a contrlct bf iniurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as the oqly evidence admissible conceming fhe death of the insured person' is valid.r? Contract lvaiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to 1 physician is also valid.rs Howh-as been establishetl ;;;; if td-iuie of evid'ence waived by the partiesvoid. Accordingly, the bt 61n' on grounds of public policy, the waiver is is void.le secrets state of privileee disclosure against the *oiver of t*he What pokcy nrust courts obserue in th,e enforceQUESTION 7. ment of the ru.les of- euidence? Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforceANSWER. meni of the rules of evidence which crystallized through constant use and pto.li"u and are very useful ancl effective aids in the search for truih i*A io" the effective administration of justice. But in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or-technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their-rejection qlac.e.s ihem L"yottd the consicleration of the court, if -theV- are thereafter found ielevant-or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied b$. completely discarding them or ignoring them.lo

is admissible when 'sec. 3. Ad,missibility of euidence. - Evidence by the law or these rules. it is relevant to the issue-and is not excluded I Requisites of admissibility of evidence. 2. Two axioms of admissibilitY. B-4. Admissibility of evidence diltinguished from rveight of 5. Multiple admissibility of evidence. 6. Conditional admissibiiity of evidence. 1d lbid. 1? National

la.

Acc. Soc. vs. Ralstin, 101 I1l. App, 192; Connel vs. Travelling Men's

444 N'W. 820. lsKeeler vs. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App. 627,69 S.W. 612. rs Rorvland vs. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App. 627,69 S.W. 612'

Ass'n., 139

evidence.

2o Banaria vs. Banaria, et al', C.A. No. 4142, May 31, 1950; People vs. Jaca, et al., G.R. No. L-10971, November 28' 1959.

RULES OF COURT

10

?. Curative admissibility of evidence, 8. Admissibility of telephone conversations, 9. Admissibility of radio broadcast. f0-11. 4dmissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings. 12. Requisites of recording conversations. 18. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized. - QUESTION 1. wlnt are the requisites

euid,ence?

-

sEc. 3, nuLE

of

128

aclntissibitity of

-./ANswER. - rn order that evidence may be admissible, two requisites must concur, narnely: (1) that it is relevant to the issue; and (2, that is is competent, that is, that it does not belong to thlt class of evidence which is excluded by the law{' or Rules of Evidence. affair of logic _ Admissibility is determined, first, by relevancy - ofanEvidence gnd n9t of law; second, but only indirectly, by the larv whicrr, [n strictness, only declares whether matter which is logically pr.obative ls

excluded.l

.State the two aciom,s of ailntissibitita. QUESTION 2. ANSWER. The modern system r.ests upon two axioms. The firsi is that: (a) None but facts hauing rational probatiue aalue are adlrissiblc. This principle is indeed axiomatic, for any system of evidence purporting to be rational. It assumes no particnlar doctrine as to the tcinct of ratiocinatio-n implied whether practical or scientific, coarse and ready or refined and systematic. It prescribes merely that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is calculaterl, according to the prevailing stand:lrds of r.easoning, to effect lationrrl

"

p€rsuasron.

The second axiom on which our lalv of eviclence rests is this: (b) All facts hnaing rational probatiue aalue are acl.missibre, unress some- speeific rule forbids. This axiom expresses dre tr.uth flrat legal p{99f, though it has peculiar rules of its own, does not intend to vir.l without cause from what is generally nccepted in ilre rational processes of life; and that of such variations some vindication may, in theory. always be demanded. In other wor.ds. in the system of -evidence ilie rules of exclusion are, in their ultimate r-elation, iules of exeeption to :r genet'al admissibility of all that is rational and probative.s Distinguish atlmissibility of euiclence f rom rceight QUESTION 3.

of

eaidence

ANSWER.

-

Objections to the admissibility of eviclence wliich merely

- of the evidence should be overruled, for. facts whicir refer to the weight have distinet probative value are not to be rejected mer:ely because ilre;l -;Iil-"lav/" was added to the former Rule and this includes the exelusionary provisions in the Constitution, such as evidence obtained in violation ifr. against unleasonable searches and seizures and privacy of - communication "i "ighi and cor-reslronde^nce (Sec' 2 and 3 of Art. III); confessions .nd adrnissions obtained in violation 9f the,rights of a person under'investigation fo; lh; eommission of an offense (sec. 12, Ibid.); and-the right against s6lf-incriminatlon- (sec. rz, iuld.j.

Feria, Retised Ru.les on Eaid.ence Annotalecj (plr;ilippine Legal Stuclies, Siries /r), p. 2. l Presumptions and the Law of Evidence, B Flar.v. L. Rcv. 18-14. 3 S igmore on Evidence, Secs, g, 10.

sEc. 3, RULE

128

EVIDENCE

t1

should not be are not, in themselves, convincing. Admissibility of evidence confounded with its probative value'r to do with The admissibility of a particular item of e.vidence has is to be detep tnhet-ne" it;;;6 trre various tests by which its reliability the case in admitted e'idence to U"-"o"*iderea with bther ;;;a;;-; truth' the to in arriving at a decision as has to do with the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency The weight -ut is not determined to convince a p""ro"a". The weight of evidence testifving witnesses the of suilriority ;";h;;ti."uy uv tr,"-"otn""i.al its praciical effect in inducing belief '6ot'Oun""a; *"1

il;;ffi-i*it,

ot thl part of the iudge trying the case'a bv. ,of def ense QUESTION 4. - X is acaueil, lf murder anil.t-estifies "yauthat he uas mothe.t', attbi. oo ne aitiipts to estabtiri -M,-hi's d'istinguished P, a cont'mitied. r1as muriler ttie'-itmi-thi at inbeil at lromc 'iniitrni,iiruii"i'"itrii'"ii ios itiend.ins..to x. in \i2,ltgme at the timb

committed. Are their teitimonies ad'nissible in euidence? Both are admissible. But it is likely that the coud ANSWER. physician, *,oot,a giuu grerter *.isht i" the. testimony of P, a disinterested perjury in rn effort commit to expected be iir;;;rM;irnour.i;;fi;;isha to save her son. atlmissibiktv ol QUESTION 5. - state the rule regard,ing multiple gour answe'r' eui,ilence and illustrate ANswER._Whenafactisofferedforonepurpose'and^i.sadmis. offered for sible in so far ur ii'r"ii.iies all rules applicable. to it when be appli' would which rule other som" ;ffi firp;r", itr }"il"" to satisfy putpose Thus, :t it.5 exclude not does to" uttottei ;;bt-di1 it' offered co-accused' his be cbmpetent as against confession of u1 a.iur"O -"v ""t or to prove conspiracy between them being hearsay *r-io the latter, nonetheless, withoui the conspiri.v-U.i"g esiablisheil by other evidence, of his owtt evidence as admitted be Jtu"o..otEd-may iii.--"oot"Jrion of

tltc. nzurd.er

lroas

guilt.s

admissibik',tE QUESTION 6. - state the tale regard'i'ng cond;itionnl a answer' '11our of euiilence anil illustrate where two or more evidentiarl' facts are so connected" ANSWER. the relevancy of ott. depends upon another. not 1pt that under the issues -*a both at the same tn. p""ly i* on"bte to introduce them as a conditicn court, the by Ue "i:ia.tJ.C,the offeri]ni1"i"r"f ma' moment, (2) "equired to promise and facts, coniiectins th;;uppoi"a precedent (1) to &u 3

People vs. Abellera, 47

Imprcbability ot I18. 179 so. 972,2t8 Ala."JiiL*-"

Phil'

?31'

l""r "Jf':o.tify refusing to adtnit it.

shanes tts. Stote'

witness are not Manifest ir,"on.i.torr-"ies and discreparcies in the testimony ofMcCIwtg -a us' State' tlstimonf' &-to.ttconsidere