EVIDENCE

RULE 128.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN EVIDENCE
 COVERAGE

A.Concept of Evidence
B. Scope of the Rules of Evidence
C. Evidence in Civil Cases vs. Evidence in Criminal Cases
D.Proof Versus Evidence
E. Factum Probans Versus Factum Probandum
F. Admissibility of Evidence
G.Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence
H.Presumptions
I. Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence
J. Quantum of Evidence (Weight And Sufficiency of
Evidence)
 A. CONCEPT OF EVIDENCE

The means, sanctioned by these rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the
truth respecting a matter of fact [Sec. 1
Rule 128]
 DEFINITION EXPLAINED:

“MEANS SANCTIONED BY THESE RULES”.

-The procedure for determining the truth is as provided for

under Rules 128 to Rule 134, including the amendments there
to and their interpretation given by the Courts

“OF ASCERTAINING IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

- the rules or procedure is applicable only to controversies

tried by the regular courts of law;
 PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE

The purpose of evidence under the Rules of Court is to

ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial
proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court).

Evidence is required because of the presumption that the

court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a
case. It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to prove a
fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence.
 B. SCOPE OF THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE

GENERAL RULE: Principle of uniformity The rules of

evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings.
EXCEPTIONS: If otherwise provided by:
(1) Law [e.g. 1987 Constitution, statutes]
(2) Rules of Court
(3) SC issuances [e.g., Judicial Affidavit Rule, Rules on Procedure for
Environmental Cases, Child Witness Rule, Rules on Electronic
Evidence, Rules on DNA Evidence]
(4) Jurisprudence [e.g., Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011
 C. EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES VERSUS
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES

Civil Case: Preponderance of evidence [Sec. 1,

Rule 133]

Criminal Case: Proof beyond reasonable

doubt [Sec. 2, Rule 133]
 D. PROOF VS. EVIDENCE

PROOF - Result or effect of evidence [Regalado]

EVIDENCE - Mode and manner of proving
competent facts in judicial proceedings [Bustos v. Lucero,
G.R. No. L-2068, (1948)]

Strictly evidence is the medium of proof whereas proof is the result of evidence.
Thus the materials consisting of the weapon used, the confession of the accused,
the testimony of the complainant and witnesses, the result of the paraffin test,
will constitute the evidence of guilt. Their combined effect will be Proof of guilt
Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
 E. FACTUM PROBANS VERSUS
FACTUM PROBANDUM

FACTUM PROBANDUM refers to the ultimate fact to be

proven, or the proposition to be established. That, which a
party wants to prove to the court.

Examples:
• murder was committed thru treachery
• robbery was made through force upon things

FACTUM PROBANS refers to the evidentiary facts by which

the factum probandum will be proved.
Examples:
• exit wounds were in front indicating that victim was shot at the
back
• destroyed locks indicative of force upon things
 RULE 129.
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED.
I. As to Foreign States: their existence and territorial extent; forms of government (
monarchial, presidential, parliamentary, royalty), symbols of nationality ( flag,
national costume, anthem).
II. The Law of Nations
 The Diplomatic Immunity of foreign diplomatic representatives
III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the World and their Seals
IV. The Philippine as a state
 Manila as the capital and the capital towns of the provinces; the location of
major
 The official acts of the legislature, executive and judicial departments
V. The Laws of Nature
VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes, days, weeks months and years
VII. Geographical Division of the World
 RULE 130.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded

by law or these rules.

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

(1) Relevant to the issue; and
(2) Competent i.e. not excluded by law or the ROC. [Sec. 3, Rule 128]

Relevancy of Evidence is relevant when it has “such a relation to the fact

in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence”. [Sec. 4,
Rule 128]
e.g., Evidence as to the age of a person who has been raped is relevant in a situation
where the age would qualify the offence to statutory rape.
COMPETENCY ( All facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific law or rule forbids). In short the
evidence is not excluded by law or rules.
 OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Section 1. Object as evidence. Object as evidence are those

addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant
to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court.

COVERAGE: The definition covers any material that may be seen,

heard, smelled, felt, or touched. They are the “sensual evidence”
1. The weapons used, the articles recovered or seized as subjects of an offense, the
effects of the crime, clothing apparels
2. The wound or scars in the body in physical injury cases
3. Inspection of the body of the accused and his personal appearance to determine his
body built, physique, height, racial characteristics, and similarities with another, in
paternity suits
4. Observations as to the demeanor of witnesses
5. Re-enactment or demonstrations of actions
 REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

Basic requisites for admissibility [Riano]

(1)Evidence must be relevant;
(2)Evidence must be authenticated;
(3)Authentication must be made by a
competent witness; and
(4)Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34,
Rule 132]
 RELEVANT

GENERAL RULE: When an object is relevant to the

fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court. [Sec. 1, Rule 130]

EXCEPTIONS: Court may refuse exhibition of

object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence
alone if— (1) Exhibition is contrary to public policy,
morals or decency; (2) It would result in delays,
inconvenience, unnecessary expenses, out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object;
[People v. Tavera, G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)]
 COMPETENT
Evidence Must be Authenticated To authenticate
the object is to show that the object is the very
thing that is either the subject matter of the
lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue
in the case.

Authentication Must be Made by Competent Witness To

authenticate the object, the witness must have the
capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved
in the litigation.

A witness can testify to those facts which he/she knows of

his/her personal knowledge [Sec. 36, Rule 130]
 THE ―THING ITSELF‖
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT
EVIDENCE
 Unique objects

Objects that have readily identifiable marks

E.g., a caliber 45 pistol by virtue of its serial number

 Objects made unique

Objects with no unique characteristic but are made readily

identifiable
E.g., a typical kitchen knife with identifying marks placed on it
by the witness

 Non-unique objects
Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked
E.g., narcotic substances
 DNA Evidence
(a) DNA refers to deoxyribonucleic
acid which is the chain of
molecules found in every
nucleated cell of the body.

(b) DNA "profile" is the genetic

information derived from DNA
testing of biological samples
obtained from a person where such
biological sample is clearly
identifiable as originating from that
person.

(c) The totality of the DNA profiles,

results and other genetic
information directly generated from
the DNA testing of biological
samples is called "DNA evidence" .
 Paraffin Tests

in general, have been

considered as
inconclusive by the
Court because scientific
experts concur in the
view that paraffin tests
have proved extremely
unreliable in use.

The tests can only establish the presence or absence of

nitrates or nitrites on the hand but the tests alone cannot
determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was
the discharge of a firearm.
 Polygraph Tests (Lie Detector Tests)

A polygraph test operates on

the principle that stress causes
physiological changes in the
body which can be measured to
indicate whether the subject of
the examination is telling the
truth. During an examination in
which a polygraph is used,
sensors are attached to the
subject so that the polygraph
can mechanically record the
subject's physiological
responses to a series of
questions.
 DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Not the actual thing, rather it represents or
―demonstrates‖ the real thing, e.g., photographs, motion
pictures and recordings [Riano]

Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts

or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be:
(1) shown, presented or displayed to the court, and
(2) identified, explained or authenticated
(a) by the person who made the recording, or
(b) by some other person competent to testify on
the accuracy thereof [Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic
Evidence
 EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

Refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom

sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic
forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained. [Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION TO SEC. 21 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody

of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction
 DOCUMENTARY 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 [Sec. 2, Rule 130]

To be deemed documentary evidence, such

writings or materials must be offered as proof of
their contents. If offered for some other purpose,
they constitute object evidence.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
“THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE”.
GENERAL RULE:
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself. [Sec. 3, Rule 130]
(1)A document, the contents of which is the subject of
inquiry
(2)All such copies executed at or about the same time, and
with identical contents
(3)All such entries made and repeated in the regular course
of business, at/near the time of the transaction [Sec. 4,
Rule 130]
 EXCEPTIONS [SEC. 3, RULE 130]

1. WHEN THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED, OR CANNOT BE

PRODUCED IN COURT, WITHOUT BAD FAITH ON THE OFFEROR’S PART

2. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF

THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS OFFERED, AND THE LATTER FAILS TO
PRODUCE IT AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE

3. WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONSISTS OF NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS OR OTHER

DOCUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN COURT WITHOUT GREAT
LOSS OF TIME, AND THE FACT SOUNDS TO
BE ESTABLISHED FROM THEM IS ONLY THE GENERAL RESULT OF THE
WHOLE .

4. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD IN THE CUSTORY OF A

PUBLIC OFFICER OR IS RECORDED IN A PUBLIC OFFICE
 PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Section 9. Evidence of Written Agreements.

―When the terms of an agreement had been
reduced into writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms and conditions
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.
 TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
I.CONCEPT: It is evidence consisting of the
narration of a person, known as a witness,
made under oath and in the course of the
judicial proceedings in which the evidence is
offered.

II. WITNESS: A witness is a natural person

who testifies in a case or one who gives oral
evidence under oath before a judicial
tribunal.
 QUALIFICATIONS OF A
WITNESS

[Sec. 20, Rule 130] All persons who can

perceive, and, in perceiving, can make
their known perception to others, may be
witnesses.

Religious/political belief, interest in the

outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law,
shall not be ground for disqualification.
 COMPETENCY VERSUS CREDIBILITY

COMPETENCE CREDIBILITY

Refers to the basic Refers to the weight and

qualifications of a trustworthiness or
witness as his capacity to reliability of the
perceive and his capacity testimony
to communicate his
perception to others.
 DISQUALIFICATIONS OF
WITNESSES
1. BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY

BY REASON OF MENTAL INCAPACITY [Sec. 21(a), Rule 130]

Requisites
(1) Person must be incapable of intelligently making known his perception to
others
(2) His incapability must exist at the time of his production for examination
[Riano]

BY REASON OF IMMATURITY [Sec. 21(b), Rule 130]

Requisites
(1) Mental maturity of the witness (child) must render him incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which he is examined.
(2) He is incapable of relating his perception truthfully. [Riano]
2. BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
Also known Martial Disqualification Rule or Spousal Immunity

REQUISITES [Sec. 22, Rule 130]

(1) Marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the offer of
testimony.
(2) That the spouse for or against whom the testimony is offered
is a party to the case;
(3) That the case is not one against the other. [Herrera]

EXCEPTIONS: [Sec. 22, Rule 130] Spouse may testify for or against
the other even without the consent of the latter—
(1) In a civil case by one against the other; or
(2) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter's direct descendants/ascendants
 Reason for the Rule
A. Identity of Interest: hence compelling a person to testify
against the spouse is tantamount to compelling the
witness to testify against himself.

B. To avoid the danger of admitting perjured testimony

and to prevent the witness spouse from being liable for
perjury.

C. As a matter of public policy of preserving the marital

relationship, family unity, solidarity and harmony.
D. To prevent the danger of punishing the party spouse
through hostile testimony, especially in cases of domestic
troubles between the spouses.
 4. BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

CONCEPT: Witnesses may refuse to testimony on certain

matters under the principle that the facts are not to be
divulged or that they are privileged communications. These
are facts which are supposed to be known only between the
communicant and the recipient.
PURPOSE OF A PRIVILEGE: to protect the
confidentiality or privacy of certain relationships. They are
usually based on public policy which recognizes that the
protection of certain relationship is more paramount than
the testimony of the witness.
 1. THE MARITAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
DISQUALIFICATION RULE (SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE)

I. RULE: The husband or wife, during or after

the marriage, cannot be examined without
the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one
from the other during the marriage.

II. PURPOSE: same as the Marital

Disqualification Rule as well as to encourage
honesty and confidentiality between spouses.
 2. BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT

I. RULE: ―An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be

examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his
advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning
any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity‖

II. REASON: The rule is grounded on public policy and the proper
administration of justice. It is to encourage clients to make a full disclosure
of all facts relative to a problem for which he sought the professional
services of a lawyer, without fear or reservation that these facts will later be
revealed especially if the nature of the facts are such that they might
adversely affect his rights, property or reputation. This is to inspire
confidence and thus it is also to enable the lawyer to give the appropriate
advice or to undertake such action that will best serve the interest of the
client.
 3. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT

I. RULE: A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or

obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient,
be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in attending such patient
in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.

II. PURPOSES: (a). To inspire confidence in patients and encourage

them to make a full disclosure of all facts, circumstances or
symptoms of their sickness, without fear of their future disclosure,
so that a physician can form an opinion and be enabled to safely
and effectively treat the patient.
(b).To protect the patient’s reputation.
 4. PRIEST/MINISTER- PENITENT

I. RULE. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the

person making the confession, be examined as to any confession
made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in
the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs.

II. CONCEPT and PURPOSE : This is often referred to as the ―Seal

of the Confessional‖. A priest or minister or similar religious person
cannot be compelled to testify and divulge matters which were
revealed to him by way of a confession. The purpose is in
recognition of religious freedom and to protect the practice of
making confessions.
 5. PUBLIC OFFICER

I. RULE: A public officer cannot be examined during his

term of office or afterwards, as to communications made
to him in official confidence, when the court finds that
the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.

II. PURPOSES:
To encourage citizens to reveal their knowledge about
the commission of crimes
To protect legitimate police operations against criminals
To protect the safety of the informant and his family
 TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

I. RULE: Sec. 25. Parental and Filial privilege.- No

persons may be compelled to testify against his parents,
other direct descendant, children or other direct
descendants.
 ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
Section 26. The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact maybe
given in evidence against him.

ADMISSION – Acknowledging of a FACT.

CONFESSION – Acknowledging of GUILT.
Examples of Admission By Conduct:
An employee’s act of tendering her resignation immediately after the discovery of the
anomalous transaction is indicative of her guilt as flight in criminal cases. Resignation is
not a way out to evade administrative liability.
Flight is indicative of guilt: “The guilty fleeth while no man pursueth but the innocent
is as bold as a lion ( Proverbs)” but the reverse is not true: i.e. that non-flight is
indicative of innocence.
Disguise or sudden unexpected change of address, are admissible to prove guilt.
Sending/giving an apology (gift-offerings), asking for forgiveness, are admissible as
proof of guilt or fault
But repair of vehicles involved in a collision is an exercise of a right and not an
admission of fault.
 HEARSAY RULE

GENERAL RULE ON HEARSAY

A witness can testify only as to those facts which he

knows of his personal knowledge, or those derived
from his own perception. [Sec. 36, Rule 130]

The hearsay rule is not limited to oral testimony or

statements; it applies to written, as well as oral
statements. [Consunji v. CA, G.R. No. 137873 (2001))

XPN: Dying declaration

DYING DECLARATIONS
 Elements of a Dying Declaration
Sec. 37 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

(1) That the declaration is one made by a dying person;

(2) That the declaration was made by said dying person

under a consciousness of his imminent death;

(3) That the declaration refers to the cause and

circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant and
not of anyone else;

(4) That the declaration is offered in a case where the

declarant's death is the subject of inquiry
(5) The declarant is competent as a witness had he
survived

(6) The declarant should have died.

 DYING DECLARATIONS

A dying declaration is admissible as evidence of

the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
death of the declarant, not merely the cause of his
injuries

If the declarant survives, his declaration may be

admissible as part of the RES GESTAE.
 Rationale for the Admissibility of a Dying
Declaration

When a person is at the point of death, every

motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration to
speak the truth, and therefore, the statements
under such circumstances deserve weight (People
v. Bacunawa, 356 SCRA 482).

No person who knows of his impending death

would make a careless or false accusation. A
dying declaration is entitled to the highest respect
(People v. Lamasan, 403 SCRA 243). Accordingly,
it is evidence of the highest order and is entitled
 RES GESTAE

The term res gestae is an old word which literally

means, THINGS DONE, and was originally used
by the courts in the other side of the world in the
early 1800's to create hearsay exceptions
whenever it was difficult to justify the admission of
a piece of hearsay evidence.
 RES GESTAE under the Rules of Court
(Rule 130, Sec. 42)

"Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. — STATEMENTS

made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
So, also, statements accompanying an
EQUIVOCAL ACT material to the issue, and giving
it a legal significance, may be received as part of
the res gestae."
 OPINION RULE
Opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn from facts
observed.

GENERAL RULE: The opinion of witness is not admissible

[Sec. 48, Rule 130]

EXCEPTIONS
(1) Expert witness [Sec. 49, Rule 130]
(2) Ordinary witness [Sec. 50, Rule 130]
 OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS
[SEC. 50, RULE 130]

Regarding:
(a) Identity of a person about whom he has adequate
knowledge;
(b) Handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
(c) Mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted; and
(d) Impressions of the
(i) emotion,
(ii) behavior,
(iii) condition, or
(iv) appearance of a person
 ORDER OF EXAMINATION OF
INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES:

Direct examination by the proponent

Cross examination by the opponent
Re-direct examination by the proponent
Re-cross examination by the opponent
Direct examination – the examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue.
Cross examination – the examination by the adverse party of the witness as to any matter
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Re-direct examination – second questioning by the proponent to explain or supplement

answers given in the cross examination.
Re-cross examination – second questioning by the adverse party on matters stated on the re-
direct and also on such matters as may be allowed by court.
 DIFFERENT TYPES OF
QUESTIONS:

Leading questions –It is one where the answer is already

supplied by the examiner into the mouth of the witness.
[Ex. You saw Jose killed Juan because you were present
when it happened, didn’t you?]

Misleading question – a question which cannot be answered

without making an unintended admission.
[Ex. Do you still beat your wife?]
 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE

Weight of Evidence: - The balance of evidence and in whose

favor it tilts. This refers to the indication of the greater
evidence between the parties . This depends on the judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules and by
jurisprudence.

Sufficiency of Evidence- refers to the adequacy of evidence.

Such evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will legally
justify the judicial action demanded or prayed by the parties.
 HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY
VALUES

a). Proof beyond reasonable doubt

b). Clear and convincing proof
c). Preponderance of Evidence
d). Substantial evidence
A. CRIMINAL CASES: PROOF OF GUILT MUST BE
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error,

produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts 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, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction.

B. CIVIL CASES: PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. This

means that he weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of
one is superior to the other
GRACIAS