Evidence - June 18, 2014

Part two/8-9pm
According to Pp. vs Lavapie, March 14, 2001, physical evidence should prevail.
When you talk about physical evidence, youre talking about object evidence. It
bears reiteration that physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestations of
truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In the light of the
physical evidence obtaining in this case, contrary to oral assertions cannot normally
prevail. Greater evidence is given to physical evidence as evidence of the highest
order because it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
I use physical evidence a lot, I use object evidence a lot, especially in accident
cases, damages. You want to prove that the plaintiff suffered physical injury then I
show the judge the scar, luod pero I have to show the judge. I have this client who
was crossing the road and was hit by a motorcycle. What did I show the judge? I
showed the judge the extent of the injuries. Gpakita nako ang mga samad and at
that time naa pai mga satellite kana btwang i-screw nimu sa bone, gpakita nako sa
judge, LUOD KAAYO!!! I could not eat after because it was so luod and it didnt smell
good! Object evidence dba, 5 senses, so simhuta judge! wala na nako na gibuhat. :)
Ok, so highest is object evidence, those address to the senses of the court. So it
leaves us with documentary and testimonial evidence. Asa karun ang mas reliable?
According to the SC in GSIS vs. CA, May 28, 1993, generally, documentary evidence
prevails over testimonial evidence. Documentary, ngano? This is something you can
relate to your civil and criminal procedure in the matter of depositions. So gi-depose
ka, theres deposition before action.
So the testimony of the witness was
perpetuated prior to the filing of the case, and now the case was already filed, there
was presentation of evidence and the witness testified in court, testimonial
evidence nato sya. Karon, pagsulti niya, lahi iyang gsulti compara sa iyang
deposition. What do you think will prevail? What is already on record or what hes
saying? So if its preserved on record, the court will give it greater credence
because it can be circumstantial evidence that somehow is able to change his
testimony because of undue influence. GR, between documentary and testimonial
evidence what is greater on credibility and reliability, that would be DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.
So testimonial na pud ta, dba naai duha ka klase nga testimonial evidence, naai oral
ug written testimonial evidence. Which prevails?
According to the SC in the case of Pp. vs Balleno, august 7, 2003, in any case, open
court declarations take precedence over written affidavits in the hierarchy of
evidence. TWO REASONS: 1st, there is flexibility on the part of the questioner to
adapt his questions to elicit the desired answer in order to ferret out the truth; 2 nd,
when it is an oral testimony, there is an opportunity for the adverse party to
conduct what is known as cross examination.
So Object, Documentary, Testimonial - oral then written.

As to whether an evidence affirms or negates a fact, evidence can either be

NEGATIVE or POSITIVE evidence. What is Positive evidence? Evidence is positive
when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. Negative evidence on the
other hand, is when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence
of a fact.
Example of positive evidence, when you saw the accused in his condo, was the
zipper of the accused open? Or were his pants open? Im talking of Vhong Navarro
here. Its positive because he affirms that the pants was undone. Ok balikon nato,
same question but different answer, it is No, is that positive or negative evidence?
So hes saying no, so hes negating, its still POSITIVE evidence. Why? Because hes
affirming that pants were undone. But if the answer was I do not know because I
did not see that is negative evidence. Even if an answer is couched in the negative,
it still affirms a fact.
So what prevails in case of conflict? In the case of Pp. vs Macalaba, SC ruled that
negative evidence cannot prevail over the positive testimony. So what is the best
example of negative evidence? ALIBI, it wasnt me because I was not even there.
So thats alibi, a negative evidence. So if the defense is alibi, it cannot prevail over
positive identification that you were the one who committed it. But it does not
necessarily mean that if your defense is alibi it can never be a strong evidence.
Example, a group of guys were charged with rape, one of the guys says that at that
time, I was not even in the Philippines, I was in the US. to prove that defense I have
entries in my passport showing that on this date I left for United States and on
another date I came back. How the hell could I have committed the rape when in
fact its impossible. Still the SC ruled that, that does not prove that you did not
commit the crime. Whats the case? The case of Hubert Web vs. De Leon, it was a
strong alibi defense but the SC said that naa man gud witness, naa nagpositively
identify, the witness was Jessica Alfaro.
As to materiality, evidence can either be material, which tends to prove the material
facts in the case and immaterial evidence which does not tend to prove the material
facts in the case. Example, A obtained a Loan from B evidenced by a PN. Upon
maturity, B failed to pay when A presented the note for payment. So A filed a case
to collect alleging the obligation that was unpaid. So the issue as far as A is
concerned is non-payment. B now filed his answer and according to him he already
paid. in fact, he has a receipt. so the issue in so far as B is concerned is that he has
a receipt, that he already made payment. Now applying that to the definition of
materiality, what will be material to the cause of action that is anchored on nonpayment? What evidence will you prove nga wala paka na bayaran? The PN, thats
the evidence? What about in so far as the defendant is concerned? The alleged
receipt that he paid. So thats materiality, will it prove the fact in issue in the case?
Does it tend to prove the fact of payment?
Lets suppose also in the same case, the 2 nd witness, B presented As mother and
the mother brought with her a GUN. Is that material to the fact in issue? Does it
tend to prove payment or non-payment? No, it does not prove and therefore, it is
immaterial. It has no relation whatsoever to the fact in issue.

As to admissibility, evidence can either be COMPETENT evidence or INADMISSIBLE

evidence, dili incompetent evidence. Because when you talk about incompetent
evidence, it has a different meaning. When you say competent evidence, it is not
excluded by law or rules of court, it means that the evidence is admissible.
Inadmissible evidence, is evidence which is inadmissible because it is excluded by
the law or rules of court. What about kining incompetent evidence? So we will find
out about it when we go to testimonial evidence especially in testimony in open
court where you are incompetent to testify because you did not see the event.
So what about competency? In the bill of rights, the right of the person to be secure
in their person, papers.and the privacy in communication, so this rights refer to
competency of evidence. So if in violation of your right against unreasonable search
and seizures, INADMISSBLE evidence or if in violation of your right to privacy,
INADMISSBLE as well, fruit of the poisonous tree. Theres a similar rule in civil
procedure, rule 26, admission by the adverse party.. unless otherwise allowed by
the court, to prevent failure of justice, a party who fails to file a request for
admission by the adverse party of the relevant facts in issue which are or ought to
be in the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present
evidence on that matter. That is the rule that makes a certain evidence or testimony
inadmissible.
As to relevancy you have either RELEVANT or IRRELEVANT evidence. RELEVANT
evidence is evidence which has a tendency in reason to establish a probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. Relevant evidence is tending to prove or disprove
a material fact. Evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that
is of consequence to the determination of any action more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence.
In the example of Dean Inigo, which to my mind is the perfect example. So there
was a shooting of a person. He was shot from a far distance but ang igo niya is right
between the eyes. Now lets suppose Vhong was the main suspect and he was tried
for the crime. During the presentation of the prosecutions evidence, the fiscal
presented evidence trying to prove that V was a former Olympic gold medalist in
shooting. So long distance shooter cya, is the evidence material? Does it tend to
prove WON Vhong tend to kill the victim? It does NOT! But even if it is not material,
is it RELEVANT? It may be relevant, why? Because it has the tendency in reason to
prove that V was the killer due to his ability as a sharp shooter. It may not be
MATERIAL but it is RELEVANT. So that evidence in all probability will be admitted.
Now, what about IRRELEVANT evidence? Its the opposite of relevant evidence.
Suppose in the same example the shooting of a person is right between the eyes, so
the prosecution will attempt to present evidence that V was a gold medalist in
gymnastics. Ok, so it may prove that he is limber but it will not prove that he is a
shooter. So it will not prove that V was the killer.
As to the need to infer or presume, evidence can be DIRECT or CIRCUMSTANCIAL.
Direct evidence proves that a fact or point of fact in issue as distinguish from
circumstantial proof. It is proof that if you believe it, it establishes the truth or falsity
of a fact in issue and you dont even have to apply any assumptions. Example,
question in court, who killed the victim? The accused. Why do you know that it was

the accused who killed the victim? Because I saw him shoot the victim. That is of
course direct evidence, somebody is directly pointing to the fact that it was the
accused who shot the victim. So direkta, no inference be made.
What about if the answers are this way, Who killed the victim? The accused. Why do
you know that? Because at the time of the shooting, I saw the him running away
from the scene of the crime. Does it directly say that he saw the accused shoot the
victim? So it does not. Next question, what did you observe from the accused? The
accused at that time when he was running was holding a gun and his t-shirt was
splattered with blood. So it does not directly prove that the accused killed the victim
but it is a circumstantial evidence that perhaps it was the accused who shot the
victim. Therefore, Circumstantial evidence is evidence not bearing directly of the
fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or
tribunal might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.
As to originality, it can either be the PRIMARY/ BEST EVIDENCE or it can either be
SECONDARY evidence. Primary evidence is that which the law regards as effecting
the greatest certainty of the fact in question, meaning it is the best evidence. Naa
cya utang sa akoa, whats your proof? Contract of loan, thats the best evidence. I
suffer actual damages and therefore I incurred expenses for hospitalization. Whats
the best proof? Receipts from hospital clearly showing kung pila imung gi-gasto.
secondary evidence, on the other hand, is inferior or substitutionary evidence. it
therefore indicates a more original source of information. For example, whats the
best evidence to prove your age? Best evidence would be your Birth certificate.
What about baptismal certificate, dba naa mai nakabutang kanus-a ka natawo? Or
ang gpresent nga evidence kay photocopy, does it not indicate that there is better
evidence? So that is governed by Rule 130, sec. 3 which is the best evidence rule.
(sir asking about Macies age.:)) so whats the best evidence? Is it what you know?
NO!!! the best evidence for you to know when your birthday was is the birth
certificate. so chismis ra nah!, if you tell me right now that you were born on this or
that day, I will dispute that, prove that to me.
As to supporting evidence, it can either be CUMULATIVE or CORROBORATIVE
evidence. CUMULATIVE evidence is additional evidence of the same kind and
character as that already given and tend to prove the same proposition. For
example, 3 people are supposed to testify that they saw the motorcycle of V. So
everything is testimonial evidence but all the evidence will be proving the same
point. They will be testifying the same thing, thats CUMULATIVE, dungag-dungag
lang. CORROBORATIVE would be additional evidence of a different kind and
character tending to prove the same point but different types of evidence. It is
deemed necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness did not
tell the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate. For example, you want to
prove that you were born June 2, 1992. There are different types of evidence that
can prove that. So I can present my birth certificate. if theyre doubting the veracity
of my birth certificate, I can present my Baptismal certificate, if theyre still
doubting, I can bring my mother who can testify that I was born on June 2, 1992. So
these are corroborative evidence, they tend to point the same point but of different
character.

But remember, evidence is not to be counted. And pagdaog sa kaso sa korte, its
not padaghanay because evidence I weighed. In Pp. vs. Ayupan, SC said that
evidence is assessed in terms of quality and not quantity. It is to be weighed not
counted. Corroborative/cumulative evidence is not a prerequisite for example for
the conviction of an accused to establish not the number of witness but the quality
of their testimonies. It usually happens in a crime of rape, when it is purely private
between the rapist and the person raped. Convictions for rape, usually are produced
by the testimony of the victim only, himself or herself.
As to controversion, evidence can be PRIMA FACIE, REBUTTING or CONCLUSIVE.
Prima facie evidence is evidence sufficient to establish a fact and if not rebutted
becomes conclusive of a fact. Example, in bribery, the acceptance of a gift is
deemed prima facie evidence of bribery. What is the effect if there is prima facie
evidence of guilt? The burden shifts to the accused rather than it belonging to the
prosecution for the purpose of showing that such act/s are innocent and admitted
w/o unlawful intention.
Rebutting evidence is that given to a party in a case to explain, repel, counteract or
disprove facts given in evidence of the other side. The term rebutting evidence is
more particularly applied to the evidence given to the plaintiff to explain, repel the
evidence given by the defendant.
Conclusive evidence which is incontrovertible, meaning it is no longer open or not to
be question as where it is said that the thing is conclusively proved. It means that
such result follow from the fact shown as the only one possible. Example, why do
you think a child below 9 yrs of age cannot be held criminally responsible? Because
the Law conclusively holds such a child not capable of criminal responsibility in the
same way in your torts and damages that a child is deemed incapable of
contributory negligence. Remember that, age becomes a conclusive presumption.
As to the tenor of testimony, it can be CHARACTER/REPUTATION, OPINION, EXPERT
or ORDINARY evidence.
Character evidence is a evidence attesting to ones character and moral standing in
the community. Opinion evidence is that which the witness thinks, believes or infers
in regard to facts in dispute as distinguished from personal knowledge of facts
themselves. The rules in evidence ordinarily could not permit witness to testify as to
opinions or conclusions, thats the general rule because opinion does not matter in
court unless you fall in two exceptions which we will go to later. Expert evidence is
one of those exceptions. Under Rule 130 sec. 49, consist of 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. Then we have ordinary evidence
which is simply the testimony of a witness that is derived from his personal
knowledge or his own perception of facts.
Finally, as to source of evidence, it can either be EXTRINSIC/PAROL or INTRINSIC
evidence.
Intrinsic evidence is an information necessary for the determination of an issue that
is gleaned from the document itself. So the evidence itself is the information

contained in the document. Parol or evidence allunde on the other hand, refers to
evidence from the source outside of the document, so evidence other than the
document itself. So in your succession, evidence from outside the will, and we also
have sec. 9 Rule 130, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced 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. That is one of the more
interesting rules in the law on evidence.