LM 17: COURTS, LEGAL PROCESSES AND EVIDENCE

ATTY. ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ

Evidence

Is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 128).

NOTE: Evidence is only the means of ascertaining the truth. This truth would depend upon the
evidence admitted in Court.
Applicability of the Rules on Evidence

The rules of evidence, being part of the Rules of Court, apply only to judicial proceedings
(Sec. 1, Rule 128)

NOTE: The Rules of Court shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (Sec. 4, Rule 1).
Principle of Uniformity

As a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be same in all courts and in all trials and
hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 128).

Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence

1. The evidence is relevant to the issue;
NOTE: It is relevant accord if it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence.
Relevancy is, therefore determinable by the rule of logic and human experience.
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)
NOTE: Competency is determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence.
Relevancy of Evidence
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.
Collateral Matters
GR: Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed.
XPN: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of fact in issue.

Relevancy Formula
FACT A

FACT B
Probative of/
Tends to prove

Fact of
Consequence

Attack on Relevancy
1. Not Probative of FACT B, a Fact of Consequence
2. Probative of FACT C, but FACT C Not a Fact of Consequence
Facts offered into Evidence
1. Ed has blue eyes.
2. Ed has a skull and cross bones tattooed on his left arm and a smoking gun tattooed in his
right arm.
3. Eds father was a German guard in a Nazi death camp, where Ed was born in 1942.
4. Ed is a member of the skin heads.
5. Ed purchased a car radio with a police ban three months prior to Johns murder.
Fact of Consequence/Interference/Conclusion
Ed murdered John.
Facts offered into Evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

John was found dead in his apartment, with a bullet wound in his chest.
A week earlier, Ed has threatened John.
Eds hat was found in Johns apartment.
Ed had written a love letter to Johns wife three months prior to Johns murder.
The murder weapon was found buried in Eds backyard.
Police Officer Smith testifies that Sam, Johns neighbor, told him that he saw Ed driving
away from the apartment building the night of the shooting.
Want jury to infer/conclude
Ed murdered John.

Argument for Admission of Love Letters

1. A man who writes a love letter to a woman probably loves her.
2. A man who loves a woman probably desires her for himself alone.

3. A man who loves a married woman probably wishes to get rid of her husband.
4. A man who wishes to get rid of the husband of the woman he loves probably makes some
plan to do so.
5. A man who plans to get rid of the husband of the woman he loves probably kills him.
Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
1. Direct Evidence proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact
(Riano, 2013).
2. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence that evidence which indirectly proves a
fact in issue through an interference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established (People v. Matito, 423 SCRA 617).
2 Kinds of Evidence
1. Words
2. Things
a. Writings/Documents
b. Tangible objects
Court Decision Making

Evidence
Interference
Decision
Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence
Deduction v. Induction

Deduction/Direct Evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sammy on trial for robbing a bank.

Surveillance film captures image of a man robbing the bank with a gun.
Court compares film to Sammy seated at counsel table.
Court deduces that Sammy is the man on the film.
Court decides to convict.

Induction/Circumstantial Evidence
1. Sammy on trial for robbing a bank.
2. No surveillance film due to a technical problem.
3. Maggie, Sammys girlfriend, testifies that Sammy told her that he was low on funds and,
unless his ship came in, would have to rob the bank near his house.
4. Court induces that Sammy is the robber.
5. Court decided to convict.
Positive v. Negative Evidence

Evidence is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur, while it is
negative when the witness states he did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact
(Regalado, 2008).

NOTE: When a witness declares of his personal knowledge that a fact did not take place that is
actually positive testimony since it is an affirmation of the truth of a negative fact.
Denial as Negative Evidence

A denial is negative evidence. It is considered by the court to be a very weak form of defense
and can never overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when the latter
comes from the mouth of a credible witness (People v. Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328, as cited in
Riano, 2013).

Burden of Proof v. Burden of Evidence

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 (Rule 131, Sec. 1,
Rules of Court). Burden of proof or onus probandi traditionally refers to the obligation of a
party to the litigation to persuade the court that he is entitled to relief.
Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rest upon a party at any particular time during
the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one created against him. Duty of
the party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him
(Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587).
Conclusive Presumptions
The following are instance of conclusive presumptions:
a. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted
to falsify it. (Rule 131, Sec. 2(a), Rules of Court).
b. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between them (Rule 131, Sec. 2(b), Rules of Court).
Disputable Presumptions
The following presumption are satisfactory if uncontradicted, nut may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
a. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
b. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
c. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;

d.
e.
f.
g.

That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter; and other enumerations
under Rule 131, Sec. 3, Rules of Court.

Liberal construction of the Rules of Evidence.

Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules of evidence must be liberally
construed (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court).
Rules of Procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment
of justice.
A strict and rigid application must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary
objective of enhancing substantial justice.

Quantum of Evidence (Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence)

Proof being reasonable doubt

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt.
Proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind (Rule 133, Sec. 2, Rules of Court).

Preponderance of Evidence

In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.
The court may also consider the number of witnesses, through the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number (Rule 133, Sec. 1, Rules of Court).

Substantial Evidence

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed

established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence

which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Rule 133, Sec. 5,
Rules of Court).
Clear and Convincing Evidence

Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of a fact a firm belief
or conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
It is intermediate; being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is
required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases (Blacks Law Dicitionary, 5 th Ed.,
227).

Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions What Need Not Be Proved

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Those of which the courts may take judicial notice (Rule 129);
Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131);
Those that are disputably presumed but uncontradicted (Rule 131);
Immaterial allegations;
Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been sufficiently alleged (Sec. 1, Rule
8); and
7. Res ipsa loquitur
Judicial Notice

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act upon without
proof because they are supposed to be known to them.
It is based on considerations of expediency and convenience.
It displaces evidence, being equivalent to proof.

Function of Judicial Notice

Judicial Notice dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the
evidence is designed to fulfill.
Its function is to abbreviate litigation by admission of matters that need no evidence because
judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence.

Matters subject to mandatory judicial notice (EPOL-APOL-MG)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Existence and territorial extent of States;

Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality;
Law of nations;
Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines;
Laws of nature;
Measure of time; and

9. Geographical divisions (Sec. 1, Rule 129).

Discretionary Judicial Notice

When the matter is subject to discretionary judicial notice, a hearing is necessary before
judicial notice is taken of a matter.
1. Matters which are of public knowledge;
NOTE: Public knowledge are those matters coming to the knowledge of men generally
in the course of ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration
NOTE: Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration are facts, theories
and conclusions which have come to be established and accepted by the specialists in the
areas of natural science, natural phenomena, chronology, technology, geography,
statistical facts and other fields of professional and scientific knowledge (Francisco,
1996).
3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129).
NOTE: Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere persona knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his
individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his
action.

Judicial Admission

These are admissions, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case, which does not require proof. (Sec. 4, Rule 129).

How judicial admissions are made

Judicial admissions may be made in:
1. The pleadings filed by the parties;
2. The course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, including
depositions, written interrogatories and requests for admissions; and
3. Other stages of the judicial proceedings, as in pre-trial (Binarao vs. Plus Builders Inc.,
491 SCRA 19).
How judicial admissions may be contradicted
Grounds for contradicting judicial admissions
1. Upon showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or
2. When it is shown that no such admission was made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
Remedy of party who made a judicial admission

1. Written admission file a motion to withdraw such pleading, or any other written
instrument containing such admission.
2. Oral admission the counsel may move for the exclusion of such admission.
QUESTION:

Anna and Badong were accused of killing Cathy. However, only Anna was arrested since
Badong went into hiding.
After trial, Anna was acquitted of the charge in a decision rendered by Judge Santos.
Subsequently, Badong was arrested and brought to trial. After trial, Badong was found guilty
of homicide in a decision rendered by Judge Yantok, the judge who replaced Judge Santos
after the latter retired.
On appeal, Badong argues that Judge Yantok should have taken judicial notice of the
acquittal of Anna rendered by Judge Santos.
Is Badong correct?

ANSWER:

No. the appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness is not binding on
another judge who heard the testimony of the same witness on the same matter.
Each magistrate who hears the testimony of a witness is called upon to make his own
appreciation of the evidence. It is, therefore, illogical to argue that because one judge made a
conclusion in a certain way with respect to one or more of the accused; it necessarily dictates
that the succeeding judge who heard the same against the other accused should automatically
make the same conclusion (People v. Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58, Aug. 4, 2000).

Object 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 (Sec. 1, Rule
130).
Object evidence, also known as real evidence, demonstrative evidence, autoptic preference
and physical evidence.
Evidence, is that evidence which is addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130). It
is not limited to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and
olfactory.

NOTE: When the physical evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence, conclusion as to
physical evidence must prevail (People v. Aguinaldo, 316 SCRA 819).
Examples of Object Evidence:
1. Any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of the senses;
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken therefrom;

3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments;

4. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question (e.g. maps, diagrams);
5. Documents, if the purpose is to prove their existence or condition, or the nature of the
handwriting thereon or to determine the age of the paper used, or the blemishes or
alterations (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 717, 2008).
6. A persons appearance, where relevant (People v. Rullepa, 398 SCRA 567).
QUESTION:
Ron was charged with murder for shooting Carlo. After trial, Ron was found guilty as charged.
On appeal, Ron argued that the trial court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin test conducted on him 2 days after he was
arrested yielded a negative result. Hence, he could not have shot Carlo. Is Ron correct?
ANSWER:
No. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto prove that Ron is
innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It is
possible to fore a gun and yet is negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he
washes his hands afterwards. Here, since Ron submitted himself for paraffin testing only two
days after the shooting, it was likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing
all traces of nitrates therefrom. (People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004).

Requisites for admissibility of object evidence

1. It must be relevant and competent;
2. Authenticated; and
NOTE: To authenticate the object, it must be shown that the object is the very thing that
is either the subject matter of the law suit or the very one involved to prove an issue in
the case.
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness who should identify the object
to be the actual thing involved.
QUESTION:

In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence, a photograph showing the
accused mauling the victim with several of the latters companions.
The person who took the photograph was not presented as a witness.
Be that as it may, the prosecution presented the companions of the victim who testifies that
they were the ones in the photographs.
The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs because the person who took the
photographs was not presented as witness.
Is the contention of the defense tenable?

ANSWER:

No. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to

its production and testifies as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The
value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the
original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time
of the crime.
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has
taken. The correctness of the photograph can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony
of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness
and accuracy. Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence in as much as the correctness
thereof was testified to by the companions of the victim. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 10828083, November 16, 1995).