Evidence
• Questions of fact.
I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION:
A. Importance of the study of Evidence in Law
Enforcement:
As an element of our Criminal Justice System, it is the
duty of every law enforcement agencies to provide the
prosecution with the materials and information
(Evidence) necessary in order to support conviction.
Every person is entitled to be presumed innocent of a
crime or wrong, unless proven otherwise. This is a prima
facie presumption which must be overcome by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
B. Connecting the chain of events through Evidence
during Trial:
Trial refers to “the examination before a competent
tribunal, according to the laws of the land, of the facts in
issue in a cause, for the purposes of determining such
issue” (U.S. v. Raymundo, 14 Phil 416).
Evidence helps in the determination of Questions of
Facts by helping the judge reconstruct the chain of
events from the conception up to the consummation of
a criminal design.
C. Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
Factum Probandum – The ultimate facts to be proven.
These are the propositions of law.
Examples:
• murder was committed thru treachery
• robbery was made through force upon things
Factum Probans – The evidentiary Facts. These addresses
questions of fact.
Examples:
• exit wounds were in front indicating that victim was
shot at the back
• destroyed locks indicative of force upon things
Thus, the outcome of every trial is determined by:
• Propositions of law, and
D. Proof and Evidence
Evidence – the means to arrive at a conclusion. Under the
Revised Rules of Court, evidence is defined as “the
means, sanctioned by the rules, for ascertainment in a
judicial proceeding, the truth, respecting a matter of
fact”.
Proof – the result of introducing evidence. The
establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind
of the judge as to the facts in issue. It refers to the
accumulation of evidence sufficient to persuade the trial
court.
Quantum of evidence – the totality of evidence
presented for consideration
Quantum of proof – refers to the degree of proof
required in order to arrive at a conclusion.
Burden of evidence – the duty of a party of going forward
with evidence.
Burden of proof – the duty of the affirmative to prove
that which it alleges.
Variations on degrees of proof based on type of action:
1. Criminal Action – proof beyond reasonable doubt
[that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind]
2. Civil Action – preponderance of evidence [evidence
of greater weight or more convincing than that which is
offered to refute it]
3. Administrative Action – sufficiency of evidence [that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion]
E. Exclusionary Rule. (Fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine)
Evidence ILLEGALLY OBTAINED are inadmissible for
reasons of public policy. This is so because of the
constitutional requirement of due process. Due process
has been defined as “the law that hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after fair trial”.
As a result, jurisprudence has evolved a rule that renders
inadmissible any evidence obtained in an illegal search
from being introduced in trial.
F. Principle of Chain of Custody of Evidence
If the evidence is of a type which cannot be easily
recognized or can readily be confused or tampered with,
the proponent of the object must present evidence of its
chain of custody. The proponent need not negate all
possibilities of substitution or tampering in the chain of
custody, but must show that:
The evidence is identified as the same object which was
taken from the scene;
It was not tampered with, or that any alteration can be
sufficiently explained (i.e. discoloration due to the
application of ninhydrine solution, etc.); and
The persons who have handled the evidence are known
and may be examined in court with regard to the object.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. Concepts of evidence:
1. It is a means of ascertainment – used to arrive at a
legal conclusion
2. It is sanctioned by the rules of court – meaning, not
excluded by the rules on relevancy and admissibility
3. It is used in a judicial proceeding – there is a jural
conflict involving different rights asserted by different
parties
4. It pertains to the truth respecting a matter of fact –
evidence represents a “claim” either for the prosecution
or for the defense where issues (clashes of view) are
present.
Admissibility of Evidence:
For evidence to be admissible, it must be:
1) relevant to the issue [relevancy test], and
2) not excluded by the law or rules of court [competency
test].
Note: To determine the relevancy of any item of proof,
the purpose for which it is sought to be introduced must
first be known (There must be a formal offer).
Test of relevancy of evidence:
Whether or not the factual information tendered for
evaluation of the trial court would be helpful in the
determination of the factual issue that is disputed.
When is evidence relevant?
When it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in it’s:
1) existence, or
2) non-existence
In other words, evidence is relevant when it is:
1) material, and
2) has probative value
What is meant by “probative value”?
It is the tendency of the evidence to establish the
proposition that it is offered to prove.
“Collateral Matters” not admissible except when it tend
in any reasonable degree to establish probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
Collateral matters – matters other than the fact in issue
and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
Collateral matters are classified into:
1. Antecedent circumstances – facts existing before the
commission of the crime [i.e. hatred, bad moral
character of the offender, previous plan, conspiracy, etc.]
2. Concomitant circumstances – facts existing during
the commission of the crime [i.e. opportunity, presence
of the accused at the scene of the crime, etc.]
3. Subsequent circumstances – facts existing after the
commission of the crime [i.e. flight, extrajudicial
admission to third party, attempt to conceal effects of
the crime, possession of stolen property, etc.]
Query: Is modus operandi an antecedent, concomitant or
subsequent circumstance?
B. Judicial Notice, basis of:
Judicial notice is based on necessity and expediency. This the greatest certainty.
is so because what is known need not be proved. 10. Secondary evidence – that which indicates the
existence of a
Different kinds of judicial notices: more original source of information.
11. Expert evidence – the testimony of one possessing
1. mandatory knowledge
2. discretionary not usually acquired by other persons.
3. hearing required 12. Prima facie evidence – evidence which can stand
alone to support
C. Confession and Admission, distinguished: a conviction unless rebutted.
Confession – an acknowledgement of guilt. 13. Conclusive evidence – incontrovertible evidence
Admission – an acknowledgment of facts. 14. Cumulative evidence – additional evidence of the
same kind bearing
Different kinds of confession/admission: on the same point.
1. Judicial 15. Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of a
2. Extrajudicial different kind
3. Oral and character tending to prove the same point as
4. Written that of previously
5. Voluntary offered evidence.
6. Forced 16. Character evidence – evidence of a person’s moral
standing or
Different kinds of evidence: personality traits in a community based on reputation
1. Relevant evidence – evidence having any value in or opinion.
reason as tending 17. Demeanor evidence – the behavior of a witness on
to prove any matter provable in an action. the witness stand
2. Material evidence – evidence is material when it is during trial to be considered by the judge on the issue
directed to prove a of credibility.
fact in issue as determined by the rules of 18. Demonstrative evidence – evidence that has tangible
substantive law and and
pleadings. exemplifying purpose.
3. Competent evidence – not excluded by law. 19. Hearsay evidence – oral testimony or documentary
4. Direct evidence – proves the fact in issue without aid evidence which
of inference does not derive its value solely from the credit to be
or presumptions. attached to the
5. Circumstantial evidence - the proof of fact or facts witness himself.
from which, taken either singly or collectively, the 20.Testimonial evidence – oral averments given in open
existence of a particular fact in dispute court by
may be inferred as necessary or probable the witness.
consequence. 21. Object/Auotoptic proferrence/Real evidence – those
6. Positive evidence – evidence which affirms a fact in addressed to
issue. the senses of the court (sight, hearing, smell, touch,
7. Negative evidence - evidence which denies the taste).
existence of a fact 22. Documentary evidence – those consisting of writing
in issue. or any material
8. Rebutting evidence – given to repel, counter act or of written expression offered as proof of its contents.
disprove facts containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols
given in evidence by the other party. or other modes
9. Primary/Best evidence – that which the law regards
as affording Best Evidence Rule:
When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original of the document.
For exceptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of
Court.
A document is legally considered “Original” when:
1. It is the subject of an inquiry
2. When in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical contents.
3. When an entry is repeated in ordinary course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the
time of the transaction.
Question: May a “fake” document be considered as
“original” or “authentic”?
Yes. A forged or spurious document when presented in
court for examination is considered as the original
fake/forged document. Thus, a mere photocopy of the
allegedly forged or spurious document is only secondary
to the original questioned document.
Secondary Evidence
When the original document has been:
1. lost,
2. destroyed, or
3. cannot be produced in court.
The offeror without bad faith must:
1. prove its execution or existence, and
2. prove the cause of its unavailability.
Secondary evidence may consist of:
1. a copy,
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or
3. by testimony of witnesses.
When original document is in the custody of:
1. adverse party – adverse party must have reasonable
notice to produce it. After such notice and satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce it, secondary
evidence may be presented.
2. public officer – contents may be proved by certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
III. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
Qualifications of witnesses:
1. can perceive
2. can make known their perception to others
3. not disqualified by reason of mental incapacity,
immaturity, marriage, privileged communications, or
“dead man’s statute”.
“Res Inter Alios Acta” Rule
General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
Exception:
1. admission by a co-partner or agent
2. admission by a conspirator
3. admission by privies
4. admission by silence
In the above cases, the admission of one person is
admissible as evidence against another.
Testimonial Knowledge:
General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception. Any statement
which derives its strength from another’s personal
knowledge is hearsay, and is therefore inadmissible.
Exceptions:
1. Dying declarations (ante-mortem statements)
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Part of the res gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
12. Examination of child victim/witness in cases of child
abuse
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:
Burden of proof – 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.

Presumption – an inference as to the existence of a fact
not actually known, arising from its usual connection
with another which is known or a conjecture based on
past experience as to what course human affairs
ordinarily take.
2 kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive presumptions [jure et de jure] – based on
rules of substantive law which cannot be overcome by
evidence to the contrary.
2. Disputable presumptions [prima facie presumptions,
rebuttable presumptions] – based on procedural rules
and may be overcome by evidence to the contrary.
Kinds of Conclusive Presumptions:
1. Estoppel by record or judgment – the preclusion to
deny the truth of matters set forth in a record, whether
judicial or legislative, and also deny the facts adjudicated
by a court of competent jurisdiction (Salud v. CA, 233
SCRA 387).
2. Estoppel by deed – a bar which precludes a party to
a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other
and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed
or denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it
(Iriola v. Felices, 30 SCRA 202).
3. Estoppel in pais – based upon express representation
or statements or upon positive acts or conduct. A party
cannot, in the course of litigation or in dealings in pais,
be permitted to repudiate his representation or occupy
inconsistent positions.
4. Estoppel against Tenant – the tenant is not permitted
to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them.
Note: For Kinds of disputable presumptions, see Sec. 3,
Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Presentation of Evidence:
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done is open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
answer of the witness shall be given orally.
Rights and Obligations of witnesses:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice
requires.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the
issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
to a penalty
for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation,
unless it be to the very fact at issue or to the fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed,but a
witness must answer to the
facts of his previous final conviction for an offense.
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?]
Compound question – a question which calls for a single
answer to more than one question. [Ex. Have you seen Error in personae – mistake in identity.
and heard him?]
Argumentative question – a type of leading question Abberatio Ictus – mistake in the blow
which reflects the examiners interpretation of the facts.
[Ex. Why were you driving carelessly?] Nulum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime
Speculative question – a question which assumes a when there is no law punishing the same.
disputed fact not stated by the witness as true. [Ex. The
victim cried in pain, didn’t he?] Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot
Conclusionary question – a question which asks for an be criminal where the mind is not criminal.
opinion which the witness is not qualified or permitted
to answer. [Ex. Asking a high school drop-out whether Actus mi invictu reus, nisi mens facit reum – an act done
the gun used is a Cal. 45 pistol or 9mm pistol] by me against my will is not my act.
Cumulative question – a question which has already been
asked and answered. Mens rea – guilty mind.
Harassing/Embarrassing question – [Ex. Are you a
homosexual?] Actus reus – guilty act.

Classes of Documents:
Documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
1. The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or a
foreign country.
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public
except last wills and testaments.
3. Public records (1) kept in the Philippines, or private
documents (2) required by law to be entered therein.
Res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself.
Causa Proxima – proximate cause which produced the
immediate
effect.
Prima facie – at first glance.
Locus Criminis – scene of the crime or crime scene.
Pro Reo – principle in Criminal Law which states that
where the statute admits of several interpretations, the
one most favorable to the accused shall be adopted.

All other writings are private. Res Gestae – the thing itself.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus -– false in one part of

SOME USEFUL LATIN TERMS AND LEGAL MAXIMS: the statement would render the entire statement false
(note: this maxim is not recognized in our jurisdiction).
Verba legis non est decendendum – from the words of
the law there can be no departure.

Dura lex sed lex – the law may be harsh but it is the law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat – ignorance of the law

excuses no one.

Ignorantia facti excusat – mistake of fact excuses.

Praeter intentionem – different from that which was

intended.