EVIDENCE
22. Explain and illustrate Factum probandum and Factum
probans. Page 11
FACTUM PROBANDUM:
- The fact or proposition to be established/fact to be
proved
- “Signifies the fact or proposition to be established”
- Mere filing of the file does not automatically give rise to
such
- In a civil case: refers to the elements of a cause of action
alleged in the complaint as denied specifically by the
defendant
- In a suit for collection of a sum of money, in the absence
of any admission by the defendant, the factum
probandum of the plaintiff would be (the existence of the
debt of the defendant, the maturity of the debt, the
demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay;
and the failure to pay despite the demand)
- In a criminal case, when the accused pleads not guilty,
the factum probandum refers to a matter that the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order
to justify a conviction.
FACTUM PROBANS:
- The facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to
be established
- The probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the
fact in issue
23. Can there be conviction by circumstantial evidence?
Explain. Page 28
- In a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be
sufficient for conviction provided the following requisites
occur:
(a) There is more than one circumstance
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt
The above circumstances must constitute an unbroken
chain that inexorably leads to one fair conclusion: the
accused committed the crime to the exclusion of all others.
24. Explain the concept of inadmissible evidence in
relation to Arrests, Searches and seizures. Page 34
People v. Aminnudin
- Inadmissibility of evidence due to the legal infirmity of an
arrest for non-compliance with the requisites of the in
flagrante delicto exception. The court declared the
marijuana found in the possession of the accused
inadmissible because it was a product of an illegal search
and not incident to a lawful arrest.
People v. Molina
- Conviction by the trial court was reversed and set aside
when the Supreme Court declared as invalid an arrest
R2
made merely on the basis of alleged reliable information
that the persons arrested were carrying marijuana
Malacat v. CA
- A warrantless arrest cannot be justified where no crime is
being committed at the time of the arrest because no
crime may be inferred from the fact that the eyes of the
person arrested were “moving fast” and “looking at every
person” passing by.
Valdez v. People
- The court ruled that in order to determine the admissibility
of the seized items in evidence, it is indispensable to
ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the
alleged contraband, was lawful. The warrantless search
would be justified only if it were incidental to a lawful arrest.
Comerciante v. People
- The court struck down, as illegal, an arrest and the seizure
of drugs because the basis for the arrest was that the
accused was making “improper and unpleasant
movements”
(Recel’s interpretation – bahala kayo kung same intindi niyo):
basta inadmissible na yung evidence na nakuha pagka unlawful
arrest yung nangyari or pag illegal search and seizure yung
naganap.
25. Explain and illustrate the equipoise rule or
equiponderance doctrine. Page 54
- The doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
of law.
- Doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the
parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on which side
the evidence weighs more heavily – decision should be
against the party with the burden of proof.
- In a civil case, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff
and the evidence does not suggest that the scale of
justice should weigh in his favor, the court should render a
verdict for the defendant.
- In a criminal case, where the evidence is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence
tilts the scales in favor of the accused.
26. What is the function of judicial notice? Page 74
- Takes the place of proof and is of equal force
- Displaces evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the
evidence is designed to fulfill
- Makes evidence unnecessary
27. When is judicial notice mandatory? Page 75
- When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice,
no motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take
judicial notice of such matter.
- Sec. 1, Rule 129:
(a) Existence and territorial extent of states
EVIDENCE
(b) Political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality of states;
(c) Law of nations;
(d) Admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals;
(e) Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
(f) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and
judicial departments of the Philippines;
(g) Laws of nature;
(h) measure of time; and
(i) geographical divisions.
28. When is judicial notice discretionary? Page 76
- Sec. 2, Rule 129: A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions.
29. Discuss the requisites of admissibility of object
evidence. Page 99
- The evidence must be relevant, authenticated by a
competent witness and the object must be formally
offered in evidence.
- Like other evidence, it requires that the object be both
relevant (to the fact in issue) and competent (or not
excluded by the Rules or law).
- The object must pass the test of authentication; it must be
shown that it 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.
- To authenticate, there must be someone who should
identify the object to be the actual thing – witness.
30. Explain the concept and purpose of chain of custody,
illustrate through question and answer approach how the
proponents of evidence may establish a chain of custody.
Page 108
- Chain of custody is the chronological documentation or
paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control,
transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence.
- Purpose of establishing a chain of custody: to ensure that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed.
(Recel’s note – nakuha ko lang sa google yung meaning nung
Chain of Custody, also kayo na sa mga illustrations kaya niyo yan
yiiii also bawal natin gayahin mga examples sa books oki?? hehe)
31. Explain and illustrate the best evidence rule; discuss its
purpose. Page 133; 135
- Sec. 3, Rule 130. Original document must be produced;
exception – When the object of inquiry is the contents of
the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following cases:
R2
(a) When the original has been lost, destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without a bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer is recorder in a public
office
- The rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a
writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the
best evidence is the original writing itself.
- Purpose: to ensure that the exact contents of a
document are brought before the court.
32. Explain and illustrate the parol evidence rule. Page 151
- The term “parol” evidence means extraneous evidence
or evidence aliunde.
- It is an evidentiary rule that has direct application to law
on contracts – written.
- When the parties execute a written contract, the parol
evidence rules ipso facto comes into play.
- The rule is embodied in Sec. 9, Rule 130. Evidence of
written agreements – 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.
33. Discuss the qualifications of a witness. Page 180
- Sec. 2, Rule 130. Witnesses; their qualifications – Except as
provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or 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.
- A person can be a witness, so long as he can perceive
and make known his perception to others. In addition, he
must either take an oath or affirmation and he must not
possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the
Rules.
34. Explain and illustrate the survivorship disqualification
rule or the dead man’s statute. Page 191
- Sec. 23, Rule 130. Disqualification by reason of death or
insanity of adverse party – Parties or assignors of parties to
a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person
EVIDENCE
of unsound mind, upon claim or demand against the
estate of such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind.
- Rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding
over an estate of a deceased or insane person
- Elements for the application of the rule:
(a) suit is upon claim by the plaintiff against the
estate of said deceased or person of unsound
mind;
(b) defendant in the case is the executor or
administrator or a representative of the deceased
or the person of unsound mind;
(c) witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that
party, or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted;
(d) subject of the testimony is to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound
mind.
35. Explain the marital disqualification rule. Page 197
- Sec. 22, Rule 130. Disqualification by reason of marriage
– During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife
may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against
the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants.
- Specific reasons for the rule:
(a) There is identity of interests between husband
and wife;
(b) If one were to testify for or against the other,
there is a consequent danger of perjury;
(c) The policy of the law is to guard the security
and confidences of private life, even at the risk of
an occasional failure of justice, and to prevent
domestic disunion and unhappiness; and
(d) Where there is want of domestic tranquility,
there is danger of punishing one spouse through
the hostile testimony of the other.
36. Discuss the exceptions to the marital disqualification
rule. Page 199
- Instances where a spouse may testify for or against the
other even without the consent of the latter:
(a) in a civil case by one against the other; or
(b) in a criminal case for crime committed by one
against the other, or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants
37. Discuss and illustrate the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule. Page
255
- Full: res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet (literal
trans: things done between strangers ought not to injure
those who are not parties to them)
- Two branches:
R2
(a) Sec. 28, Rule 130. Admission by third party – The
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
(b) Sec. 34, Rule 132. Similar acts as evidence –
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he
did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
38. Discuss and illustrate the Hearsay Evidence. Page 281
- Sec. 36, Rule 130. Testimony generally confined to
personal knowledge; hearsay excluded – A witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
39. Discuss the basis for the exclusion of the Hearsay
Evidence. Page 281
- The rule excluding hearsay testimony rests mainly on the
ground that there is no opportunity to cross-examine the
person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
- The court is without the opportunity to test the credibility
of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the
person who made them.
40. Discuss formal offer of evidence and formal offer of
proof. Page 363
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE
- Either the offer of the testimony of a witness prior to the
latter’s testimony, or the offer of the documentary and
object evidence after a party has presented his testimonial
evidence
- Formal offer of exhibits where object and documentary
evidence are to be offered
OFFER OF PROOF
- Process by which a proponent of an excluded evidence
tenders the same
- If what has been excluded is testimonial evidence, the
tender is made by stating for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the proposed witness and
the substance of his proposed testimony.
- If the evidence excluded is documentary or of things, the
offer of proof is made by having the same attached to or
made a part of the record.
END. Goodluck bb ♡