EVIDENCE REVIEWER  Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely
overcome the positive declaration of the victim of the identity and
EVIDENCE
 The means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
 Not every fact having a conceivable connection to the issue of a
case, or that which provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or
falsity of a matter alleged, is considered evidence.
 To be considered as evidence the same must be sanctioned or
allowed by the 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.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROOF AND EVIDENCE
PROOF EVIDENCE
Not evidence itself.
There is proof only because of
evidence.
It is merely the probative effect of
evidence.
And is the conviction or
persuasion of the mind resulting
from a consideration of the
evidence.
Effect or result of evidence The medium of proof.
PRINCIPLE OF FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS
 False in one thing, false in everything.
 It is particularly applied to the testimony of a witness who may be
considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he
is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.
 It is not a positive rule of law and is not strictly applied in this
jurisdiction.
 Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be shown to
have willfully falsified the truth on one or more material points.
ALIBI
 It is a settled doctrine that the defense is inherently weak and must
be rejected when the identity of the accused is satisfactorily and
categorically established by eyewitnesses to the offense, especially
when such eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely.
 Positive identification prevails over alibi.
involvement of an accused in the crime attributed to him.
 Alibi and denial must be brushed aside when the prosecution has
sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.
 It must be demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the
person charged with the crime was not only somewhere else when
the offense was committed, but was so far away that it would be
physically impossible to be at the place of the crime or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission.
 Where there is even the least possibility of the presence of the
accused in the crime scene, alibi will not hold water.
FRAME UP; SELF-DEFENSE
 Allegation of frame-up by police officers are common and standard
defenses in most dangerous drugs cases.
 For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government
officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.
 Defense of frame-up is not looked upon with favor due to its being
conveniently concocted.
DELAY AND INITIAL RELUCTANCE IN REPORTING A CRIME
 It is settled that the delay in the filing of a complaint before the
proper authorities would not impair the credibility of the complainant
is such delay is satisfactorily explained.
 Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to
discredit the complainant.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
When a witness affirms in the stand When the witness states that an
that a certain state of facts does event did not occur or that the state
exist or that a certain event of facts alleged to exist does not
happened. actually exist.
Positive and negative evidence may, likewise, refer to the presence or
absence of something.
 Defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for being inherently weak.
It cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of
prosecution witness.
 Denials which are essentially negations of a fact, do not prevail over
an affirmative assertion of such fact.

FACTUM PROBANS AND FACTUM PROBANDUM
 Evidence signifies a relationship between 2 facts namely:
FACTUM PROBANDUM
The fact or proposition to be
established.
The fact to be proved; it is the fact Probative or evidentiary fact
which is in issue in a case and to
which the evidence is directed.
In a certain case, may be affected
by the judicial admission of a party.
If factum probandum signifies the
fact or proposition to be
established, then matters of judicial
notice, conclusive presumptions
and judicial admissions cannot
qualify as parts of the factum
probandum of a particular case
because such matters need not be
established or proven.
Ex: in a civil case, a factum
probandum refers to the elements
of a cause of action alleged in the
complaint to be proven by the
plaintiff where such elements are
denied specifically by the
defendant.
Mere filing of the complaint and
mere filing of an information does
not ipso facto give rise to a factum
probandum.
In criminal case, it only arises when
the accused enters a plea of not
guilty.
ILLUSTRATION:
FACTUM PROBANS
The fact or material evidencing the
fact or proposition to be
established.
tending to prove the fact in issue.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
 It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of
evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the relevance of
which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of
evidence not yet offered.
 The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence
be conditionally admitted in the meantime, subject to the condition
that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later
time.
 If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon
motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record the evidence
that was previously conditionally admitted.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
 Allows a party to introduce otherwise admissible evidence to answer
the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
 Thus, a party who 1st introduces either irrelevant or incompetent
evidence into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent admission
of similar evidence from the adverse party relation to the same
subject matter.
 Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was
properly admitted.
 If hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously
admitted despite objection, under this principle, the court should
allow hearsay evidence favorable to the defendant.
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
DIRECT EVIDENCE
 prove a fact without drawing any
inference from another fact.
 Thus, the testimony of a
prosecution witness claiming that
he personally saw thee accused
when the latter drew and fired his
pistol at the victim, without the
latter’s provocation - direct
testimonial evidence.
 In prosecution of arson, when a
witness testifies that he was only
a few feet away, behind a bush,
when he saw the accused set the
nipa hut of the offended party on
fire.
 evidence is direct when a
witness affirms in open court that
the bus driver rammed a car on
the opposite lane, and that he
saw what happened because he
was seated as a passenger right
behind the driver.
CONSPIRACY
FLIGHT OR NON-FLIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
 Flight per se is not synonymous to guilt.
 When the flight is unexplained, it is a circumstances from which an
inference of guilt may be drawn.
CIRCUMSTANCIAL OR
INDIRECT EVIDENCE
 when a fact is established by
making an inference from a
previously established fact.
 The court uses a fact from
which an assumption is drawn.
o When the court does not
have to make an inference
from one fact to arrive at a
conclusion, the evidence is
direct.
 Evidence which indirectly
proves a fact in issue through
an inference which the fact-
finder draws from the evidence
established and indirectly
proves a fact in issue.
 Also known as presumptive
evidence, refers to proof of
collateral facts and
circumstances wherein the
existence of the main fact may
be inferred according to
reason and common
experience.
 Evidence which indirectly
proves a fact in issue through
and inference which the fact-
finder draws from the evidence
established.
 The fact that appellants never fled the locality where the crime was
committed is not, by itself, a valid defense against the prosecution’s
allegation because non-flight does not signify innocence.
 There is no law or principle holding that non-flight per se is proof, let
alone conclusive proof of innocence.
 The defense of non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive
identification of the appellants.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENEC AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
CUMULATIVE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Evidence of the same  -Supplementary to that already given
kind and character as tending to strengthen or confirm it.
that already given which  -Additional evidence of a different
tends to prove the same character to the same point.
proposition.
 -Connoted evidence which tends to
confirm, validate or strengthen evidence
EXAMPLE:
already presented.
when a witness testifies
that he saw the event
o EXAMPLE: the medical findings of the
testified to and 2 other
examining physicial that the woman was
witnesses testify having
found to have lacearations in her private
seen the same event
parts consistent with forcible defloration,
which the first witness
corroborates the testimony of the victim that
claimed he saw, the
she was raped.
subsequent testimonies
o
constitute cumulative
evidence.  Is usually of a different type from the
previously offered but which tends to
prove the same fact.
For instance, a witness claims that he
saw Mr. X sign the document subject
of the action. Mr. X denies the
authenticity of his signature. Evidence
by a handwriting expert that the
signature is indeed that of Mr X is
corroborative evidence.
o Here we have a testimonial evidence from an
eyewitness, and testimony from an expert
who did not personally witness the signing of
the document.
o
  Also covers evidence of the same kind as
that already proffered as long as it affirms
the previous evidence.
o human nature and the normal course of
o Example: the testimony of X that he saw Y
hack the victim with a bolo corroborates the
previous testimony of Z that indeed he saw Y
strike the victim with a blased weapon/
o Here the previous testimony is corroborated
by evidence of the same kind ; testimonial
evidence from eyewitnesses
o In this sense, the corroborating evidence is
also cumulative even if it of the same kind
and character.
 is not always required.
 liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict compliance of
 SC: the testimony of a single prosecution
witness, where creditble and positive, is
sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused.
 There is no law which requires that the
testimony of a single witness has to be
corroborated, EXCEPT where expressly
mandated in determining the value and
credibility of evidence.
 Corroborative evidence is necessary only
when there are reasons to suspect that
the witness falsified the truth or that his
observations are inaccurate.
 Under the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, corroboration shall not be required
of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if
credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support
a finding of fact, conclusion or judgment
subject to the standard of proof required in
criminal and non-criminal cases.

 In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is
almost always the single most important
issue.
o If the testimony of the victim passes the test
of credibility, which means it is credible,
natural, convincing and consistent with
things, the accused may be convicted solely
on that basis.
LIBERAL CONSTURCTION OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE
 Must be liberally construed.
 Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than
frustrate the attainment of justice.
 Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired,
the rules will not serve the ends of justice.
 However, the rule on liberal construction is not a license to disregard
the evidence, or lack thereof on record; or to misapply the laws.
 Rules on Electronic Evidence shall be construed liberally.
ABSENCE OF A VESTED RIGHT IN THE RULES ON EVIDENCE
 there is no vested right in the rules on evidence because said rules
are subject to change by the SC pursuant to its powers to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
 The change in the rules on evidence is subject to the constitutional
limitations on the enactment of ex post facto laws.
Ex post facto law
 Alters the rules on evidence and receives less or different testimony
than that required at the time of the commission of the offense in order
to convict the accused.
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE