EVIDENCE
TWO PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN EVIDENCE:
1. How to determine which evidence is admissible; and
2. Having determined that the evidence is admissible, how to present that evidence in a manner that would make the court admit it once it is offered.
SOURCES:
Rules of Court, Rule 128-133
Constitution
Special Laws (e.g.Anti-Wiretapping Act)
Revised Penal Code, Civil Code, etc.
Rule 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Concept of Evidence
EVIDENCE is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
Every evidential question involves the relationship between the factum probans and the factum probandum.
FACTUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact sought to be established.
It may be ascertained in:
1. pleadings submitted by the parties
2. pre-trial order
3. issues which are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)
NOTE: If fact is admitted, there is no more factum probandum because there is no fact in issue.
FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. It is the fact by which the factum probandum is established.
Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence is determined in accordance with the law in force at the time the evidence is presented. Therefore, there is no vested right of evidence. Evidence otherwise inadmissible under the law at the time the action accrued, may be received in evidence provided that it is admissible under the law in force during the trial.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE:
A. Depending on its ability to establish the fact in dispute, an evidence may be:
1. Direct evidence—evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.
2. Circumstantial evidence— evidence of relevant collateral facts.
B. Depending on the degree of its value in establishing a disputed fact, an evidence may be:
1. Prima Facie Evidence—evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
2. Cumulative evidence—evidence which is of the same kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition.
3. Corroborative evidence—evidence which is of a different kind and character as that already given and tends to prove the same proposition.
4. Conclusive evidence—evidence which is incontrovertible or one which the law does not allow it to be contradicted.
C. Depending on its weight and acceptability, an evidence may be:
1. Primary or best evidence—evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
2. Secondary evidence—evidence which is inferior to the primary evidence.
D. Depending on its nature, an evidence may be:
1. Object evidence — evidence addressed to the senses of the court and is capable of being exhibited to examined or viewed by the court. Also known as autoptic proference.
2. Documentary evidence —evidence which consists of writings, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
3. Testimonial evidence — evidence which consists of the narration or deposition by one who has observed or has personal knowledge of that to which he is testifying.
E. Depending on its quality, an evidence may be:
Relevant evidence—if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Admissible evidence—if it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the Rules of Court. This is also known as Competent evidence.
Credible evidence—if it is not only admissible evidence but also believable and used by the court in deciding a case.
Section 2. Scope
GENERAL RULE: The rules of evidence are applicable to both civil and criminal cases because the law does not distinguish. EXCEPTION: When the law specifically provides otherwise.
INSTANCES WHERE RULES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
1. Rules on Summary Procedure in civil actions;
2. Rules of Summary Procedure in criminal cases, where the witnesses submit their affidavits and counter-affidavits, subject only to cross-examination;
3. Agrarian cases; and
4. Rules regarding the testimony of witnesses from examinations, etc., in cases under the MTC (where the parties merely submit their position papers and their witnesses’ affidavits and counter-affidavits.
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:
The evidence must be—
1. Relevant — has a logical connection with the fact in issue.
2. Competent — not excluded by the law or the rules.
2 AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
1. Axiom of Relevancy -- None but facts having rational probative value are admissible ; and
2. Axiom of Competency -- All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission.
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY:
MULTIPLE — evidence will be received if it satisfies all the requirements prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the purpose for which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes.
CONDITIONAL — A fact offered in evidence may appear to be immaterial unless it is connected with other facts to be subsequently proved. In such case, evidence of that fact may be received on condition that the other facts be afterwards proved; otherwise, such fact already received will be stricken out.
CURATIVE — an incompetent evidence is offered and admitted by the court over the objection of the adverse party; in such case, the adverse party is likewise entitled to introduce a similar improper evidence to counteract that already given.
2 CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Whether the incompetent evidence is seasonably objected to.
2. Whether regardless of the objections, the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
The following facts need not be proved:
1.Those which the courts may take judicial notice (Rule 129);
2.Those which are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
3. Those which are presumed (Rule 131).
Section 1. Judicial Notice
Cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act without proof. They are based on considerations of expediency and convenience.
it may be mandatory or discretionary.
MANDATORY when the facts pertain to:
1. the existence and territorial extent of states;
2. their political history, form of government, and symbols of nationality;
3. the law of nations;
4. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
5. the political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines;
7. the laws of nature;
8. the measure of time; and
9. the geographical divisions
THE LAW OF NATIONS - The law of nations which is the subject of judicial notice is the law which regulates the relations of the dominant powers of the earth. It is not a foreign municipal law which our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of but the compilation of rules which by common consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as law.
The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court; judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are “commonly” known. .A fact maybe of judicial notice and not of judge’s personal knowledge and vice versa the rule refers to facts which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.
Discretionary with respect to matters which are:
1. of public knowledge; or
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
3. those that judges ought to know by reason of their judicial functions.
WHEN JUDGE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF RECORDS OF ANOTHER CASE PREVIOUSLY TRIED:
1. When, either at the initiative of the judge or that of the parties, and without objection of
any party, the record of the previous action are read and adopted into the present action.
2. When, without objection on the part of any party, the records of the previous case are actually withdrawn from the archives and attached to the records of the present action, by court order.
Judicial Notice of Municipal Ordinances
Inferior courts should take judicial notice of municipal city ordinances in force in their territorial jurisdiction.
The RTC should take judicial notice of municipal ordinance only when:
1. they are expressly authorized by statute;
2. on appeals of decisions by the inferior court when such courts had taken notice of a municipal ordinance.
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION:
It is that doctrine which lays down the presumption that the foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable, is either not alleged, or if alleged, is not duly proved before a competent court.
NOTE: When parties in a case agree on what the foreign law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are made to rely and act upon, hence they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position (Phil. Commercial & Industrial Bank, vs. Escolin. et al)
Section 4. Judicial Admission
JUDICIAL ADMISSION--the admission made in the course of the proceedings in the same case by a party.
NOTE: Lack of jurisdiction cannot be admitted because jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by stipulation of parties.
Judicial Admissions May Be Made in:
1. the pleadings filed by the parties;
2. in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or
3. in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the case;
4. admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admissions.
Judicial admissions may be contradicted only when it is shown that:
1. it was made through palpable mistake; or
2. that no such admission was made.
Judicial admissions in pleadings later amended
In civil cases, an amended pleading becomes a judicial admission and the contents of the pleading it amends not included in the amended pleading becomes extrajudicial admissions which must be offered in evidence for it to be considered by the trial court.
Judicial admissions are always conclusive upon the admitter and does not require formal offer as evidence, unlike in the case of extra-judicial admissions.
Admissions in affirmative defenses are merely hypothetical.
Judicial admissions made in one case are admissible at the trial of another case provided they are proved and are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter, UNLESS:
1. the said admissions were made only for purposes of the first case, as in the rule of implied admissions and their effects under Rule 26;
2. the same were withdrawn with the permission of the court therein; or
3. the court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom.
IS SELF-SERVING RULE APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS? No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the admission of declaration of a witness in his favor applies only to extra-judicial admissions. If the declaration is made in open court such is raw evidence, it is not self-serving. It is admissible because the witness may be cross-examined on that matter. However, whether it will be credible or not, is a matter of appreciation on the part of the court.
RULE 130
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
OBJECT EVIDENCE
Always accompanied by testimonial evidence to support the object presented.
Not a rule of exclusion thus other kinds of evidence may be presented even if there is an object evidence.
Requisites of object evidence to be admissible:
1. the object must be relevant to the fact in issue; and
2. the object must be authenticated before it is admitted.
OCULAR INSPECTION OR “VIEW”—the court can go to the place where the object is located, when object evidence cannot be brought to court.
VIEW PART OF THE TRIAL—The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in
the presence of the parties or at least with previous notice to them in order that they may show the object to be viewed. Such inspection is a part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received. The parties are entitled to be present any stage of the trial, and consequently they are entitled to be at least notified of the time and place set for the view.
REAL EVIDENCE
|
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
|
Tangible object that played some actual role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation.
|
Tangible evidence that merely illustrate a matter of importance in the litigation.
|
GROUNDS FOR EXCLUDING OBJECT EVIDENCE:
1. Inherent Limitations:
a) irrelevancy / immateriality
b) illegally obtained evidence
2. Non-inherent Limitations:
a) Undue prejudice
b) Indecency or impropriety
c) Offensiveness to sensibilities
d) Inconvenience and unnecessary expense of litigation.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Best Evidence Rule is a rule of exclusion thus, subject to the exceptions under Rule 130, Sec. 3, it is mandatory that the original copy be presented in court.
NOTE: Where the transactions have been recorded in writing but the contents of such writing are not “the subject of inquiry,” the best evidence rule does not apply. The best evidence rule is not involved if the contents of affidavits or depositions are not the issues in the case but are only intended as evidence to establish the issue in controversy. The use of said affidavits is regulated by the hearsay evidence rule.
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.
PURPOSES:
1. TO PREVENT FRAUD-- If a party is in possession of such evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes which its production would expose and defeat.
2. TO EXCLUDE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE CONTENTS OF A DOCUMENT—The best evidence rule accepts the document itself as the best evidence of its contents, because it is certain; and rejects a copy thereof, because of the uncertainty of its contents caused by the hazards of faulty duplication, or an oral description thereof, because of the uncertainty caused by the frailties of human recollection.
THREE (3) CONCEPTS OF “ORIGINAL” UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE (Sec. 4)
1. One the contents of which is the subject of inquiry;
2. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about same time with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals;
3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Section 5. When original document is unavailable.
In case of loss or destruction of the original document, and AFTER PROVING EXECUTION or EXISTENCE, CAUSE OF ITS UNAVAILABILITY without bad faith on the part of the offeror, and REASONABLE EFFORT: in search for or attempt to produce the original document, the following are admissible in the order stated:
1. a copy;
2. a recital of the contents in some authentic document; or
3. the testimony of witnesses.
The order does not apply where the law specifically provides for the class or quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of the document. (DEFINITE EVIDENTIARY RULE).
Original document is indispensable in crimes of falsification because the court requires the presentation of the corpus delicti to prove the guilt of the accused. (US vs. GREGORIO)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements.
PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
To give stability to written agreement and remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible.
REQUISITES FOR APPLICABILITY OF PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing;
3. The dispute is between parties and their successors in interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.
Rule applies only to INTEGRATED AGREEMENTS, thus, unless the written instrument was intended by both parties as the final and exclusive memorial of their dealings, the rule does not apply.
THEORY OF INTEGRATION OF JURAL ACTS—Under this theory, previous acts and contemporaneous transactions of the parties are deemed integrated and merged in the written instrument which they have executed. When the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, it is presumed that they have made the writing the ONLY REPOSITORY and MEMORIAL OF THE TRUTH, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived and abandoned.
EXCEPTION:
COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT - A contract made prior to or contemporaneous with another agreement and IF ORAL and NOT INCONSISTENT with written contract IS ADMISSIBLE within the exception to parol evidence rule.
An Agreement is “COLLATERAL” if it meets the following requirements:
1. it is not a part of the integrated written agreement in any way;
2. it is not inconsistent with the written agreement in any way, including both the express and implied provisions of the written agreement; and
3. it is not closely connected with the principal transaction as to form part and parcel thereof.
The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when COLLATERAL ORAL AGREEMENT refers to SEPARATE and DISTINCT SUBJECTS.
REASON: The parties to a contract cannot be presumed to have embodied in a single writing all the agreements which they had on different subjects.
Intrinsic or Latent Ambiguity—when the writing on its face appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain.
Extrinsic or Patent Ambiguity—ambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning of the words used.
*parol evidence cannot be used to ratify or supplement a void contract
Intermediate Ambiguity—Where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designating the person or subject matter, parol evidence of collateral or extrinsic matter may be introduced for the purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the meaning of the language used.
INTRINSIC and INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITIES are curable by evidence aliunde or extraneous evidence. PATENT AMBIGUITY cannot be cured by evidence aliunde.
Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the evidence aliunde is either testimonial evidence or documentary evidence.
Principle of “Falsa Demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat”
False description does not injure or vitiate a document, provided that the thing or person intended has once been sufficiently described.
Elements of MISTAKE as a ground for REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT:
1. the mistake should be of fact;
2. the mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument; and
3. the mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence.
RULE ON CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS:
1. Rule on Conditions Precedent—Parol Evidence Allowed because there is no varying of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement for the reason that there is no contract in existence; there is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule.
2. Rule on Conditions Subsequent—Parol Evidence Not Allowed.
RULE ON SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS
Parol Evidence Allowed.The rule forbidding the admission of parol evidence to alter or contradict a written instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol evidence of an agreement between the parties in writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of changing the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing; for parol evidence merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change the same, or to make a new and independent contract, provided such contract is not invalid under the statute of frauds or otherwise.
