Lesson
Lesson
1. DIRECT – Proves the fact in dispute without aid of any 1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be
inference or presumption. controverted
2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Proof of fact/s from which, 2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted,
taken singly/collectively, the existence of the particular but which may be contradicted and overcome by other
fact in dispute may be inferred as a evidence
necessary/probable consequence. It is evidence of
relevant collateral facts. JUDICIAL NOTICE – cognizance of certain facts by the court
w/o proof because they are facts, which, by common
3. CUMULATIVE – Evidence of the same kind and to the experience, are of universal knowledge among intelligent
same state of facts. persons w/in a country or community
4. CORROBORATIVE – Additional evidence of a
different character to the same point. Requisites:
5. PRIMA FACIE – That which, standing alone is 1. matter of common knowledge
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. 2. well & authoritatively settled and not doubted or
uncertain
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court
6. CONCLUSIVE – That class of evidence which the law
does not allow to be contradicted. Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or written, made by
a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case;
7. PRIMARY – (Best evidence) The law regards these as does not require proof.
affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
8. SECONDARY – (Substitutionary evidence) Permitted RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
by law only when the best evidence is unavailable.
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE – that which is addressed
9. POSITIVE – When a witness affirms that a fact did or directly to the sense of the court without the intervention of a
did not occur (there is personal knowledge). witness, as by actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch.
10. NEGATIVE – When witness states that he did not see A.K.A autopticproference.
or know of the occurrence of a fact
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – documents as evidence
consist of writings or any material containing letters, words,
EVIDENCE COMPARED numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents
PROOF – It is the result or effect of evidence; when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has “The Best Evidence Rule”: The original document must be
been duly admitted and given weight, the result is called produced.
the proof of such fact.
FACTUM PROBANDUM – The ultimate fact or the fact Application of the Rule: Only if the contents or terms of the
sought to be established. It refers to the proposition (e.g. writing or documents is directly in issue.
victim was stabbed).
FACTUM PROBANS – The evidentiary fact or the fact Example: Libel case, the news paper itself should be
by which the factum probandum is to be established; produced. Falsification case, the document allegedly falsified
refers to the materials that establish the proposition (e.g. must be produced in court
bloody knife).
Exception of the Rule: Secondary evidence can be
presented in lieu of the original in the following cases:
When Secondary Evidence is Admissible A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
a. original has been lost or destroyed a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
b. prove the existence or execution of the original officer;
c. prove the cause of the unavailability of the original, b. Collusion between the parties; or
is not due to the bad faith of the offeror. c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings
Documents that do not need to be authenticated:
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (ORAL) – Forbids any addition to a. Public documents;
or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by b. Notarial documents;
testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing, of c. Ancient documents
the document, other or different terms were orally agreed
upon by the parties Ancient Document Rule - Where a private document is:
a. more than 30 years old,
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule (must be alleged in b. is produced from a custody in which it would
the pleadings) [F-I-V-E] naturally be found if genuine, and
a. Failure of the written agreement to express the true c. is unblemished by any alterations or
intent & agreement of the parties circumstances of suspicion
b. Intrinsic ambiguity d. no other evidence of its authenticity need be
c. Validity of the written agreement given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21)
d. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
In what Instances must alterations in documents be
To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon accounted for by the producing party?
the ground of mistake, the concurrence of three things is a. The document being produced as genuine has
necessary: been altered;
b. The alteration appears to have been done after
a. mistake should be one of fact the execution of the document;
b. mistake should be mutual or common to both c. The alteration appears to have been in a part
parties to the instrument material to the question in dispute.
c. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and
convincing evidence What explanations are satisfactory so as to make the
altered document admissible in evidence?
The producing party must show that the alteration was:
a. made by another;
Two kinds of ambiguities: b. made without his (the producing party’s)
a. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is concurrence;
unintelligible c. made with the consent of the parties affected by
b. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument it;
are clear but their application to the circumstances d. otherwise properly or innocently made; or
is doubtful e. such that it did not change the meaning or
N.B.: the rule permits parol evidence to explain an language of the instrument.
intrinsic ambiguity
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS:
Admission Confession
Definition Statement by the Acknowledgme The following are not admissions of liability or guilt and
accused, direct or nt in express are therefore not admissible in evidence:
implied, of facts pertinent terms by a party a. Plea of guilty later withdrawn;
to the issue and tending, in a criminal b. Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty to a lesser
in connection with proof case of his guilt offense;
of other facts, to prove his of the crime c. Offer to pay or payment of medical, hospital or other
guilt charged expenses occasioned by an injury
Sufficienc Insufficient. Tends only to Sufficient
y to establish the ultimate fact RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE - the rights of a party
authorize of guilt. cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
a another (i.e. a non-party), except in the following instances:
conviction
1. by partner, agent or other person jointly
interested with the party
Differentiate the effects of judicial and extrajudicial
Requisites:
confessions.
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is
proven by evidence other than the act or
A judicial confessionis sufficient in itself to sustain a
declaration sought to be admitted
conviction, even in capital offenses. On the other hand,
b. the admission is within the scope of the
an extrajudicial confession is insufficient in itself to
partnership, agency or joint interest
sustain a conviction. It must be corroborated by
c. admission was made while the agency, p’ship
evidence of the corpus delicti
or joint interest was in existence
Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial
2. by conspirator
confessions?
Requisites:
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence other
a. Must involve an express and categorical
than the admission itself
acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
b. admission relates to the common object
b. The facts admitted must be constitutive of a criminal
c. that it has been made while the declarant was
offense (US v. Flores);
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy
c. Must have been given voluntarily (People v.
Nishishima);
3. by privies
d. Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan v. Cusi)
Requisites:
e. Must have been made with the assistance of
a. Relation of privity between party and declarant;
competent and independent counsel (Art III, Sec.
b. Admission was made by the declarant as
12, 1987 Constitution)
predecessor-in-interest, while holding title to the
property;
Rules governing extrajudicial confessions:
c. The admission was in relation to said property.
GENERAL RULE: The extrajudicial confession of an
Requisites for admission by silence:
accused is binding only upon himself and is not
a. Hearing and understanding of the statement by
admissible against his co-accused.
the party;
b. Opportunity and necessity of denying the
EXCEPTIONS:
statements;
1. Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial
c. Statement must refer to a matter affecting his
confessions independently made without collusion
right;
which are identical with each other in their material
d. Facts were within the knowledge of the party;
respects and confirmatory of the other (People v.
e. Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn
Encipido);
from his silence would be material to the issue
2. If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or
(Regalado)
adopted said confession by not questioning its
truthfulness (People v. Orenciada);
HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE - A witness can testify only to
3. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge.
confessant after being apprised of such confession
(People v. Narciso);
Independently relevant statement - It is a statement
4. If the accused are charged as co-conspirators of the
whose probative value is independent of its truth or
crime which was confessed by one of the accused
falsity. The mere fact of its utterance is relevant,
and said confession is used only as corroborative
evidence (People v. Linde);
Two kinds of independently relevant statements:
5. Where the confession is used as circumstantial
1. Statements which are the very facts in issue;
evidence to show the probability of participation by
2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the
the co-conspirator (People v. Condemena);
facts in issue (Francisco)
6. Where the confessant testified for his co-defendant
(People v. Villanueva);
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession
Reasons for Excluding Hearsay:
is corroborated by other evidence of record (People
1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
v. Paz)
2. depreciation of truth in the process of repetition
3. opportunities for fraud would open
Rules on offer of compromise
Quantum of Proofs