LAW 3

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

RULE 128-134 RULES OF

COURT
 BASIC CONCEPTS

Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact.
2 Kinds of Facts:
 
1. Ultimate fact (factum probandum)- principal, determinate and constitutive facts upon the existence of
which the plaintiff’s cause of action rests.
 does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material
elements are to be established
 proposition to be established, necessarily hypothetical
 
1. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts which are necessary for the determination of the ultimate
facts
 Premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
 Brought forward as a reality to convince the tribunal that the factum probandum is also real
Factum probandum Factum probans

"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts"

Proposition to be Material evidencing the

established proposition
Hypothetical Existent
 SCOPE

The rules of evidence shall be the same

in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or
these rules. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Evidence is admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and not
excluded by the Constitution, the law
or these Rules.
 RELEVANCY, COLLATERAL
MATTERS

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue

as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,

except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
Corroborative evidence - It is additional evidence of a different kind
and character tending to prove the same point.
 
Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence of the same kind and
character tending to prove the same proposition.
 
Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence has no probative
value
 
Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is excluded by some rule of
evidence
 
Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is not qualified under the
rules of testimonial evidence
 
Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential fact is
directed to prove some probandum which is not
proper in issue. The rule of substantive law and of
pleading are what determines immateriality 

Conditional Admissibility – evidence is admissible

only in dependence upon other facts. It is received
on the express assurance of counsel, when objection
is manifested, that other facts will be duly presented
at a suitable opportunity before the case is closed.
 
Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered for one purpose, and
is admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when
offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which
would be applicable to it offered for another purpose does not
exclude it.

Curative Admissibility - A party has the right to introduce

incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted
the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party. This is
to prevent manifest injustice.
 
Collateral Matters – matters other than the facts in issue and
which are offered as a basis merely for inference as to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational probative value are admissible
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
prohibited by some specific rule.

INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE DISPENSED WITH

 
Instances when proofs can be dispensed with:
1. Res ipsa loquitur
2. Presumptions
3. Judicial notice
4. Judicial admissions
 
Kinds of presumptions:

1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow to be controverted

2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but which
may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence
Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts by the
court w/o proof because they are facts, which, by
common experience, are of universal knowledge
among intelligent persons w/in a country or community
 
Requisites of Judicial notice

1.matter of common knowledge

2.well & authoritatively settled and not doubted or
uncertain
3.known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court
 JUDICIAL NOTICE WHEN MANDATORY

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of

evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the
laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (Sec. 1, Rule 129)
Matters that are judicially noticed (mandatory)

1. existence & territorial extent of states

2. forms of gov’t and symbols of nationality
3. law of nations
4. admiralty & maritime courts of the world & their seals
5. political constitution & history of the Philippines
6. laws of nature
7. measure of time
8. geographical divisions and political history of the world
9. facts which are of public knowledge
10. facts which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
11. facts which ought to be known to judges because of judicial functions
 JUDICIAL NOTICE WHEN
DISCRETIONARY

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.
(Sec. 2, Rule 129)
Discretionary Judicial Notice

1. matters of pubic knowledge

2. capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
 
 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING
NECESSARY

During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon

motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial
notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon
motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case. (Sec. 3, Rule 129)
Occidental Land Transportation v CA

FACTS : A Ford Fiera and a Carina passenger bus collided. The driver of
the Ford died and 2 passengers were injured. The owner of the bus sued
the owner of the Ford. CFI found the driver of the bus negligent. Nine
years later, in a separate civil case, the CFI ordered the bus owner to pay
damages based on facts of the earlier case “as adopted by reference.”

HELD : As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice,
in adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the
records of other cases.

Exception > in the absence of objection, with the knowledge of the

opposing party, or at the request or with the consent of the parties, records
of previous case may be admitted as part of the present case.
 
State Prosecutors v Muro

Facts: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. Marcos for violation of CB

Circular 960 or the CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The dismissal was
based solely on newspaper reports concerning the announcement of the
president of the Philippines of the lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions as
embodied in the circular. Judge said that the announcement had the effect of
repealing CB 960.
HELD: Matters of judicial notice have 3 requisites: matter of common
knowledge; it must be authoritatively settled; and known to be w/in the limits
of jurisdiction of the court. Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial
knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his
action. Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes
effective. A law not yet in force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of
common knowledge capable of unquestionable demonstration.
 JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

An admission, oral or written, made by the party

in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may
be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that the
imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (Sec.
4, Rule 129)
Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case; does not
require proof.
 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
(NAPITAS)

Matters of judicial notice

  Judicial admissions
  Facts presumed
  Allegations in complaint or answer which are immaterial
to the issue
 
Facts admitted or not denied in the answer, provided
they have been sufficiently alleged

Those which are the subject of an agreed stipulation

of facts between the parties, as well as judicial
admissions made in the course of the proceedings

Technical admission – when defendant fails to

specifically deny the allegations of plaintiff
Atillo v CA

FACTS : Petitioner filed a collection case against L Petitioner claims that

L made a judicial admission of his personal liability in the answer.

HELD : Petitioner took the admissions out of context. The general rule is
that judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and
does not require proof. Exception to the rule is when there is palpable
mistake or when no such admission was in fact made. “Such” means
that the statement is not in the sense in which the admission is made to
appear.
 
 PERFORMANCE TASK:

In no less than 5000 words make a statement on what is the

importance of Evidence in your job as a public safety
officer/law enforcement officer.
Admissibility (Rule 128, Section 3)

1. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,

2003
2. People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010

Judicial Notice (Rule 129)

3. Corinthian Garden v. Spouses Tanjangco, G.R. No. 160795, June 27,

2008.
4. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008
5. “G” Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers, G.R. No.
160236, October 16, 2009.
6. Spouses Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009. C.
Judicial Admission (Rule 129)

1. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13,

2008.
2. Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sport Complex, G.R. No. 174154.
3. Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
157594, March 9, 2010

Object Evidence

4. BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008

5. People v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167 E.
Paraffin Test
1. People v. Bududan, G.R. No. 178196, Auguat 6, 2008
2. People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, March 17, 2004

Photograph as Evidence
3. Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, November 16, 1995
4. Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118441, January 18, 2000
Chain of Custody

1. People v. Anita Miranba, G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016

2. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No.
208093, February 20, 2017
3. People of the Philippines vs. Salim Ismael Y Radang, G.R. No.
208093, February 20, 2017
4. People v. Ramil Doria and Rommel Castro, G.R. No. 212196,
January 12, 2015
5. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 9, 2008
6. Section 21, Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165
DNA Evidence

1. People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192

2. People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504
3. In Re Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713,
December 14, 2007
Best Evidence Rule/Secondary Evidence (Rule 130)

1. Republic v. Imelda “Imee” Marcos-Manotoc, et al., G.R. No. 171701,

February 8, 2012
2. Edsa Shangrila v. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 145842, June 27, 2008
3. Chua Gaw v. Chua G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008
4. Sansan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160855, April 16, 2008
5. DECS v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 146596, January 26, 2005
6. Rogelio Dantis v. Julio Maghinang, Jr. , G.R. No. 191696, April 10,
2013

Electronic Evidence

7. People v. Noel Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204895, March 10, 2014
8. MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Sangyong Corp., G.R. No. 170633,
October 17, 2007
Parole Evidence Rule

1. ACI Phil. Inc. v. Coquia, G.R. No. 174466, July 14, 2008
2. Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp. Group, G.R. No. 164326,
October 17, 2008.
3. Marquez v. Espejo, G.R. No. 168387, August 25, 2010 M.

Public Documents

4. Suerte-Felipe v. People, G.R. No. 170974, March 3, 2008

5. Republic of the Philippines vs. Carmen Santorio Galeno G.R. No.
215009, January 23, 2017
Authentication and Proof of Documents

1. Bermejo v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764

2. Llemos v. Llemos, G.R. No. 150162, January 26, 2007
3. Domingo v. Robles, 453 SCRA 812
4. St. Mary’s Farm, Inc. v. Prime Real Porperties, Inc., G.R. No.
158144, July 31, 2008

Interpretation of Documents P. Testimonial Evidence

5. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R. NO. 155550, January 31,

200

Disqualification by a Reason of Immaturity

1. People v. Golimlim, G.R. No. 145225, April 2, 2004

Disqualification by a Reason of Death

1. Sanson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127745, April 22, 2003

2. Tan v. CA, 295 SCRA 755
3. Razon v. CA, 207 SCRA 234
4. Bordalba v. CA, 374 SCA 555

Marital Disqualification Rule (Section 22, Rule 130)

5. Alvarez v. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72

6. People v. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669
7. People v. Quidato, 297 SCRA 1
Disqualification by Reason of Privileged

1. Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. 5110, May 26, 2005

2. Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, September 20,
1996
3. People v. Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, March 5, 2003
4. Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. 117740, October 30, 1998
5. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability, G.R. No. 180643,
March 25, 2008
6. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. NO. 169777, April 25,
2006
7. Judicial Privilege Per Curiam Decision of the Supreme Court in
connection with the Letter of the House of Prosecution Panel to
Subpoena Justices of the Supreme Court, February 14, 2012
 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
A. OBJECT (REAL)
- That which is directly addressed to the senses of the court
and consists of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in
open court, in an ocular inspection, or at a place designated by
the court for its view or observation of an exhibition, experiment
or demonstration; always relevant regardless of contents
 
B. Documentary Evidence
 
Documents as evidence consist of
writings, recordings, photographs or any material
containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their
contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
(Sec. 2, Rule 130)
TESTIMONIAL
 

That which is submitted to the court through the

testimony or deposition of a witness

RELEVANT
Evidence having any value in reason as tending to
prove any matter provable in an action

Relevancy – logical relation of evidentiary fact to fact

in issue
 Material
  Evidence directed to prove a fact in issue
 Competent
  One that is not excluded by law in particular
Case
 
Direct
 That which proves the fact in dispute without the aid
of any inference or presumption
 
Circumstantial
 The proof of the facts other than the fact in issue from
which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of
the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence
Cumulative
 
 Evidence of the same kind and to the same state of
facts
 
 
Corroborative
 
 Additional evidence of a different character to the
same point for higher probative value
Prima facie
 
 That which standing alone, unexplained or
uncontradicted is sufficient to maintain a proposition
 
Conclusive
 
 Class of evidence which the law does not allow to
be contradicted
Primary or Best
 
 That which the law regards as affording greatest certainty of
the fact in question
 
Secondary or Substitutionary
 
 That which is inferior to the primary evidence and is
permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available
 
Positive
  The witness affirms that a fact did or did
not occur
 
Negative
  The witness states that he did not see or
know of the occurrence of a fact
 
 PR ODUCT ION OF EVIDE NCE UNDER THI S R ULE AND
UNDER R ULE 2 7 (MODES OF DISCOVE RY),
DIST INGUI SHED

RULE 130 RULE 27

• Production is procured by mere notice to • Production is by proper motion in the trial

adverse party, and requirements for such court, and is permitted only upon good cause
notice must be complied with as a condition shown (mode of discovery)
precedent for the subsequent evidence by the
proponent
• Contemplates situation wherein document is
• Presupposes that the document to be
either assumed to be favorable to the party in
produced is intended as evidence for the
possession thereof OR that the party seeking
proponent who is presumed to have
its production is not sufficiently informed of
knowledge of its contents, secondary evidence
the contents of the same
thereof being available in case of its non-
production
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE

• General Rule: When the subject of an inquiry is the

contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself.
(If only the fact of execution/existence/surrounding
circumstances only is involved, or when the event is
memorialized and the writing is only incidental, the
Rule does not apply)
 EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVDENCE
RULE

a. Original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced

in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
 
b. When the original is in the custody of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
 
b. When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original cannot be
obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;

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;
d. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office; and

e. When the original is not closely-related to a

controlling issue. 
 ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT

a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or

any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a
person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a
photograph includes the negative or any print
therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar
device, any printout or other output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an
"original."
(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the
same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduce the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as
an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised
as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the
circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit
the duplicate in lieu of the original. 
When Secondary Evidence is Admissible

1. original has been lost or destroyed

2. prove the existence or execution of the original
3. prove the cause of the unavailability of the original, is not due to the
bad faith of the offeror.

3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be presented:

4. copy of the writing
5. recital of its contents in some authentic document
6. recollection of witnesses in the order stated
 
 Authentic document – merely means that the document should be
genuine. It need not be a public document
 
Parol Evidence Rule

 Forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written

instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the
signing, of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed
upon by the parties
 
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule

(must be alleged in the pleadings) [F-I-V-E]

1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent &
agreement of the parties
2. Intrinsic ambiguity
3. Validity of the written agreement
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
To justify the reformation of a written instrument upon the ground of
mistake, the concurrence of three things is necessary:

1. mistake should be one of fact

2. mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to the instrument
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by clear and convincing evidence
 
2 kinds of ambiguities

4. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on its face is unintelligible

5. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the instrument are clear but their
application to the circumstances is doubtful

the rule permits parol evidence to explain an intrinsic ambiguity

 
Rules governing admissibility of parol evidence to explain ambiguity

1. where the instrument itself seems clear and certain on its face, and the
ambiguity arises from some extrinsic or collateral matter, the ambiguity
may be helped by parol evidence (latent ambiguity)
2. where the ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words designing
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 (intermediate ambiguity)
3. where the ambiguity is such that a perusal of the instrument shows
plainly that something more must be added before the reader can
determine what of several things is meant, the rule is inflexible that
parol evidence cannot be admitted to supply the deficiency (patent
ambiguity)
 
 Difference between best evidence rule and parol evidence rule
Best Evidence Parol Evidence
Documents All kinds Agreements, contracts, wills
 
What is excluded Secondary evidence; copies Any oral, written evidence to prove contents; prior/
contempora-neous with the contract
What is included Only originals  
Exceptions Lost or destroyed; Ambiguity;
in the possession of the adverse party; or Does not express the true intent of the parties;
in the possession of a public officer Validity is in question;
Subsequent changes
Procedure Existence Exception must be put in issue in the complaint or
Execution answer ( as an affirmative defense)
Loss
Contents
*objection should be made ASAP
Purpose To compel litigants to present only the originals. To preserve agreements
   
For the parties to always keep the originals Draft the contract carefully
 
Go into the interpretation of the contents of the
contract
Issue Contents of the writing No issue as to the contents of the writing
  Secondary evidence is offered to prove the contents of The purpose of the offer of parol evidence is to
a writing which is not allowed unless the case falls change, vary, modify, qualify or contradict the terms
under any of the exceptions of a complete written agreement which is not
allowed unless the case falls under any of the
exceptions