Admissibility of Evidence (2) Flashcards
In order for evidence to serve its purpose of ascertaining truth respecting a matter of fact in judicial proceedings, it has to pass through two (2) exacting tests:
test of admissibility
test of weight & sufficiency
The two (2) tests of admissibility correspond to Wigmore’s two (2) axioms of admissibility:
axiom of relevancy
axiom of competency
The testimony of an eyewitness who is shown to be insane for being relevant
explain it’s admissibility
explain it’s sufficiency?
[admissibility]
not excluded by the constitution, rules of court, or the law so it is admissible
[weight]
- may not be given weight for being unreliable due to diminished perception, memory, and communication.
when is evidence admissible?
relevant and is not excluded by the Consti, law, RoC
how to determine RELEVANCY of any material?
logic
human experience
common sense
While Robert Heesen (“Heesen”) was deer hunting, his rifle accidentally fired, hitting Jessee Lopez (“Lopez”). Lopez contended that the cause of the sudden discharge of the rifle was Heesen’s negligence and the defective design of the safety mechanism of the rifle as it would easily move from safety to fire position. Lopez thus filed a case for damages against Heesen and the storeowner who sold the rifle to Heesen
By way of defense, the storeowner presented an expert witness on gun- making to testify on the good reputation of two manufacturers: (1) manufacturer of the rifle, and (2) manufacturer of the safety mechanism– that during their entire business existence, they never received any complaint of accidental firing involving any of their manufactured rifles using the same safety mechanism
Whether evidence of reputation of the manufacturers of the rifle and the gun safety device is relevant.
Yes
Lopez v. Heesen (1961)
reputation of the manufacturers is relevant to the issue of whether the safety device of the rifle involved is really defective. Their good reputation throws light upon the issue of whether their products are indeed defective as alleged by Lopez. The absence of any other similar complaint of accidental firing involving any of their manufactured rifles with the same safety mechanism is relevant as it tends to establish the improbability of Mr. Lopez’s accusation of defective product workmanship.
Anything that throws light upon an issue should be admitted by the court as relevant evidence
(“Bull”) was arrested for robbery. He was identified by the sales personnel of the jewelry store
During Bull’s arrest, the police were able to recover from his possession some dollar bills and coins which were presented as evidence during the trial for robbery
are the dollar bills & coins recovered from the possession of Bull at the time of the arrest relevant?
No
State of Missouri v. Bull
Case illustrates evidence excluded on the ground of irrelevancy
The Supreme Court excluded the dollar bills and coins recovered from Bull’s possession. It ruled that the evidence is irrelevant to prove the issue of whether Bull committed the robbery. It was not established that the dollar bills and coins recovered from the possession of Bull were the very same items taken from the vault of the jewelry store during the robbery.
Components of Relevancy
> what is probativeness?
It refers to the tendency of the evidence to establish the probability/improbability of a fact in issue.
Components of Relevancy
> what is materiality?
which means legal relevancy, in that evidence must be offered to prove a matter which is an issue in the case.
Conversely, if an evidence is offered to prove a particular matter which is not in issue in the case, the evidence is immaterial
(a) materiality determined by pleadings
In a civil action for collection of sum of money based on a promissory note as an actionable document, the defendant failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
Can the defendant during trial introduce evidence of forgery? What is the ground, if any?
No, any evidence presented to prove forgery may be objected & court may exclude it on the ground that it is immaterial
It is immaterial because forgery is no longer an issue in the case because of an implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8.
Materiality is determined by?
substantive law
rules on pleadings
pre-trial order
admission of the parties
complaint/information (in crim cases)
(b) materiality determined by the information
In a criminal prosecution for Murder where the Information alleges the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
what was presented during trial is evidence of evident premeditation not otherwise alleged in the Information
is it admissible? if so, on what ground is it admissible/inadmissible?
No, it is inadmissible on the ground for being immaterial
Why is it a fundamental rule in Crim Pro that prosecution cannot prove matters not alleged in the information?
violate the accused’s right to be informed of the nature & cause of the accusation against them
(c) materiality determined by substantive law
evidence of “Prior Demand” is material in a what civil action but immaterial in what?
when is evidence “competent”
when it is not excluded by the Consti, law, RoC
Relevant Principles on Competency of Evidence >
what is the Exclusionary Rule
3 types of exclusionary rules
1.
2.
3.
Relevant Principles on Competency of Evidence >
what is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
After a recent robbery, Waldo was arrested by the police without warrant and subjected to custodial investigation without assistance of counsel, where he confessed to having participated in the robbery and disclosed the whereabouts of the stolen money and jewelry which he concealed inside a steel vault in his room. Based on Waldo’s uncounseled confession, the police proceeded to Waldo’s house and searched his room where the bag full of money and pieces of jewelry was found. Waldo’s uncounseled extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because of the exclusionary rule
Is the bag of money and pieces of jewelry admissible?
It is the poisonous tree. The bag containing money and pieces of jewelry is also inadmissible because the knowledge of its whereabouts and existence was obtained due to the uncounseled extra-judicial confession. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree
The exclusionary rules under the Constitution are found in:
Article III
- 2
- 3
- 12
- 17
EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS OR RULES
4200 - anti-wiretapping act
11479 - anti-terrorism
9995 -
8505 -
7160 -
8424 -
10173 -
AM No. 21-06-08-SC -
IOW, any evidence obtained in violation to the exclusionary rules of these special laws SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 4200
(a) tapping any wire or cable, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record any private communication or spoken word without the consent of all the parties to such communication or spoken word;
(b) using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder;
Is the secret overhearing of a telephone conversation using a telephone extension line violate RA 4200?
No, because it does not fall under the
First mode there being no tapping of a wire/cable since a telephone extension is part of the telephone mechanism [and] is put in place for a legitimate purpose.
second mode
- applying ejusdem generis (same kind) a telephone extension line is NOT the same as a dictaphone, dictagraph, detectaphone, walkie-talkie, or tape recorder
Atty. Pintor and his client, Manuel Montebon, were discussing the settlement terms for a direct assault complaint they filed against Leonardo Laconico. Upon Laconico’s request, his counsel, Atty. Gaanan, secretly listened to a private telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico through a telephone extension without Pintor’s consent. During the call, Pintor allegedly demanded P8,000 for withdrawing the complaint.
Based on this, Laconico filed a complaint for robbery/extortion against Pintor, attaching an affidavit by Gaanan stating what he overheard. Pintor later charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No. 4200).
Is Atty. Gaanan liable under RA No. 4200 for listening to the telephone conversation using a telephone extension without the consent of Atty. Pintor?
No, he is not liable
Gaanan v. IAC
[SC]
- An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone…
- The telephone extension in this case was not INSTALLED for that purpose (tapping). It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
- Instruments of “same or similar nature” refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. (unlike a telephone, it’s purpose is to be heard and transmit)
Two radio reporters, Stanley Jalbuena (“Jalbuena”) and Enrique Lingan (“Lingan”) went to the police station to report an incident that transpired inside an entertainment bar. The policemen on duty, including Felipe Navarro (“Navarro”) were having drinks in front of the police station.
Instead of assisting the radio reporters in having the incident recorded in the police
blotter, Navarro engaged in a heated argument with Lingan where Navarro hit Lingan’s left eyebrow with the handle of his firearm and punched Lingan in his forehead resulting in Lingan’s death.
Unknown to Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on tape the verbal exchanges between Navarro and Lingan.
One of the pieces of evidence formally offered by the prosecution during the trial was the tape recording made by Jalbuena of the verbal exchanges between Navarro and the deceased Lingan.
Whether the tape recording is inadmissible in evidence
It is admissible
Navarro v. CA
Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was NOT PRIVATE, its tape recording is not prohibited
exclusionary clause of 4200 (sec 4) applies only when the private communication or spoken word obtained in violation thereof is offered in what proceeding?
judicial
quasi-judicial
legislative
administrative hearing
investigation against aggrieved party
[note]
obviously, the exclusion do not apply in criminal cases violating 4200
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 4200
GR: unlawful to tap any wire or cable…to overhear, intercept, or record
XPN:
- peace officer
- authorized by a written order of the court
- to execute the acts declared unlawful in 4200 in the ff crimes
TEPPS MRS KICKS
T - Treason
E - Espionage
P - Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
P - Piracy
M - Mutiny in the high seas
R - Rebellion
S - Sedition
K - Kidnapping
I - Inciting to rebellion
C - Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
K - Conspiracy to commit sedition
S - Inciting to sedition
4200 > XPN > Is the recordings readily available to be offered in trial?
Shall not be replayed, used in evidence, or contents revealed, except upon order of the court which shall NOT BE GRANTED except upon motion with due notice [&] opportunity to be heard to the persons whose conversations have been recorded
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
(Sec. 16)
a law enforcement agent [or] military personnel may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals secretly wiretap, overhear… record or collect, with the use of any mode…any private communications, conversation…
- between members of judicially declared & outlawed terrorists orgs
- members defined in sec 3 of 10168
- any person charged [or] suspected of committing crimes penalized in this act
XPN
between
- lawyers & clients,
- doctors & patients
- journalists & their sources
- confidential business correspondence
shall NOT be authorized
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
Judicial Authorization Requisites
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
If any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communication which have been secured in violation of its provisions shall be inadmissible and cannot be used in evidence against “anybody” in any proceedings,
does it mean that they are also inadmissible in evidence against the person responsible for the violation?
It is humbly submitted that the word “anybody” shall exclude the person responsible for the unauthorized interception or recording of private communications in violation of R.A. No. 14479
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
Fourteen (14) day detention period may be extended; requisites
The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of ten (10)
calendar days if it is established that:
(1) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence
related to terrorism or complete the investigation;
(2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the
commission of another terrorism; and
(3) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.
Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention
(a) to be informed of the nature and cause of his/her arrest;
(b) to remain silent;
(c) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his/her
choice.
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
Custodial Rights cannot be waived; exceptions
The foregoing rights (a, b, and c) cannot be waived, except;
- in writing and
- in the presence of his/her counsel of choice.
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 11479
warrantless arrest may be allowed in any of the ff. instances
- a suspect who has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit any of the acts defined and penalized under RA 11479 in the presence of the arresting officer - a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting
officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator
of any of the acts under RA 11479 - a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment for or is temporarily confined
while his/her case for any of the acts
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > Anti-Voyeurism Act of 2009 (9995)
if Waldo disrobes himself in the middle of the school campus with the ultimate symbol of his manhood displayed for the world to see, will an unauthorized taking of a photo or video of his private parts violate 9995?
No, because under the circumstances, Waldo had no expectation of privacy
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > Anti-Voyeurism Act of 2009 (9995)
Waldo and his mistress Tintin engaged in sexual intercourse inside Tintin’s condominium unit and their sexual activity is being video-recorded by Reno without Waldo’s and Tintin’s consent, such video recording violates the provision of R.A. 9995
is the unauthorized recording admissible in evidence for the crime of Concubinage?
[sec 7 of RA 9995]
“any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.”
No, it is inadmissible if offered as evidence for a criminal case of concubinage
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > Anti-Voyeurism Act of 2009 (9995)
Waldo and his mistress Tintin engaged in sexual intercourse inside Tintin’s condominium unit and their sexual activity is being video-recorded by Reno without Waldo’s and Tintin’s consent, such video recording violates the provision of R.A. 9995
can Reno be held liable for violation of 9995?
Yes, subject to the ff conditions
- peace officer must obtain a PRIOR written court order authorizing the use of the record
- court order shall only be granted:
(i) upon written application and the examination under oath
or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she
may produce; and
(ii) upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed; and
(iii) that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime.
Exclusionary Rule > Rape Shield Rule under Republic Act No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act)
GR insofar as the exclusionary rule is concerned
XPN
GR:
prosecution for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct or opinion of complainant’s sexual conduct or reputation is INADMISSIBLE
XPN:
admissible if court finds that it is material and relevant
Waldo is prosecuted for rape allegedly committed by means of force or intimidation. In support of his defense that the sexual intercourse was consensual,
May Waldo present evidence of Tintin’s past sexual conduct?
As a general rule, no but as an exception yes since her being a sexually promiscuous woman or having loose moral is material and relevant to the issue as it tend to establish the probability of consensual sexual intercourse
Exclusionary rule > Republic Act No. 7610
under sec. 30 of RA 7610, the ff are not admissible in any Criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse
- Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
- Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
Exclusionary rule > Republic Act No. 7610
GR under sec. 30 of RA 7610, evidence is INadmissible
XPN
Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible
Waldo is charged with the offense and prosecuted for Child Sexual Abuse when he committed no such act.
What defense can you interpose as his counsel?
Interpose the defense of mistaken identity presenting evidence that it was Reno who actually sexually abused the child and Reno is the source of the semen found inside the victim’s genitalia
(F) Documentary Stamp Tax Law
(NIRC) declares certain documents to be taxable and the taxable document is INADMISSIBLE in evidence in court unless the corresponding Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) is duly paid
[LB: Sec 201 NIRC]
Some of the notable taxable documents are;
- Originally issued certificate of stocks
- Insurance policies
- Lease contracts
- Deeds of conveyance of real property
- Special powers of attorney
Documentary Stamp Tax Law
Does the non-payment of the required documentary stamp tax automatically render a taxable document inadmissible in evidence? Discuss.
No, mere non-pyament of the DST does not automatically render taxable documents as inadmissible in evidence
where proponent fails to show payment of the DST, court shall order proponent to comply w/ the law by paying the required DST.
it is only when the proponent fails to comply with the court order can the taxable document be INADMISSIBLE
(G) Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act)
what is the exclusionary rule here?
personal information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication over privileged information that they lawfully control or process
any evidenced gather on privileged information is inadmissible
[gpt]
This means that any evidence gathered involving this privileged information cannot be used as evidence in court or other proceedings.
[note]
PIC - person/org who controls collection, processing, or use of personal information
(G) Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act)
what is privileged information?
Sec 3(j) it is ANY & ALL forms of data, under the RoC & other pertinent laws constitute privileged information
- marital PC
- PC to public officers
- PC under Rules on Electronic Evidence
- Other PC not found in RoC
(H) A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants
what happens should there be unjustified deviation from following this rule or failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices without reasonable grounds during the execution?
non-compliance will render the evidenced obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied
(H) A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants
The chain of custody over the recordings shall, at all times, be preserved from improper access, review and tampering. It shall cover the following events:
- Recording using the BWC/ARD
- Turnover of BWC/ARD to data custodian where they belong
- Downloading of data by DC
- Redaction of personal identifiers
- Retrieval of recorded data & transfer to an external media storage device
- submission & delivery contained in the external storage to court
(H) A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants
Remedies from search conducted in violation of the rule
in addition to grounds allowed under Crim Pro
a motion to suppress evidence may be filed by a person searched if search was done w/o the use of body-worn cameras/ARD [and] failure to use such cameras without any reasonable ground
(H) A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants
are recordings public records? GR XPN
GR:
BWC/ACD footage are NOT public record subject to disclosure
XPN:
recordings involving the loss of life [or] an assault made on law enforcement DURING arrest or search, such recordings are considered PUBLIC (consent to use recording is not required here)
Consent to use recordings in court proceedings
when can consent to use recordings of BWC/ACD be asked?
only in presence of counsel.
Insofar as BWC/ACD;
[1]
warrant-based arrest followed by a warrantless search
[2]
warrantless arrest w/o prior search warrant
which is admissible? inadmissible
[1] - inadmissible
- If a person is arrested with a warrant and the subsequent search is conducted incident to that arrest, the requirement for BWC applies to the incidental search.
[2] - admissible
- If the arrest itself is warrantless, such as under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (e.g., caught in the act, hot pursuit, or escaped prisoner), the body-worn camera requirement does not apply
A search warrant was issued for the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). During the implementation of the search warrant, the law enforcement officers unjustifiably failed to use BWC/ARD
In the course of the search, they recovered both packs of shabu and drug paraphernalia (subject of the search warrant) and unlicensed firearms and ammunition (not covered by the search warrant) in plain view.
Are the packs of shabu and drug paraphernalia admissible as evidence? How about the unlicensed firearms and ammunition?
drugs - inadmissible
unlicense firearm - admissible
[JP]
Pp v. Salanguit if the firearms were to be found AFTER the accomplishing the purpose of the search warrant, then the unlicensed firearms are INADMISSIBLE
(I) BANK SECRECY LAWS
Is the evidence obtained in violation of bank secrecy laws inadmissible?
No, violation of bank secrecy laws evidence are STILL admissible but renders person criminally liable
Ejercito v. SB (2006)
bank secrecy laws while it mandates the confidentiality of bank deposits, is not, however, an exclusionary rule. Thus, any unauthorized or illegal disclosure or examination of bank deposits not falling within any of the exceptions renders the person criminally liable, but it does not render any evidence obtained thereby inadmissible.
PP v. Aminnudin (1988)
|vs|
PP v. Quebral (2009)
|vs|
PP v. Sapla (2020)
[Aminnudin] - 1988
- informant gave name & description, date, obtaining SW would be appropriate
[Quebral] - 2009
- informant mentioned 2 men & 1 woman, obtaining SW would be impractical
[Sapla] - 2020
- SC now holds that a text/unverified anonymous tip message is not sufficient on its own to create probable cause that enables the authorities to conduct an extensive and intrusive search without a search warrant
- A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.
Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners |&| Rosete v. Lim
insofar as the right against self-incrimination
[Pascual]
- Administrative case partaking of penal nature – refused to take the stand altogether (valid invokation of right against self-incrimination)
[Rosete]
- Civil Case that did not partake of a criminal nature – cannot refuse to take the stand but can validly invoke the right when asked incriminating questions
Juan Consuji was charged with the murder of Jose. During the investigation, Juan gave an extrajudicial confession to an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), admitting his role in the crime. At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce Juan Consuji’s confession as evidence.
Panganiban, Consuji’s co-accused, objected to the admissibility of the confession, arguing that it was hearsay and could not be used against him. The trial court, instead of addressing this objection, ruled motu proprio that Juan’s confession was inadmissible entirely because it could not be used to prove conspiracy between Juan and Panganiban without prior evidence of conspiracy through other acts or circumstances.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that even if the confession was not admissible to prove conspiracy or against Panganiban, it was admissible as evidence of Juan’s own guilt.
Is the extrajudicial confession of Juan admissible as evidence? Why or why not?
People vs. Yatco, et al.,
[gpt]
- The trial court should not raise objections on behalf of the parties or introduce new grounds motu proprio.
- Multiple Admissibility of Evidence: Even if the confession could not be used to prove conspiracy or as evidence against the co-accused (Panganiban), it was admissible to prove Consunji’s own guilt. The trial court improperly excluded the evidence entirely, overlooking its admissibility for at least this purpose. [: Evidence inadmissible for one purpose may still be admitted for another purpose.]
GR: search warranat
XPNs: Stop-&-Frisk
how to conduct properly
PP v. Sy Chua
- PO introduce himself & make inquiries
- approach & restrain person who manifest unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check latter’s outer clothing for concealed weapons
- the apprehending PO must have a genuine reason, in accord with the PO’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons/contrabands conceal about him
Stop-and-Frisk warrantless search
2 kinds of stop-and-frisk
private vehicles
Routine Inspection - use of flashlight on vehicle
Extensive inspection - “open your trunk/bag” only valid if there is probable cause that object/law offender is in vehicle to be searched
Guidelines laid down in the case of PP v. Saluday on search and public transport
PUBLIC transport buses, any moving vehicle that similarly accepts passengers at the terminal and along its route is likewise covered by these guidelines in allowing a reasonable search while in transit:
(1) the manner of the search must be least intrusive;
(2) the search must not be discriminatory;
(3) as to the purpose of the search, it must be confined to ensuring public safety; and
(4) the courts must be convinced that precautionary measures were in place to ensure that no evidence was planted against the accused.
Distinguish the case bewteen
PP v. Saluday
|v.|
PP v. Sapla
there was no valid warrantless search in Sapla because the requisites were all absent compared to Saluday
therefore is inadmissible
Eduardo, a provincial manager of the National Food Authority (NFA), was murdered. After an investigation, several individuals, including Mario, Victor, and Oscar, were implicated in the crime. Mario had a prior dispute with Eduardo due to his suspension for unaccounted rice stocks.
Ramil, another suspect, confessed to the crime. He stated that Oscar, Mario’s brother-in-law, hired him for P15,000 to kill Eduardo. Ramil executed two extrajudicial confessions:
- The first was taken by Assistant Prosecutor Albulario with Atty. Cristobal acting as counsel de oficio.
- The second was taken by Prosecutor Lagcao with Atty. Cavales as counsel de oficio and in the presence of Ramil’s family.
The trial court convicted Ramil of murder based on his confessions, while acquitting the other accused. On appeal, Ramil argued that his confessions were inadmissible because he was not assisted by competent and independent counsel of his choice. He claimed Atty. Cristobal’s assistance was merely ceremonial and that Atty. Cavales did not confer with him adequately.
Were Ramil’s extrajudicial confessions admissible in evidence, considering his claim that he was not assisted by competent and independent counsel of his choice?
Pp v. Mancia et al.,
The Court held that: There was no evidence that counsel was absent at any stage of the proceedings. While “preferably” of his own choice is ideal, it does not preclude other competent and independent attorneys from assisting.
Can Circumstantial Evidence be used to convict the accused in a criminal case?
Yes, provided that there is more than one circumstance
PP v. Malimit
What is conditional admissibility
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.
It happens that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered but will be readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered.
if no relevancy is shown, upon motion, the court may strike out from the record the evidence that was conditionally admitted.
what is curative admissibility
allows party to introduce inadmissible evidence to answer opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
Thus, a party who first introduces irrelevant or incompetent evidence into trial CANNOT complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse relating to the same subject matter.
an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the defendant, was allowed to introduce evidence to show that, on several occasions, the defendant, in the past, had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. The evidence was offered to prove the defendant’s propensity for negligence.
his kind of evidence is inadmissible because evidence that a person did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or a similar thing at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130,
can the defendant contradict his alleged past acts and offer evidence to counteract plaintiff’s inadmissible claim?
Yes, under the doctrine of Curative admissibility, the defendant may show evidence that his past acts to contradict or explain his past acts
