Preliminary Matters of Evidence (1) Flashcards
Define Evidence under the rules of court
R128 S1
“…”
Evidence is the means sanctioned by the RoC, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
Conceptual Elements of Evidence
- only means, not an end
- must be sanctioned by the RoC
- generally applies to judicial proceedings
- its object is to ascertain the truth
- the truth that evidence seeks to ascertain must relate to a matter of fact, not of law
Conceptual Elements > 1
Evidence
v.
Proof
[E]
- means by which a fact is proved/disproved
[P]
- conviction or persuasion formed in the mind of the court as a result from the consideration of evidence
Conceptual Elements > 2
Examples of information/materials not sanctioned by the Rules of Court thereby cannot be a means of ascertaining truth in a judicial proceeding
- hearsay evidence
- coerced or uncounseled extra-judicial confession
- testimony of accused in a prosecution for statutory rape that the victim consented to sexual intercourse
- testimony of handwriting expert that the signature appears to be a forgery
In a civil action for collection of sums of money, the defendant failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note appended to the Complaint.
Can the def’t present as witness a handwriting expert to testify the signature is a forgery?
pg. 3
No, because such testimony is NOT ALLOWED or NOT SANCTIONED by the RoC
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3
while the rules of evidence is not applicable to legislative, executive, administrative or quasi-legislative bodies,
is it applicable to quasi-judicial bodies? why?
4
No, they are governed by their own rules & procedures. In most cases, their own internal rules of procedure may provide that the RoC including Rules on Evidence (RoE) shall apply suppletorily or by analogy, whenever practiceable and convenient
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3
Pacita owns a single proprietorship registered as Mayon Hotel and Restaurant, managed by her mother, Josefa. Sixteen employees filed labor complaints for underpayment of wages.
The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, concluding Josefa was the owner.
Josefa argued that the Certificate of Registration named Pacita as the owner, and the employees admitted in their Position Paper that Josefa was only the manager. Further, the Ees did not even allege Josefa Po Lim as the owner
Is the petitioners’ claim tenable?
Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, Et Al.
[SC]
Petitioners’ reliance on the rules of evidence, i.e., the certificate of registration being the best proof of ownership, is misplaced
The rules of evidence prevailing in a court of law or equity shall not be controlling in labor cases
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3
The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed a criminal complaint against Fidel, Carmelita, and Mary Lou for Direct Bribery and Corruption of Public Officials.
In support of its complaint, PDIC
submitted the affidavit of Gomez, a former officer of the Bank, where she (Gomez) outlined the irregularities committed by the Bank (Bicol Development Bank) and alleging that Fidel instructed her to deposit funds to Mary Lou’s account. Gomez also claimed that Mary Lou, a BSP employee, gave Fidel advance warnings of surprise BSP examinations, allowing Fidel to direct employees to cover adverse findings.
is the affidavit admissible?
IOW, is hearsay evidence admissible insofar as PI is concerned?
PDIC v. Hon Casimero, et al
Yes, it is admissible
[SC]
It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should NOT be applied in the course of its proceedings
In the case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the Court declared that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE in determining probable cause in (PI) PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS because such investigation is merely preliminary, [and] does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties
Probable Cause can be established with hearsay evidence as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3 > XPN
While the Rules on Evidence apply only in judicial proceedings, not all proceedings in a court of law are governed by the Rules on Evidence.
By express provision of ____, the following judicial proceedings are not strictly governed by the Rules of Court, including the Rules on Evidence:
Section 4, Rule 1,
(clien)
- cadastral
- land registration
- insolvency proceedings
- election cases
- naturalization proceedings
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3 3. generally applies to judicial proceedings
> XPN to the XPN
R1 S4
“…except by analogy or suppletory character [and] whenever practicable and convenient”
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 3 > XPN
Ong Chia filed a petition for naturalization, which the RTC granted after the OSG, represented by the public prosecutor, declined to present evidence during trial. On appeal, the OSG submitted new documentary evidence not offered during trial. The Court of Appeals admitted this evidence and reversed the RTC’s decision.
Ong Chia argued before the Supreme Court that the appellate court erred in admitting evidence presented for the first time on appeal which he called as “scrap(s) of paper devoid of any evidentiary value,” consistent under Rule 132, §34 of the “Revised Rules on Evidence, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.”
Decide.
The contention has no merit. Petitioner failed to note Rule 1,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court which provides that —
“These rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.”
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 4
legal truth
v.
moral truth
[LT]
- evidenced-based
- LT depends on evidenced presented by parties which may or may not always be consistent with reality
[MT]
- reality-based
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 5
when does a FACTUAL ISSUE exist?
pg. 10
doubt/difference to truth/falsity of alleged facts
In civil actions
Conceptual Elements of Evidence > 5
A LEGAL ISSUE exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts which is either established by evidence
or when the facts are not disputed by the parties because:
pg. 10
- allegation is admitted by the other, or
- one party is estopped from denying the allegations of the other party, *as when there is implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document** for failure to deny it under oath
Factum Probandum & Factum Probans > Illustration
This involves an action to recover properties. The plaintiff seeks to declare the deeds of donation null and void on the ground that the deeds of donation were forgeries. In support of the allegation of forgery, the prosecution presented an NBI officer who claimed to be a document expert examiner and testified during trial that the signature of the donor, Consuelo, as appearing in one of the deeds of donation, was indeed affixed on a blank piece of paper but the body was just inserted after Consuelo’s death.
To further prove the allegation that the deeds of donations were
forgeries, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the Donor’s Tax was only paid after the death of the donor Consuelo, theorizing that Consuelo could not have signed the deeds of donation when the donor’s tax was paid after her death.
Identify the factum probandum and factum probans
(a) The factum probandum is that the deeds of donations were forgeries, and
(b) The factum probans was that the donor’s tax was only paid after the donor’s death
[pt. 1] Dra. Leila Dela Llana (“Dela Llana”) figured in a vehicular accident, when the Toyota Corolla car she was riding in was bumped from behind by a dump truck loaded with sand and gravel, resulting in the Toyota Corolla car being violently pushed forward and in Dra. Dela Llana suffering a “whiplash” injury. Dr. Dela Llana then sued Rebecca Biong (“Biong”) who is the owner of the dump truck driven by Joel Primero (“Primero”).
By way of defense, Biong alleged in her answer that there is no reasonable relation between the vehicular accident and Dr. Dela Llana’s injury which manifested only one month and one week after the vehicular accident.
what is the factum probandum & factum probans?
Factum Probandum: whiplash from incident caused her injury
Factum Probans: none adduced
Dra. Leila Llana v. Rebecca Biong
[SC] - mock trial trick
Dra. Dela Llana did not adduce the factum probans or the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum or the ultimate fact can be established. Her claim was anchored mainly on
three (3) pieces of evidence she presented, such as the pictures
of her damaged car, the medical certificate, and her testimonial evidence. But none of these pieces of evidence show the causal relation between the vehicular accident and the whiplash injury.
[Pt. 2] Dra. Leila Llana v. Biong
Suppose that pictures were offered demonstrating the massive impact of the collision, would that be sufficient to establish that it caused Dra’s whiplash injury?
Suppose she offers a medical certificate prepared by colleague, will this have probative value without presenting the physician in court?
[SC]
While the pictures demonstrate the massive impact of the
collision, it is a far-fetched assumption that the whiplash injury can also be inferred from these pictures.
[SC]
…even if the MC is to be considered, it has no probative value or being hearsay as the physician who prepared it and had personal knowledge of its contents was not presented as witness to testify
[Pt. 3] Dra. Leila Llana v. Biong
Isn’t it common knowledge and common sense that a massive impact from the back causes a whiplash consistent with R129 S1 where “a court shall take judicial notice, without introduction of evidence of….the laws of nature”
as observed in Newton’s first law of motion (Inertia)
[SC]
The SC cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries
“…courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. This proportion is not public knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions (R129 S2)
We have no expertise in the field of medicine. Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties’ pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal arguments”
Classification of Evidence
Object
Documentary
Testimonial
Relevant
Material
Competent
Direct
Circumstantial
Cumulative
Corroborative
Primary
Positive
Negative
Conclusive
Expert
Classification of Circumstantial Evidence
antencedent circ
concomitant circ
subsequent circ
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
Object/Real Evidence
Evidence consisting 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
Documentary Evidence
That which is submitted to the court through the testimony [or] deposition of a witness consisting of the witness’ perception of past events or occurrence being recalled and communicated by the witness to the court; it is a reconstruction of past events made by a witness through oral testimony, deposition or any modes of expression or communication
Testimonial Evidence
Evidence having tendency in reason as to prove or disprove a fact in issue; concerns with logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue
Relevant Evidence
Evidence directed to prove a fact in ISSUE; it is determined by whether the fact it intends to prove is in ISSUE or not; as to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined by the;
- substantive law,
- pleadings,
- pre-trial order,
- and by the admissions made by parties.
material evidence
Evidence which is not excluded by the Constitution, the laws, or the Rules.
Competent Evidence
That which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference from other established fact or presumption in law.
Direct evidence
That which indirectly proves a fact in issue through inference from other established facts as a necessary or probable consequence.
circumstantial evidence
Additional evidence of the same kind tending to prove the same point.
Cumulative evidence
Additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point.
Corroborative evidence
That which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty of the fact in question;
Primary evidence
[note]
previously referred to in the rules as the “best evidence”, but now as “original evidence”.
When witness affirms that a certain fact or state of facts does exist or a certain event occurs
Positive evidence
When witness states that a certain event did not occur or a certain fact or state of facts does not exist
negative evidence
Consists of testimony of, or evidence given by, a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training, which the witness is shown to possess.
expert evidence
A kind of evidence, which, standing alone unrebutted, is sufficient to support a conclusion
conclusive evidence
