notes on evtt

8/12/2019 Notes on EVTT

1/4

Notes in Evidence and Trial TechniqueBased onbook on Evidence by Dean Willard B. RianoRivad, Sherine L. | Arellano University School of Law | 1

stSem, AY 20142015

1

CHAPTER 1: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

A.Basic Principles

Sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court -> not excluded by law orby the Rules; not includes hearsay evidence, coerced confession,

evidence obtain in violation of Constitutional rights

Not applicable in all types of proceedings, i.e. judicial proceeding only Presumption: Court is not aware of the veracity of facts involved in a

case

Not necessarily the actual truth but thejudicial or legal truth -> dependon the evidence presented

Scope and Applicability of Rules of Evidence

Principle of Uniformity -> Same in all courts and in all trials and hearings

Not applicable in the following instances:o Election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization(Ong

Chia vs. Republic) and insolvency proceedings (Sec. 4 Rule 1 of

Rules)

XPN: By analogy or suppletory character, or wheneverconvenient or practicable

o Administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings Administrative agencies (SRA vs. Tormon, GR No. 195640) Labor cases (Mayon Hotel vs. Adana,458 SCRA 609)

Technical rules of evidence are not binding in laborcases if the decision to grant the petition proceeds

from an examination of its sufficiency as well as a

careful look into the arguments contained in position

papers and other documents.(Sasan vs. NLRC)

When evidence is required; When not required:

When the court has to resolve a question of fact Not required if pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact ->

judgment on the pleadings

Presentation of evidence may be dispensed with by agreement ofparties Not also required on matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially

admitted

Not required when a law or rule presumes the truth of a facto Ex.: Art. 1756 of the Civil Code, i.e. common carriers in case of

death or injuries of passengers

Rules on electronic evidence, in contrary to rules on evidence in the Rulesof Court, does not apply to criminal actions but only to civil actions, quasi-

judicial and administrative proceedings (Ang vs. CA)

Evidence in Civil Cases Evidence in Criminal Cases

Preponderance of evidence Guilt of accused has to be proven

beyond reasonable doubt

Offer of compromise is not an

admission of liability and not

admissible in evidence against the

offeror

GR: Offer of compromise by the

accused may be received in evidence

as an implied admission of guilt

XPN: Quasi-offenses or allowed by law

to be compromised

Presumption of innocence does not

apply

Accused enjoys the constitutional

presumption of innocence

Proof is not the evidence itself. It is the effect or result of evidence.Relationship of Facts: Factum Probans vs. Factum Probandum

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

Fact or proposition to be established Fact or material evidencing the fact or

proposition to be established

In civil case: Refers to the elements of

a cause of action from point of view of

plaintiff and elements of defense

from standpoint of defendant

In criminal case: Includes all matters

that prosecution must prove beyond

reasonable dout

Rules on Evidence must be liberally construed No vested right in the rules on evidence

oReason: Subject to change by the SC

o Change in rules is subject to constitutional limitation on theenactment of ex post facto laws

Waiver of the Rules on Evidence

May be waived -> objectionable evidence is not objected to, evidencebecomes admissible because of waiver

o Ex. Failure to object to hearsay evidence -> admissible Parties may stipulate waiving rules on evidence provided that:

o no law or principles of morality, good customs and public policyare transgressed, or

o no rights of third persons are violated Failure to object with respect to privileged communication involving

state secrets communicated to a public officer in official confidence ->

not be construed as waiver of the privileged character of the

communication

o Reason: Public policy considerationB.Admissibility of Evidence

Requisites for the Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is relevanto Requires existence of a fact in issue, a disputed facto

Evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)o Examples of Incompetent evidence:

Hearsay (Sec. 36, Rule 130) Privileged between husband and wife (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130) Oral evidence which does not conform to statute of frauds

(Art. 1403(2), Civil Code)

Those obtains in violation of constitutional guarantees (Sec3(2), Art. III, Philippine Constitution)

ZACARIA A. CANDAO, ABAS A. CANDAO AND ISRAEL B. HARON vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 186659-710 | October 19, 2011

Facts: The Sandiganbayan found herein petitioners guilty of malversation o

public funds under Art. 217 of the RPCfor illegal withdrawing from the

depository accounts of ORG-ARMMthrough the issuance of checks payable to

the order of petitioner Haron without the required disbursement vouchers.

Issue: W/N the equipoise rule is applicable in the case

Held: Petitioners did not accomplish the proper liquidation of the entire amount

withdrawn, during the expanded audit or any time thereafter. There i

therefore no merit in petitioners argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in no

applying the equipoise rule.

Equipoise rulewhere the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoiseor there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party

having the burden of proof loses.

It finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances arecapable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with

the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, fo

then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does

not suffice to produce a conviction.

Sec. 3 .Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and

is not excluded by the law of these rules

Sec. 2.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.

SECTION 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.


2/4


stSem, AY 20142015

2

Such is not the situation in this case because the prosecution was able to prove

by adequate evidence that Disbursing Officer Haron failed to account for funds

under his custody and control upon demand, specifically for the amount illegally

withdrawn from the said funds.

In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient

proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not

have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and that he

could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal

misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary in malversation cases.

Petition is denied.

ONG CHIA, petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF

APPEALS

G.R. No. 127240 | March 27, 2000

Facts:The Regional Trial Court admitted herein petitioner Ong Chia to Philippine

citizenship but however this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.In

this petition, Ong Chia assails that the CA gravely abused its discretion in ruling

that in naturalization cases, the appellate court can deny an application for

Philippine citizenship on the basis of the documents not presented before the

trial court and not forming part of the records of the case, as provided under

Sec. 34 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Issue: W/N petitioners contention is meritorious

Held: No

Based on Rule 143 of the Rules of Court, the rule on formal offer ofevidence (Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not

applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization.

The only instance when said rules may be applied by analogy orsuppletorily in such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient."

That is not the case here, since reliance upon the documents presented by the

State for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical and

convenient course of action considering that decisions in naturalization

proceedings are not covered by the rule on res judicata. Consequently, a final

favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later on moving for a

revocation of the grant of naturalization on the basis of the same documents.

Petitioner claims that as a result of the failure of the State to present and

formally offer its documentary evidence before the trial court, he was denied

the right to object against their authenticity, effectively depriving him of hisfundamental right to procedural due process.

The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which hasnot been formally offered is to afford the opposite party the chance to

object to their admissibility.

Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the right to object tothe authenticity of the documents submitted to the appellate court by

the State. He could have included his objections, as he, in fact, did, in

the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals

Petition is denied.

SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONet. al vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 148021 | December 6, 2006

Facts: This is a petition for review under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the

Decision of the Court of Appeals ,which affirmed the Resolution of the National

Labor Relations Commission, dismissing the consolidated complaints for illegal

lockout, illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against Sime Darby for lack of

merit. Herein petitioners now claim that the labor arbiter erred when it failed to

consider as admitted the matters contained in their Request for Admission after

respondents failed to file a sworn answer thereto.

Issue: W/N petitioners Request for Admission should have been granted and

the evidence included therein should have been admitted since respondents

reply/objection thereto were not made under oath

Held: No

Petitioner's request constitutes "an utter redundancy and a uselesspointless process which the respondent should not be subjected to."

o Rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended "to expeditetrial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which wil

not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained

by reasonable inquiry."

Well-settled is the rule that hearings and resolutions of labor disputesare not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence and

procedure observed in the regular courts of law. Technical rules of

procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by

analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need

to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and

convenient solution to a labor problem.

In view of the nature of the matters requested for admission by thepetitioners, their request for admission would have only served to

delay the proceedings.

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 110662 | August 4, 1994

Facts: Herein private respondent orally formally offered in evidence in an

annulment case against petitioner three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone

conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitione

submitted her Objection/Comment to private respondent's oral offer o

evidencewhich was denied.

A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals

assailing the admission in evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes. Thiswas also denied by the respondent court hence this petition.

Issue: W/N respondent Court is correct in ruling that a petition for certiorari is

notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence

adduced during trial.

Held: No

GR: The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available tochallenge an interlocutory order of a trial court.

o Proper remedy: Ordinary appeal from an adverse judgmentincorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the

interlocutory order

o XPN: Where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneousand the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and

expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode o

redress

In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order admitting all of the

evidence offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of telephone

conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons.

Rep. Act No. 4200makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence > CA failed to consider

Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephoneconversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility o

the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. 129296 | September 25, 2000

Facts:For automatic review is the decision by the RTC finding herein appellan

guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous DrugsAct of 1972, i.e. in flagrante delicto and without authority of law, did then and

there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously plant, cultivate and culture seven fully

grown marijuana plants.

Herein appellant assails such decision contending that the trial court gravely

erred in admitting as evidence the marijuana plants despite their inadmissibility

being products of illegal search, thus failure to prove his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt.

Issue: W/N prosecutions evidence is sufficient to prove appellant's guilt

Held: No

It is fundamental in criminal prosecutions that before an accused maybe convicted of a crime, the prosecution must establish by proo


3/4


stSem, AY 20142015

3

beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the

accused is the author thereof.

o Evidence arrayed against the accused, however, must not onlystand the test of reason, it must likewise be credible and

competent.

o Competent evidence is "generally admissible" evidence.o Admissible evidence, in turn, is evidence "of such a character that

the court or judge is bound to receive it, that is, allow it to be

introduced at trial.

In the instant case, the trial court relied on two pieces of probative matter to

convict appellant of the offense charged:

The seized marijuana plants -> in violation of appellant's constitutionalrights against unreasonable searches and seizures

Appellant's purportedly voluntary confession of ownership of saidmarijuana plants to the police ->not only hearsay but also violative of

the Bill of Rights (without counsel)

Other than these proofs, there was no other evidence presented to link

appellant with the offense charged. In sum, both the object evidence and the

testimonial evidence as to appellant's voluntary confession of ownership of the

prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant's guilt failed to meet the test of

Constitutional competence.

CECILIA ZULUETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN

G.R. No. 107383| February 20, 1996

Facts: Herein petitioner used as evidence the documents and papers she seized

from private respondent in a case for legal separation and for disqualificationfrom the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.

An action for recovery was then filed by Martin which was granted by the trial

court and affirmed by herein respondent court. Hence this petition.

Issue: W/N the documents and papers seized by petitioner from the respondent

is admissible, citing the case ofAlfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.

Held: No

The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communicationand correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply

because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's

infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is

to be enforced.

o XPN: There is a "lawful order from a court or when public safetyor order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained

inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GODOFREDO B. ADOR and DIOSDADO B. ADOR

G.R. Nos. 140538-39| June 14, 2004

Facts: Herein defendants, convicted of murder of Abe Cuya, contend in this

appeal that the trial court gravely erred in convicting them of murder based on

circumstantial evidence: The testimony of prosecution witness Pablo Calsis that

he saw them running away from the scene of the crime was concocted. The

handgun turned in by Godofredo was not the same gun presented by the

prosecution during the trial. The unusual discovery of a slug from the head of

the deceased - three (3) days after the autopsy was conducted and after the

cadaver was turned over to the family of the victim - was quite doubtful. Eventhe supposed dying declaration of the victim specifically pointed to neither

Diosdado III nor Godofredo; and, the trial court erred in admitting in evidence

those taken against them in violation of their constitutional rights to counsel

during custodial investigation.

Issue: W/N circumstantial evidence presented against defendants is sufficient to

convict them of murder

Held: No

The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantialevidence to support its conclusion of guilt. It may be the basis of a

conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances

proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

All the circumstances must be consistent with each other:o Consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty

of the offense charged, and at the same time

o Inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocenand with every other possible, rational hypothesis excep

that of guilt

For circumstantial evidence to suffice:o there should be more than one circumstance;o the facts from which the inferences are derived are

proven; and

o the combination of all the circumstances is such as toproduce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence onrecord are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the

circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the

accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

Guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence:o it should be acted upon with caution;o all the essential facts must be consistent with the

hypothesis of guilt;

o the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; ando the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the

accused as to convince the judgment beyond a

reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who

committed the offense

Measured against the guidelines set, we cannot uphold the conviction of the

accused based on the circumstantial evidence presented.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUEL BACONGUIS y INSON

G.R. No. 149889 | December 2, 2003

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

G.R. No. 150224 | May 19, 2004

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MORENO L. TUMIMPAD

G.R. No. 109144 |August 19, 1994

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL SARTAGODA y BOCANEGRA

G.R. No. 97525 | April 7, 1993

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME CARPO, OSCAR IBAO, WARLITO IBAO and

ROCHE IBAO

G.R. No. 132676 | April 4, 2001

Facts:

Issue:

Held:


4/4


stSem, AY 20142015

4

notes on evtt

Documents