Rules on Evidence - Part 1

0:02 good evening everyone welcome to this lecture series on the rules on evidence so our first topic will be rule 1 to 8 general provisions evidence evidence is the means sanctioned by the rules of court of ascertaining in the judicial preceding the truth respecting a matter of fact so please memorize this definition under section 1 of rule 1 to 8. there are four components of of component elements of evidence first evidence as understood under the rules of court is a means or a methodology of discovery of the truth it is a means of

0:49 ascertainment meaning evidence class is not the end in itself but a means to an end and what is that end the end or objective of evidence is to discover the truth it includes not only the procedure or manner of ascertainment but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth respecting a matter of fact may be a certain when you say evidentiary fact class these are facts which are established by evidence before a court of law so the first component of evidence is that it is a means of assertment means a means of ascertainment it is not only the procedure but also the evidentiary fact

1:36 from which the truth respect respecting a matter of fact may be a certain the second component element of evidence is that it is sanctioned by the rules so when you say sanctioned by the rules it means not excluded by the rules of court when you say evidence this will presuppose that a piece of proof or piece of evidence is admitted in court in the study of rules of evidence we will go into the different rules which the court will have to observe before an evidence can be admitted in court if an evidence or the act of obtaining or procuring

2:24 evidence violates the constitution for example then the evidence may not be admitted in court i will give you an example under section 2 article 3 of the bill of rights now the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is grant is guaranteed when you say write against unreasonable searches and seizures this this means that a person may not be arrested without a warrant of arrest or his personal effects or his house for example may not be searched without a search warrant as a general rule now if a person is subjected to an unlawful

3:10 arrest or unlawful search then any evidence obtained pursuant to such arrests or such unreasonable search may not be admitted in court in other words evidence when obtained in violation of the provisions of the constitution and all other laws becomes admit inadmissible in evidence they may not be admitted in court because again the second component of element of evidence rather is that an evidence must be sanctioned or allowed by the rules now you will ask me where do you apply the rules on evidence the third component element of evidence is that it

3:56 must be in a judicial proceeding when you say judicial proceeding it contemplates an action or proceeding filed in a court of law so the rules on evidence apply only in a court of law so for example you are very much familiar with the preliminary investigation not before the office of the city prosecutor the office of the city prosecutor is under the department of justice and a prosecutor or the department of justice is not a court of law so technically speaking the rigid rules on evidence not the technical rules on evidence will not

4:41 apply during preliminary investigation simply because the third element or third component element of evidence is that it is applicable only in a judicial proceeding so other proceedings such as preliminary investigation no you you do not apply the rules on evidence then fourth and lastly the fourth component element of evidence is that it pertains to the truth respecting a matter of a fact now class do you will you will ask me why do you need to present evidence in court well the answer to that is found under the

5:28 constitution under the constitution a person is presumed innocent unless otherwise prove unless proven guilty no so every person is presumed by law as innocent and low abiding citizens and because the constitution presumes a person to be innocent then the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the shoulder of the prosecution it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime charge and not the other way around now the only way by which the guilt of an accused can be proven is through the presentation of evidence admitted in

6:16 court now what is the scope of the rules of evidence the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings accept as otherwise provided by the by law or by these rules it is the it is guided by the principle of uniformity the principle of uniformity class provides that the rules on evidence shall be applied in all court proceedings and in all trial courts and trial hearings no or or hearings rather now it is a system of uniformity which needs which means that all courts must follow uniformly or in the same manner as all trial courts in the philippines okay

7:06 now the rules on evidence not do not apply to election cases land registration cadastral proceedings naturalization and in insolvency proceedings and other cases except by analogy or suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient now at this early class i will already inform you that the rules on evidence is very technical in nature when you say technical in nature in case that there is a slight deviation from what the law requires an evidence to be admissible then that evidence will automatically become inadmissible meaning it may not be

7:51 admitted in court so the rules on evidence do not apply in this legal proceedings and you have to memorize these proceedings because in these proceedings the law on evidence or the rules on evidence rather do not apply so first land registration cadastral proceedings naturalization and insolvency proceedings however the rules on evidence apply to these proceedings except by analogy or in a supletory character what do you mean by that the rules on evidence will only apply in these three proceedings in these four proceedings rather when there is absence of a specific rule in those proceedings

8:39 meaning it is it can be applied not in in the absence of a specific provision in those proceedings now evidence in civil cases the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by by preponderance of evidence now class the quantum of evidence or the weight of evidence required differs on the nature of the complaint for example in civil cases the quantum of evidence or the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence when you say preponderance of evidence the evidence of a party is greater

9:25 or having or having more weight than the other so in preponderance of evidence for example this is the evidence of the plaintiff this is the evidence of the prosecution preponderance means that the party having the burden of proof has a greater weight of evidence no meaning in tagalog preponderance means la mancha in civil cases offer of compromise is not admission of liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offer and then the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply tandano class for example plaintiff will file a complaint against

10:10 the defendant if the parties entered or entered into a compromise agreement or settlement then the party will not be considered by the court as having admitted the complaint filed by the complainant now an offer of compromise no is not an evidence that there is an admission that the other party is liability okay how about evidence in criminal cases in criminal cases the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt so in civil cases the the standard proof or the required proof the quantum of evidence is preponderance of evidence

10:57 but in criminal cases the guilt of the accused has to be established beyond reasonable doubt this is the highest weight or quantum of evidence now class in criminal cases the offer of compromise or settlement by the accused can be received and in evidence as an implied admission of guilt remember that distinction and that the accused in a criminal case enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence now let us distinguish between proof and evidence no proof is the effect no while evidence is the cause or modern manner

11:44 proof is the effect when the requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given way while evidence is the mode and manner of providing competent facts in a judicial proceedings so class evidence is the cause or the reason no it is the the uh the evidentiary fact what proof class is the effect of evidence no proof the probiotic proof is the probative effect of evidence while evidence is the means of proof what about factual is the ultimate fact sought to be

12:29 established while fartun provence is the intermediate facts factum probandum is the proposition to be established well factual province is the materials or are the materials which establish the proposition factum probandum is hypothetical while factum province is in existence so class when you say factual this is the ultimate fact that a party must establish before the court so for example the prosecution in filing a complaint for violation of article of for commission rather of article 315 of the levis penal code or

13:14 estafa the ultimate fact or facts that the prosecution needs to prove is that number one there was fraud or deceit there was a damage on the part of the respondent so these are the elements of the crime or the ultimate facts that the prosecution needs to be established this is what you call as factual this is the proposition so to be established by the prosecution factum provence class is the intermediate facts it is the materials which establish the proposition and it is in existence now evidentiary question involves the relationship between the factum probandum and the fact problems

14:02 let us go to admissibility of evidence class under a distinction or difference between admissibility and probative value of an evidence when you say admissibility of evidence this is the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all while property value is the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue so class before the court can weigh an evidence it must be first admitted no no evidence which was not admitted by the court can be given with us

15:18 if the evidence was unlawfully obtained then the evidence becomes inadmissible

16:04 of whether the admitted evidence can prove an issue thus a particular item of evidence can be admissible but the evidentiary weight depends on the calibration by the judge within the guidelines provided by the rules on evidence again class depending on what credibility now what are the requisites for admissibility of evidence number one relevancy number two competency relevancy is such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its

16:51 existence or non-existence competency is when evidence is not excluded by law or by the rules it is a relation to the fact an issue as to believe in its existence or non-existence estafa so there is insanity now is that evidence relevant to the facting issue is the sanity of a person relevant

17:37 to the issue of whether or not there was the commission of the crime of estafa it would appear that it is not so when when evidence is not relevant it may not be admitted in court no unless that evidence of insanity will affect the mental condition of the accused at that time that the transaction was entered into between the parties but then again class mental sanity in itself or by itself is not relevant to the issue of estafa for example now second is competency and evidence is competent if it is not excluded by law or by the rules

18:27 for example it was unlawfully obtained for example my wiretapping if the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitution or the law then that evidence is inadmissible in court meaning it may not be admitted by the court now if that evidence is inadmissible by the court then antagonize is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree the court will consider that evidence as poisonous it is a fruit of the poisonous thing no okay okay so there are two actions of admissibility according to wigmore so

19:14 papa admit some evidence of relevancy meaning there is a rational probative value no or rational connection between the evidence and the fact and issue and then action of competency meaning it is not excluded by the rules under competent of relevancy it must have materiality and probativeness okay now relevancy means that the evidence has a relation it has a logical connection to the fact and issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence now class

19:59 evidence on collateral matters and ebooks obenian class when you say evidence on collateral for example in prosecution of 9165 or the dangerous drugs act no direct evidence but for example you evidence on collateral matters for example social media under the influence of a drugs is that a

20:46 direct evidence on drug selling or illegal sale of drugs no it is not a direct evidence because the uh the facebook post that the accused made now showing that he might be in a uh influence of drugs is not a direct evidence that there was illegal sale of drugs but question can it be presented in court no evidence on collateral matters as a general rule is not allowed hindi and wedding dinner but there is an exception evidence on

21:32 collateral matters can be presented when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the

22:24 for example uh merengue video united states of america and then the crime of murder happened in manila question is the video that the uh the accused is biking in the united states a direct evidence that he did not commit the crime of murder it will up it would appear in hindi evidence why because

23:12 evidence on collateral matters is admissible if it will establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue no okay so these are the kinds of admissibility of evidence multiple not meaning it can be presented for all purposes or the uh evidence is plainly relevant and competent for two or more purposes or objective and then conditional no and evidence can be admitted conditionally meaning evidence appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court subject to the condition that its connection

23:58 with another subsequent to be proved will be established and then curative when evidence that is otherwise improper is admitted to contradict improper evidence presented or introduced by the other party okay so we will not go here this is for the law students okay determination of the application of rule of curative admissibility we will leave that to the law students okay now class what is a direct evidence direct evidence and collateral evidence direct evidence and when direct evidence when you say direct evidence it establishes the

24:43 existence of a parking issue without aid of any influence or presumption or any inference or presumption the witness testifies directly of his own knowledge as to the main facts to be proved what about circumstantial evidence a circumstantial evidence does not prove the existence of a fighting issue directly but nearly provides for logical influence that such fact really exists for example class is a crime of murder and direct evidence if there is an eyewitness testimony for example

25:31 direct evidence circumstantial evidence for that testimony no may not be direct meaning the witness did not see a stabbing bee but since because the witness saw a living the crime the crime scene or the scene of the crime and then upon entering he saw be lying on the ground

26:17 no with a bloodbath then there is an inference there is a logical presumption or logical inference that a is the culprit of the crime of murder of be so inattentive nothing circumstantial evidence india direct pero it can provide for legal inference that such fact really exists

27:08 using circumstantial evidence only and there is no direct evidence available answer yes circumstantial evidence as long as these requisites are present number one there is more than one circumstance number two the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven and number three the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt class memorize these three requisites uncircumstantial evidence poetic convicts more than one circumstance number two the facts from which the inferences are

27:53 derived are proven young manga fact is sufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt let us go to positive evidence and negative evidence when you say positive evidence this is a kind of evidence when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur okay it is entitled to a great weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a

28:39 fact negative evidence is when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact and there is total disclaimer of personal knowledge so class muslim positive evidence now it is affirmation affirmation but synonymous negative evidence it is this affirmation or this a vowel of knowledge no okay denial of evidence is a negative evidence okay competent evidence and credible evidence a competent evidence is evidence which is not excluded by the rules while a credible evidence is referring to the worthiness of belief or believability or credibility of a

29:26 witness so this is this ends our presentation on rule 128 i'll see you again next meeting thank you and have a nice day you