Jurisprudence - Rape

EVIDENCE
Introduction
Definition – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.)
Scope of applicability – 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. (Rule 128, Sec 2.)
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a
judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc.
In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a general
denial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL
CASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime.
The Rules on evidence are not self-executing. So the rule is any evidence submitted will be
admitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It does
not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of the case.
DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES

BASIS Criminal Civil Case
Case
Quantum of Proof Preponderance
Proof Beyond of evidence
Reasonable
Doubt
Executive Privilege- members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to
disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations
or procedures of the executive branch.
FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS
Factum Probandum-proposition to be established. The fact/s in issue.
Factum Probans- materials evidencing the proposition
EVIDENCE vs. PROOF
Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or
persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the latter.
Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof.
I. Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence.

A. Relevance –
The evidence has 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. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.)
- In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law nor the rules of court. It is determined purely by
LOGIC.
B. Not excluded by the law, rules or the Constitution (Competence) –

The evidence is not excluded by the law or the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3.)
 Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS from COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The COMPETENCY TEST
of evidence applies to the TESTIMONY of the qualified witness.
Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter
probable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as
determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is not
excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995)
Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution
1.1 Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
1.2 Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means, which vitiate the
free will, shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him.
Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
This right is recognized under the Rules on Evidence, which provides that, it is the right of a
witness not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4), Rule 132, ROC)
NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human body could be used as evidence without violating the
right. Mechanical acts without the use of intelligence do not fall within the scope of the protection.
Some of the acts which are not covered by the right of self-incrimination are the following:
a. Fingerprinting, photographing nd paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v. Tang, 23

Phil. 145_)
b. Physical examination of a woman accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant.
(U.S. v. On Suy Hon, 36 Phil. 735; Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62)
c. Undergoing ultra-violet rays examination to determine presence of flourescent powder on
the hands. (People v. Tranca, 35 SCRA 455)
d. Subpoena directing government officials to produce official documents or public records in
their custody.
e. Fitting the accused foot over a foot print, putting on a pair of trousers, etc.
2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion
2.1 R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) –

Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken work by
using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described. x x
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained
or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or

the other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as
“tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 1986)
RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence

absent a clear showing that both parties to the phone conversations allowed the recording. (Salcedo-
OrtaÒez vs. CA, 1994)
Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs. Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence
Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a

fact in issue. It does not directly relate to a fact in issue.
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. These are not allowed
unless satisfy ALL the requirements of relevancy.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat left by the accused in the place of the crime
b. The resemblance of a child to his alleged father to prove paternity of the latter
c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the person charged with a crime
d. The destruction or fabrication of evidence
e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Non-flight is not conclusive proof of innocence)
f. Delay in the identification of victim’s assailant
Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law

Inadmissible- not competent and irrelevant
Immaterial- the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum which is not properly in
issue.
Material evidence- proves a main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance
which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen
the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credibility of any
witness who testifies.
Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact without need to make inference from another fact
Example: The testimony of the prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it was actually
the deceased who attacked the accused without the latter’s provocation is a direct evidence.
Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established.
Example: The testimony of a witness that the accused was the last person seen accompanying
the victim.
Testimony of a witness that he saw the accused 10 meters away from the area where
the victim was found dead.
IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when:

a. There is more than one circumstance
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt (Sec. 4 Rule 133)
Cumulative v. Corroborative
Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends to prove the same fact
Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first witness claimed he
saw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative

Jurisprudence - Rape

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurisprudence - Rape

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurisprudence - Rape

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE

DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES

FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS

Factum Probandum-proposition to be established. The fact/s in issue.

Factum Probans- materials evidencing the proposition

EVIDENCE vs. PROOF

Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof.

I. Requisites of Admissibility of Evidence.

B. Not excluded by the law, rules or the Constitution (Competence) –

Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

a. Fingerprinting, photographing nd paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v. Tang, 23

2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion

2.1 R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) –

An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or

RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence

Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs. Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence

Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a

Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law

Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence

IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when:

You might also like