Evidence Syllabus
Evidence Syllabus
COURSE : Criminology
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this topic, the students will:
a. Know the definition of evidence and its classification.
b. Know the rules on admissibility of object, documentary and testimonial
evidence under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
c. Know the rules on admissibility of DNA and Electronic evidence.
d. Know the rules on admissibility of videotaped testimony of child
witness.
e. Know the other rules on admissibility of evidence found under the Bill
of Rights of the 1987 constitution.
f. Know the rules on admissibility of evidence under special laws.
g. Know what is weight and sufficiency of evidence.
SESSION:
A. Definition of Evidence
B. Classification of Evidence
C. Relevancy
D. Direct / Circumstantial
E. Cumulative / Corroborative
F. Prima Facie / Conclusive
G. Primary / Secondary
H. Admissibility of Evidence (RULE 130)
I. Object Evidence
II. Documentary Evidence
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Parol Evidence Rule
1
e. Public officer
3. Testimonial privilege
a. Admission
b. Offer of compromise
c. Admissions by third party
d. Admission by Silence
e. Confession
f. Distinction between admission and confession
g. Previous conduct as evidence
h. Testimonial Knowledge
a. General rule: Personal knowledge, hearsay
excluded.
Exceptions: (Selected only)
1. Dying Declaration (Ante Mortem
Statement)
2. Part of Res gestae
3. Entries in official records
4. Declaration against interest
5. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding
6.
i. Opinion Rule
j. Character Evidence
CASES:
1. Napocor Vs. Judge Codilla, et. al., (G.R.No. 170491, April 4, 2007)
The issue to be resolved is whether or not xerox copies/photocopies
are considered electronic documents.
2. MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v Ssangyong Corp., G.R. 170633.
The issue to be resolved is whether or not facsimile transmission falls
under the definition of Electronic Date Message.
3. Pp V. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007 & April 16, 2009.
(The first case wherein the Supreme court applied DNA evidence)
4. Ladiaga V. People, 393 SCRA 419.
Issues:
a. Whether or not a counter-affidavit submitted during preliminary
investigation is admissible. Petitioner argues that no counsel was
2
present when the affidavit was executed, thus it is inadmissible
because it violates Sec 12, article III of the Constitution.
b. Distinction between admission and confession.
5. People v. Ador, 432 SCRA 1 (Situation wherein the S.C. said that
circumstantial evidence is not substantial.)
6. People v. Mansueto, 336 SCRA 715 (Situation wherein the S.C. said
that circumstantial evidence is substantial.)
7. People vs. Baring, G. R. No. 133933 dtd 28 Jan 2002
Issues:
a. Whether or not the medical certificate is necessary to convict the
accused for the crime of rape.
b. Whether or not the method in conducting physical/medical
examination by the doctor is proper by inserting his small finger to
the external vaginal orifice of the victim.