LESSON 3 : Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 128, Section 3.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 128; Section 4.

Not all evidence will be allowed by the court to prove the allegations or denials of the
parties to a case. To be allowed, the evidence must satisfy the two criteria of relevance
and competence.

Relevance

Under Rule 128, Section 4, evidence is relevant if it has "a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence!" From this rule, we gather that
there are two components of relevance. First, relevant evidence has a relation to the
fact in issue. If there is a relationship between the evidence and the fact in issue, then
the evidence is material. Second, relevant evidence can lead us to believe in the
existence or non-existence of the fact in issue. If the evidence supports our belief that
the alleged fact exists, then the evidence has probative value.

Competence

In addition to relevance, admissible evidence must also be competent. Under Rule 128,
Section 3, evidence is competent if it "is not excluded by the law or these rules." If a
piece of evidence is disqualified by the law or the Rules of Court, then it is not
competent and will be inadmissible.

Conditional Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence may appear to be irrelevant or even incompetent at the time it was offered.
Therefore, to be allowed to present the evidence despite its apparent irrelevance or
incompetence, the party presenting it may respectfully ask the court to admit the
evidence on the condition that its relevance or competence will be proved at a later
time, usually with the aid of supporting evidence. If the supporting evidence convinces
the court of the relevance and competence of the evidence conditionally admitted, then
the latter can be fully admitted.

Curative Admissibility of Evidence

Sometimes, the court admits otherwise inadmissible evidence because no timely

objection was raised against it. Evidence must be objected to when it is formally offered
to the court. In instances where a timely objection is not made, the failure of the
opposing party to object cures the irrelevance or incompetence of the evidence offered.
Lesson 4: Presentation of Evidence

Offer

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (C), Section 34.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (C), Section 35.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (C), Section 40.

Ruling

Legal Basis

• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (C), Section 38.

The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented;
but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the
ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if
the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one
or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.

Presentation of Witnesses

Legal Basis

• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 1. Examination to be done in

open court.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 2. Proceedings to be
recorded.

Swearing in

After the court has allowed the testimony of the witness, the witness will then be sworn
in. This means that the witness will take an oath or affirmation in open court. An oath is
a promise to tell the truth before a supreme being and is thus viewed as religious, while
an affirmation is a promise to tell the truth without mention of any supreme being and is
thus viewed as non-religious.

• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 4. Order in the examination of
an individual witness.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 5. Direct examination.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 6. Cross-examination;
 • Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 7, Re-direct examination;
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 8. Re-cross examination.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 132 (A), Section 9. Recalling witness.

Examination of Witnesses

During the examination of a witness, the opposing parties are given the
opportunity to ask witnesses their questions that prove the allegations of the party.

Round Examination Who Asks Questions

1 Direct Presenting Party
Cross Opposing Party
2 Re-direct Presenting Party
Re-cross Opposing Party

The examination of witnesses conducted by the party presenting the evidence-in-

chief is called direct examination. In criminal cases, it is the prosecution that is
typically given the first opportunity to present a witness unless the court orders a
reverse trial, where the defense presents evidence first).

As a matter of due process, the opposing party is given the opportunity to

question the presenting party's witness. This questioning by the opposing party is called
the cross-examination. In criminal cases, after the prosecution has completed the
direct examination, the defense will then be given the opportunity to do a cross-
examination. Cross-examination, however, is not mandatory upon the opposing party.
Otherwise put, the opposing party may choose not to cross-examine the witness.

If upon cross-examination, the witness testifies about something that the

presenting party feels the need to clarify, the presenting party can take the opportunity
to do a re-direct examination after the cross-examination is concluded. If the
presenting party chooses to dò away with a re-direct examination, then the examination
of the witness is completed.

Leading and Misleading Questions

During cross-examination or re-cross examination, the Rules recognize that the

witness may be adverse to the opposing party or even behave with hostility. To
counteract this, the Rules allow the opposing party to ask leading questions: Leading
questions are questions that lead to or suggest the desired answer to the witness.

Judicial Affidavit Rule

The Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) took effect on 1 January 2013. A normal court
proceeding will take around three to five or even more years to be fully decided.
Legal Basis

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 2.

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 3.
• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 4.

A judicial affidavit is a statement of a witness given under, oath, intended to take the
place of their testimony in court given during direct examination. Otherwise said, it is the
question-and-answer exchange of the counsel and the witness in written form offered as
evidence for the party's case.

Scope and Application to Criminal Cases

The JAR applies to first-level courts (MeTC, MTCC, MTC), Regional Trial Courts, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and other appellate courts. The JAR also
applies to investigating officers authorized to receive evidence, including police
investigators. Police investigators, however, must conduct the examination of the
witness under the supervision of a lawyer, who also administers the oath to both the
witness-affiant and the police investigator.

Legal Basis

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 1

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 4
• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9

Failure to Submit Judicial Affidavit

The 2019 amendments to the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure impliedly amended the
JAR via Rule 7, Section 6. Under this section, the attachment of the witnesses judicial
affidavits to the pleadings is mandatory. If the witnesses' judicial affidavits are not
attached to the pleadings, then the witnesses will not be allowed to testify in court. The
belated submission of a witness' judicial affidavit will only be allowed once, provided
there is a meritorious reason, and the fine between P1,000 and P5,000 set by the court
is paid.

Legal Basis

• Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7, Section 6.

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 10.
• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 3.
• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 4.

Failure to Appear
Legal Basis

• Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 10.

If the judicial affidavit of the witness-affiant has been submitted, but the witness-
affiant fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the court will still not consider the
witness-affiant's judicial affidavit. Because the judicial affidavit only replaces the
witness-affiant's direct examination, there remains a need for the witness-affiant to
appear and to submit themselves to cross-examination by the opposing party.

Lesson 5: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 1.

The burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence to establish his or her
claim. In other words, the party who is making the allegations has the burden or duty to
prove his or her allegations. On the other hand, the burden of evidence is the duty of a
party to present evidence to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie
case.

Prima face case. 1. The establishment of a legally required rebuttable

presumption.
2. A party's production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier
to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party's favor.

Standards of Proof

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 1.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 2.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 6.
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 7.

Substantial evidence is the least quantum of proof required by the Rules. It is

applicable in administrative actions, which, unlike judicial actions, do not include.
conducting full-blown trials and are meant to be concluded with greater speed. An
administrative body can render a decision on the basis that the evidence presented is
evidence "which a reasonable might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."

Confessions in Criminal Cases

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Section 34.
 • Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 3.

Confessions may either be judicial or extrajudicial. Judicial confessions are

confessions of the accused admitting guilt given in open court during the course of the
proceedings. Extrajudicial confessions are confessions of the accused admitting guilt
given outside of court proceedings, most commonly during a custodial investigation. A
judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no
sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted
to do so by truth and conscience. On the other hand, extrajudicial confessions by
themselves cannot stand as the sole proof of the accused's guilt. For extrajudicial
confessions to be considered by the court, the prosecution must also prove the corpus
delicti or the body of the crime.

Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases

Legal Basis
• Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 4.

When there is no direct evidence of the crime, the ruling of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt may be based on circumstantial evidence. When pieces of circumstantial
evidence compromise an unbroken chain of events and prove the facts upon which
inferences as to the commission of the crime may be made, then there is a basis for
judgment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.