Suggested Answers in Remedial Law
Pointers (Finals)
1. What is evidence?
Evidence is the means sanctioned by the
Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court)
2. Distinguish factum probandum
from factum probans.
Factum probandum is the fact to be proved;
the fact which is in issue and to which the
evidence is directed. (Black's Law Dictionary)
On the other hand, factum probans is the
probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove
the fact in issue. (ibid.)
3. What are the grounds for new trial
in criminal cases?
The court shall grant a new trial on any of the
following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused have been committed during the
trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has
been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered
and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably
change the judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 121, Rules
of Court)
4. Discuss briefly the following:
a. Object Evidence
Object as evidence are those addressed to the
senses of the court. When an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
b. Documentary Evidence
Documents as evidence consists of writings
or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expressions offered as proof of their
contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
c. Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial or oral evidence elicited from the
mouth of a witness as distinguished from real
and documentary evidence. (Black's Law
Dictionary)
It is sometimes called viva voce evidence
which literally means "living voice" or by
word of mouth. In this kind of evidence, a
human being is called to the stand, is asked
questions, and answers the questions asked
of him. The person who gives the testimony is
called a witness. (Riano[2009])
d. Relevant Evidence
Evidence to be relevant must have such
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
in its existence or non-existence. (See Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Rules of Court)
The concept of relevance is clearly one of
logic. It deals with the rational relationship
between the evidence and the fact to be
proved. The evidence adduced should be
directed to the matters in dispute and any
evidence which has neither direct nor
indirect relationship to such matters must be
set aside as irrelevant. (Riano, 2009)
e. Material Evidence
Material evidence is a fact or issue of a case or
enquiry that can affect its conclusion or
outcome have a significant relationship with
this type of proof or testimony. (Black's Law
Dictionary)
f. Competent Evidence
Competent evidence is one that is not
excluded by law in a particular case. (Moran,
J.)
The test of competence is the law or the rules.
If the law or a particular rule excludes the
evidence, it is incompetent. (Riano[2009])
g. Direct Evidence
Direct evidence means evidence which if
believed, proves the existence of a fact in
issue without inference or assumption.
(Black's Law Dictionary)
h. Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence that
indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established. (People vs Matito,
423 SCRA 617)
In this type of evidence, the court uses a fact
from which an assumption is drawn.
(Riano[2009])
i. Cumulative Evidence
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the
same kind and character as that already given
and that tends to prove the same proposition.
(Moran, J.)
j. Corroborative Evidence
Corroborative evidence is one that is
supplementary to that already given tending
to strengthen or confirm it. It is additional
evidence of a different character to the same
point. (Black's Law Dictionary)
k. Prima Facie Evidence
A prima facie evidence is that which is (1) an
established fact but not conclusive, or (2)
supportive of a judgment until the
presentation of contradictory evidence.
(Black's Law Dictionary)
l. Conclusive Evidence
Conclusive evidence is that which cannot be
contradicted by any other evidence. It is so
strong as to overbear any other evidence to
the contrary. The evidence is of such a nature
that it compels a fact-finder to come to a
certain conclusion.
m. Primary Evidence
Primary evidence is that which is applied to
the best evidence that is available, e.g.
original document. (Black's Law Dictionary)
n. Secondary Evidence
Secondary evidence refers to evidence other
than the original instrument or document
itself. (EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc.
vs BF Corporation, G.R. No. 145873, June 27,
2008)
o. Positive Evidence
Evidence is said to be positive when a witness
affirms in the stand that a certain state of
facts does exist or that a certain event
happened. (Riano[2009])
p. Negative Evidence
Evidence is said to be negative when the
witness states that an event did not occur or
that the state of facts alleged to exist does not
actually exist. (ibid.)
q. Hearsay Evidence
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative
force depends, in whole or in part, on the
competency and credibility of some persons
other than the witness by whom it is sought
to produce it. (Estrada vs Desierto, 356 SCRA
108)
5.
a. What is "best evidence rule"?
Best evidence rule states that the original of a
writing must, as a general proposition, be
produced. (EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort,
Inc. vs BF Corporation, G.R. No. 145873, June
27, 2008)
b. What are the exceptions to the best
evidence rule?
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself,
except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost, or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against whom
the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general
result of the whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in
the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office. (Sec. 3, Rule 130, Rules of
Court)
6.
a. What is a confession?
A confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein. (Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rules of
Court)
It is a statement by the accused that he
engaged in conduct which constitutes a crime.
(Riano[2009])
b. What are the requirements for a
confession?
(1) Any extrajudicial confession made by
a person arrested, detained, or under
custodial investigation shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his
counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid
waiver, and in the presence of any of the
parents, older brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
be inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding (Sec. 2[d], R.A. No. 7438);
(2) The confession must be corroborated
by evidence of corpus delicti. (Sec. 3, Rule 133,
Rules of Court)
NOTE: Corpus delicti is the "body of the
crime" or the offense. It means the actual
commission of t he crime and someone
criminally responsible therefor.
(Riano[2009])

c. When is a confession admissible?

The basic test for the validity of a confession

is was it voluntarily and freely made. The
term voluntary means that the accused
speaks of his free will and accord, without
inducement of any kind, and with a full and
complete knowledge of the nature and
consequences of the confession, and when the
speaking is so free from influences affecting
the will of the accused, at the time the
confession was made, that it renders it
admissible in evidence against him.

Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in

evidence hinges on its voluntariness.

The voluntariness of a confession may be

inferred from its language such that if, upon
its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious
circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its
integrity, it being replete with details which
could only be supplied by the accused
reflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may
be considered voluntary. (People vs Satorre,
G.R. No. 133858. August 12, 2003)