Anda di halaman 1dari 7


Concepcion, Alain Kris

Chavez, Kathrynna

Concepcion, Alain Kris

Chavez, Kathrynna

What is Evidence?
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact (Section 1, Rule 128, Revised
Rules on Evidence, Approved March 14, 1989).

What is Evidence?
The law of evidence deals with the rules to be followed in presenting a matter of
fact to a court for its use in a judicial investigation. It prescribes the manner of
presenting evidence personally by one who knows the thing, subject to cross-
examination, or by means of a deposition. It fixes the qualifications and the
privileges of witnesses, and the mode of examining them. And chiefly, it
determines, as among probative matters, what classes of things shall not be
received (Chamberlaine, Trial Evidence 9).

What is Evidence?
The 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 128).
The Philippine law on evidence is fundamentally a procedural law (Bustos vs.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640).

Forms of Evidence
1) Real evidence—is
evidence—is that which is addressed to the sense of the tribunal such as
objects presented to the court for inspection. It speaks for itself and the
most trustworthy type of evidence (Gilbert, Law on Evidence).
2) Documentary evidence—is
evidence—is that which is supplied by written instruments, or
derived from symbols by which ideas are represented on material substances
(22 C.J. 791).
3) Testimonial evidence—is
evidence—is the testimony given in court or the deposition by
one who has observed that to which he is testifying; or one who, though he
has not observed the facts, is nevertheless qualified to give an opinion
relative to such facts.
4) Demonstrative evidence - is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or
illustrates the testimony of a witness.

Types or Kinds of Evidence

1) Direct or positive evidence—is
evidence—is that which proves the fact in dispute directly
without need of any inference or presumption. If true, it will be conclusive
of the disputed fact, (Jones on Evidence, 2nd Ed. 16).
2) Indirect or circumstantial evidence—is
evidence—is that which tends to establish a fact by
proving another fact. It does not of itself conclusively establish a disputed
fact, but merely creates an inference or presumption of its existence.
3) Cumulative evidence—is
evidence—is that additional evidence of the same kind, and to
the same state of facts. It verifies or repeats the direct evidence already
obtained, (Ibid.)
4) Corroborative evidence—is
evidence—is the additional evidence of a different character
to the same point, (Ibid).
5) Judicial evidence—includes
evidence—includes all testimony given by witnesses in court, all
documents produced and read by the court, and all things personally
examined by the court for the purpose of proof, (Ibid).
6) Extra-judicial evidence—includes
evidence—includes all evidential facts which are known to the
courts only by way of inference from some form of judicial evidence (Ibid).
7) Prima facie evidence—is
evidence—is that which, standing alone, unexplained or
uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. It is that
which is sufficient to establish a fact; and if not rebutted, remains sufficient
for that purpose (Ibid).
8) Conclusive evidence—is
evidence—is that which the law does not allow to be
contradicted, as in the case of a conclusive presumption (Ibid).
9) Primary or best evidence—is
evidence—is that which affords the greatest certainty of the
fact in question, (Ibid).
10) Secondary evidence—is
evidence—is that which is inferior to a primary evidence, and
which upon its face shows that better evidence exists.

Judicial Notice
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already know them. It means no more than that the
court will bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the facts, its knowledge
of those matters of public concern which are known by all well- informed
persons (31 CJS 509).

Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
rules of evidence (see, Sec. 3, Rule 128).

What is Admission?
An admission is an act, declaration, or omission of a party or on behalf of any
party as to a relevant fact. (Jones on Evidence, 16-34)
Judicial admissions are admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the
course of the trial or other proceedings which do not require proof and can not
be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable
mistakes or that no such admission was made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or
of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against
him (Sec. 33, Rule 130, Rev. Rules on Evidence)

Hearsay Evidence
It is evidence which derives its value, not solely from the credit to be given to
the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity and competency of
some other persons. But hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may
also be hearsay (20 Am. Jur. 400).

The Best Evidence Rule

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original 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 tatter 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; and
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, Rev. Rules on Evidence).

The Lay Opinion Rule

In general, a person who is not testifying as an expert will be allowed to testify
in the form of an opinion if the opinion is both rationally based on his perception
and helpful to an understanding of his testimony. In addition to this general rule,
opinions by a competent layperson on certain subjects are specifically permitted
by rule, statute, or cases. Some of these are:
1. A person's identity, whether identified by appearance, voice, or
2. A person's sanity..
3. Quantities, such as speed, distance, and size.
4. Demeanor, mood, or intent.
5. Intoxication or sobriety.
6. Physical condition of health, sickness, or injury.
7. Ownership.
8. The value of one's own property.
9. Identification of handwriting.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a
conclusion from an oppositional opinion.

There are two primary burden-of-proof considerations:

1) The question of on whom the burden rests.
2) The question of the degree of certitude the proof must support. This
depends on both the quantity and quality of evidence and the nature of the
point under contention. Some common degrees of certitude include the
most probable event, reasonable doubt, and beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There are generally two broad types of burdens:

A "legal burden" or a "burden of persuasion" is an obligation that remains on a
single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely
discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden
will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence places a
legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence
(generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defenses except
for affirmative defenses in which the proof of nonexistence of all affirmative
defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.
An "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence" is an obligation that
shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may
submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie evidence of some state
of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to
present evidence to refute the presumption.

Standard of proof
The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to
discharge the burden of proof, which is to convince the court that a given
proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances
of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof or the
balance of probabilities:
 Beyond reasonable doubt -- (highest level of proof, used mainly in
criminal trials)
 preponderance of evidence -- (lowest level of proof, used mainly in
civil trials)

Standards for conviction

1. Preponderance of the evidence
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the
standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is
more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there
is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in
Miller v. Minister of Pensions, described it simply as "more probable than not."
Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
2. Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is the higher level of burden of persuasion
sometimes employed in both civil and criminal procedure in the United States.
For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment
must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the
burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely
than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", which requires that the trier of fact be close to
certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof
by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter
asserted seem more likely true than not.

3. Beyond reasonable doubt

This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an
adversarial system and is the highest level of burden of persuasion. This means
that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the
extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person
that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent
that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is
guilty. If the doubt that is raised does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that
the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". The
precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined
within jurisprudence of the applicable country.

Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to
what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be
the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. Some philosophers hold
that what one is justified in believing is entirely determined by one's evidence.

Phenomenal Conception of Evidence

According to the phenomenal conception of evidence, only one's experiences can
serve as evidence.
According to Williamson's conception of evidence as knowledge, one's
experiences are excluded from counting as evidence—at best, one's evidence
includes whatever propositions about one's experiences that one knows.
A view of evidence that is more liberal than either Williamson's or the
phenomenal conception might thus take one's evidence to include both one's
experiences and one's knowledge, on the grounds that the beliefs of a rational
thinker will exhibit direct sensitivity both to what he knows and to the
experiences that he undergoes.

Natural Law on Evidence

 On Exclusionary Rule-emphasizes fairness in acquiring confessions or admissions

 On Hearsay Rule- we seem to be persuaded that there is some inconsistency

about human behaviour that makes us wary of those who have proved
untrustworthy in the past. The many safeguards against misuse of the rule
make it clear though that the law itself has reservations.

 Statute of Frauds requiring certain contracts to be in writing and subscribed by

the party charged or his agent- takes account the vulnerability of recollection
and that some men will take advantage of that.

 And when what constitutes normal human conduct is taken into consideration-
while there is no doubt that many of these beliefs are well-founded, they do
stand in need of critical examination, for it is truism that in more than just
rare cases “truth is stranger than fiction”

Legal Realism on Evidence

 Indeterminacy of the law- it depends upon the judge and particular cases what
evidence to admit and not to admit. Evidence can be material and relevant in
one case but not in the other.

Legal Positivism on Evidence

 Inadmissibility of Evidence- Evidence must follow the rules of evidence in order

to be admitted in court. What is proved in court is what the laws allow to be
proved and in the manner the law permits. The rules that determine what
evidence may be introduced, what weight is to be given the evidence and the
manner I s introduced are themselves embodiment of accrued convictions as to
how best to reach the truth as well as policies society seeks to uphold.

Legal Formalism on Evidence

 Standard of proof and conviction- Judges must decide on cases based on laws.
Judges in deciding civil cases is requires only mere preponderance of evidence,
and in criminal cases proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.