7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

1/13

EVIDENCE

Sec. 1, Evidence is the means, meanssanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining ina judicial proceedings the truth respecting a

matter of fact.Sec. 2. The rules of evidence shall be the

same in all courts and in all trials andhearings, except as otherwise provided by

law or these rules. [Ong Chia: Rule 1, Sec. 4:These rules shall not apply to election,

cadastral and naturalization cases.]

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

2/13

Sec. 3. Evidence is admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not

excluded by law or these rules.

Two requisites:

1. It is relevant [does not say material]

2. It is not excluded by law or these Rules

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

3/13

Examples:

1. Excluded by the Constitution (Sec.

2,3,12 & 17, Art. III.) 2. Excluded by law [Salcedo-Ortanez,

RA 4200, RA 7438; Barco v. CA(Art. 167,

FC]

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

4/13

Art. 167, Family Code: The child shall be

considered legitimate although the mother may

have declared against its legitimacy or may have

been sentenced as an adulteress.

3. By these rules

(a) Dead Mans Statute (b) Res inter alios acta

disqualification due to mental incapacity

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

5/13

Sec. 4. Evidence must have its relationto the fact in issue as to induce belief in

its existence or non-existence. Evidence

on collateral matters shall not beallowed, except when it

tends in any reasonable degree to

establish the probability or improbabilityof the fact in issue.

[Relevance v. Materiality]

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

6/13

The following are admissible [relevant].They are not also excluded by any

exclusionary rule. But are they

conclusive?1. Paraffin test [P. v. Baconguis]

2. DNA [P. v. Yatar/Herrera v. Alba]

3. Blood test [P. v. Tumimpad4. Finger-printing [P. v. Sartagoda]

5. Polygraph test [P. v. Carpo]

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

7/13

Is DNA conclusive evidence ?

Herrera Case, June 15, 2005:

Paternity cases: DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC

ACID

Probability of paternity:1. If it excludes putative father conclusive

of non-paternity

2. Less than 99.9 corroborative evidence3. 99.9 or higher refutable presumption

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

8/13

How to refute? Vallejo Standards:

Consider how samples were collected,

how they were handled, possibility of

contamination, the procedure followed in

analyzing the samples, whether the proper

standards and procedures were followed

in conducting the tests qualification ofanalyst

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

9/13

Question No. 15 (5): (Incompetent

evidence)

A sued for annulment of his marriage with B.During trial, A offered in evidence cassette tapes of

alleged telephone conversations of B with her lover.

The tapes were recordings made by tapping As

telephone line, with As consent and obviouslywithout Bs or her lovers. B vehemently objected to

their admission, on the ground that neither B nor her

lover consented to the wire tap. The court admitted

the tapes, ruling that the recorded conversations arenonetheless relevant to the issues involved.

Was the court correct in admitting the cassette

tapes in evidence? Explain.

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

10/13

1997, Question No. 15 (d) (Incompetent

evidence)

Give the reasons underlying the adoption

of the following rules of evidence:

The rule against the admission of illegally

obtained extrajudicial confession.

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

11/13

1994, Question No. 8 : (Paraffin

test)

At the homicide trial, the prosecution

proposed that accused Joey undergo a series

of paraffin tests to determine whether he firedhis service pistol at the time the victim, Lyn,

was shot to death. (xxx)

Is the result of the paraffin test admissible

in evidence?

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

12/13

2008, 16:The mutilated cadaver of a woman wasdiscovered near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting thathe was the last person seen with the woman when shewas still alive, Carlito was arrested within five hours afterthe discovery of the cadaver and brought to the police

station. The crime laboratory determined that the womanhad been raped. While in police custody, Carlito brokedown in the presence of an assisting counsel and orallyconfessed to the investigator that he had raped andkilled the woman, detailing the acts he had performed up

to his dumping of the body near the creek. He wasgenuinely remorseful. During the trial, the Statepresented the investigator to testify on the oralconfession of Carlito. Is the oral confession admissibleas evidence of guilt? (4%)

7/29/2019 15847068-evidence128

13/13

2008, No. 9:The search warrant authorized the seizure ofundetermined quantity of shabu. During the service ofthe search warrant, the raiding team also recovered akilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The

accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves asevidence for the violation of Section 11 of theComprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since theywere not covered by the search warrant. The State

justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the

plain view doctrine. There was no indication of whetherthe marijuana leaves were discovered and seized beforeor after the seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge,how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (4%)