(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Sections 46 and 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
A. IN GENERAL
2. Character defined. – Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing him from others. The opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation.
3. Character distinguished from reputation. –
“Character” strictly speaking, means that which a person or thing really is, while “reputation”
means what a person is estimated, said, supposed, or thought, to be by others.
Character is internal, reputation is external; one is the substance, the other is the shadow.
4. Good moral character defined. – Good moral character means a character that measures up as good among the people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
5. Ways of proving good or bad character of a party. – The rule is that testimony to prove the good or bad character of a party to a civil action or of the defendant in a criminal prosecution must relate and be confined to the general reputation which such person sustains in the community or neighborhood in which he lives or has lived.
B. CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES
6. Accused may prove his good moral character. – Proof of the good moral character of the accused strengthens the presumption of his innocence; and by establishing good character a presumption is created that the accused did not commit the crime. This view proceeds upon the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged against him.
7. When accused may introduce evidence of his good moral character. – It is always relevant for the defendant to offer affirmative evidence of good moral character, when the same is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
8. Time and place of accused character. – Evidence of the defendant’s character should be confined to a time not very remote from the date of the commission of the crime. It should relate to the time of the act in question and before.
Generally speaking, it is the reputation up to the time of the commission of the offense only which is admissible.
9. Accused cannot prove the good moral character of his co-accused; exception. – Though the accused may prove his own character, he will not be permitted to prove that others conspiring with him and jointly indicted, or who are suspected of complicity in the crime, are men of good character. This evidence is not in the last relevant to show his innocence, as the fact that the friends or acquaintances of the accused are men of unimpeachable character, in no way proves that he is a person of good character.
10. Negative evidence of good character or reputation. – It is well settled that the testimony of a witness to the effect that he has never heard anything against the character or reputation of a person is admissible to prove the good character of such person, provided the witness is shown to have been in such position that he would have heard anything that was said concerning the person’s character or reputation.
Negative evidence is viewed as the most cogent evidence of a person’s good character and reputation, because in the absence of any discussion about character, it may reasonably be presumed that the person’s reputation is good.
11. No presumption may be inferred where defendant offers no evidence of his good character. – If the defendant offers no evidence of his good character, no legal presumption can be drawn from such omission prejudicial to the defendant, or that, his character is bad.
However, if he desires to put his character in issue, he has the right to the benefit of his previous good character or reputation, so far as it is at variance with the crime charged.
12. Right of state to introduce evidence of bad moral character. – It is generally recognized that the state cannot, in a criminal prosecution, introduce evidence attacking the character of the accused, unless the accused first puts his good character in issue by introducing evidence to
sustain his good character or reputation or has become a witness in his own behalf.
13. Evidence of specific acts not admissible to prove bad character. – Evidence of specific acts or conduct of a person upon particular occasions bearing upon his character, is usually held to be admissible. The admission of such evidence would raise collateral issues and divert the mind of the judge from the matter at hand.
Thus, the state in rebutting the evidence of the defendant’s good character is confined to evidence showing his general reputation as to having a bad character, and not to specific acts derogatory to his good character. One accused of a crime cannot testify in defense that he has never before been accused of, or arrested for, crime.
14. When evidence of specific acts admissible. – The reasons of practical policy affecting the rule excluding proof of specific conduct of a party do not apply with the same force where the character of third persons is involved.
15. When character is in issue in criminal cases.
– Character may itself be a fact-in-issue. In numerous offenses against social morality, as defined by the criminal law, the character of a person may be an element in the offense.
Whether it is actual character or reputed character depends upon the policy and the words of the local statute, as interpreted by the courts.
16. Moral character of the offended party. – The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This rule is applied with frequency in cases of homicide and sex offenses.
17. Character of offended party in rape and seduction cases. – In any prosecution involving the unchaste act by a man against a woman, where the willingness of the woman is material, such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, the woman’s character as to chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. Thus, in the prosecution for rape, or for enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution for indecent assault (acts of lasciviousness), the woman’s character as to chastity is admissible; but not in a prosecution for rape under the age of consent.
18. Character of offended party in homicide cases. – On prosecution for homicide, evidence of the bad character of the deceased is irrelevant, for as frequently said, the law protects
everyone from unlawful violence, regardless of character, and the service done the community in ridding it of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law, no justification of the act.
19. Character of offended party in murder cases.
– While the good or bad moral character of the victim may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed with treachery or premeditation.
C. CHARACTER IN CIVIL CASES
20. Character evidence in civil cases. – Of character evidence in ordinary civil actions, even those wherein fraud is imputed, it has been well observed that if such evidence is proper, then a person may screen himself from the punishment due to fraudulent conduct till his character becomes bad. Every man must be answerable for every improper act, and the character of every transaction must be ascertained by its own circumstances, and not by the character of the parties.
21. Distinction between the rule on character evidence in criminal and civil cases. – In criminal cases, evidence of the good character of the accused is most properly and with good reason admissible in evidence, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good character would not commit a crime; but in civil cases, such evidence is with equal good reason not admitted, because no presumption would fairly arise, in the very great proportion of such cases, from the good character of the defendant, that he did not commit the breach of contract or of civil duty alleged against him.
22. Where evidence of moral character admissible in civil cases. – As a general rule, the character of a party to a civil action is not a proper subject of inquiry, for, while it is recognized that ground for an inference of some logically probative force as to whether or not a person did a certain act may be furnished by the fact that his character is such as might reasonably be expected to predispose him toward or against such an act, this consideration is outweighed by the practical objections to opening the door to this class of evidence.
23. “Putting character in issue” or “character involved in the issue” construed. – “Putting character in issue” or “character involved in the issue” is a technical expression, which does not mean simply that the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of particular importance in the suit itself, as the character of
the plaintiff in an action of slander, or that of a woman in an action on the case for seduction.
24. Evidence of moral character of a third person. – An issue in a civil case sometimes involves a third person’s act having a moral quality. On such an issue, the third person’s moral trait would have probative value, and there is no practical policy against it. Court sometimes admit it, and sometimes exclude it.
25. Character in mitigation of damages or in excuse or defense to the action. – In some civil actions, the measure of compensation may be affected by the plaintiff’s character.
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS
26. Evidence of good character of witness. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. The character or reputation of a witness must be attacked or impeached before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can be admitted, but it is not necessary that character witnesses for impeachment purposes should first be introduced if the veracity or character of the witness been substantially impeached in other ways, especially if he is a stranger in the county where the trial is being conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness’ character or reputation has been assailed in order to discredit him, or when the opposite party brings out matters, which, if true, tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by disparaging his character.
27. Latest jurisprudence.
Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson Belagan, GR No. 132164, October 19, 2004
“Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.”
Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy. One statutory exception is that relied upon by respondent, i.e., Section 51 (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which we quote here:
"SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. –
(a) In Criminal Cases:
x x x x x x
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged."
It will be readily observed that the above provision pertains only to criminal cases, not to administrative offenses. And even assuming that this technical rule of evidence can be applied here, still, we cannot sustain respondent’s posture.
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
In the present administrative case for sexual harassment, respondent did not offer evidence that has a bearing on Magdalena’s chastity.
What he presented are charges for grave oral defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed against her. Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under the above provision because they do not establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what respondent was trying to establish is Magdalena’s lack of credibility and not the probability or the improbability of the charge. In this regard, a different provision applies.