Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
Faculty of Civil Law A.Y. 2012-2013
First Semester
LAW ON EVIDENCE
Chapter 1
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Miscellaneous Basic Principles
RULE 128 General Provisions
SECTION 1.Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Note: Not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence.
Q: What is required for a circumstance to be considered as evidence?
A: It must be “sanctioned” or allowed by the Rules of Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. Thus, hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused and evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth is not a n evidence.
The definition considers evidence not as an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. This applies to judicial proceedings.
Q: What is the purpose of evidence?
A: It is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence. The truth must be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof. Thus, the parties must prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of admissible evidence.
Truth as the purpose of evidence
Yet, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or the legal truth. Actual truth may not always be achieved in
judicial proceedings because the findings of the court would depend on the evidence presented before it based on the accepted rules for admissibility.
Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
Thus, a supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused will not be considered if not formally offered in evidence.
Q: When is evidence required? When is it not required? A: As a means of proving fact, its introduction is needed when the court has to resolve a question of fact. Where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence because where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved by mere application of the relevant statutes or rules in this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required.
Note: When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial determination through a judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34).
Evidence may also be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. They may agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence (Rule 30, sec. 6).
It is also not required on matters of judicial notice (Rule 129, sec.1) and on matters judicially admitted (Rule 129 Sec. 4). Q: When are the Rules of evidence applicable?
A: They apply only to judicial proceedings. Note: Please refer to Rule 1, sec.4.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in strict judicial terms. Also, reliance on the technical rules of evidence in labor cases is misplaced.
Ong Chia v. Republic (328 SCRA 749)
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for naturalization unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 176240, 2008)
Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases.
Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC (461 SCRA 272)
The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.
Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. (403 SCRA 699) The rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. In this case, the court disregarded the findings of the CA which considered the affidavits of the petitioners as mere hearsay and thus could not be admitted in evidence against their employers. The Court unequivocally ruled that in a labor case, it is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify and be crossed-examined by counsel for the adverse party on his affidavit. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law. Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, nonetheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded.
Application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence Sec.2. Cases covered.- These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial an administrative cases.
Scope of the Rules of Evidence
Q: Explain the Principle of uniformity.
A: According to such principle, as a general policy, the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.
Sec. 2.Scope. — 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. (2a)
Q: Distinguish between evidence in civil cases from evidence in criminal cases.
CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES
The party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence.
The guilt of the accused has
to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. An offer of compromise is
not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible evidence against the offeror (Rule 130, Sec.27).
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt except
those involving
quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130, Sec. 27)
Concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and generally there is no presumption for or against a
party except in cases
provided for by law (Art. 1756-common carrier).
The accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence (Sec. 14, Article 3).
Distinction between Proof and Evidence
Q: What is proof?
A: It is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from consideration of the evidence.
On the other hand, evidence is the medium or means by which fact is proved or disproved. Proof is the effect of evidence because without evidence there is no proof.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
It means “false in one thing, false in everything.” It means that if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the witness’ testimony. The witness in such case is considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Yet, this is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely
applied in modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The modern trend favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial (People v. Negosa).
Q: When can such maxim be applied?
A: Before it can be applied, it must be shown that the witness have willfully falsified the truth on one or more material points. The principle presupposes the existence of a positive testimony on a material point contrary to subsequent declarations in the testimony.
People v. Letigio (268 SCA 227)
The above maxim does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. While the witness may differ in their recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their testimonies completely discarded as worthless.
People v. Pacapac (248 SCRA 77)
The maxim is not a positive rule of law or of universal application. It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroborated by other evidence, like where the false portions could be innocent mistakes. It is not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness of the circumstances so warrant.
Alibi
As a defense, alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.
Alibi may also serve as a basis for acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at that time.
It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. Such positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where the such identification is credible and categorical (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 173308). Q: What must be established for the defense of alibi to prosper?
A:
1. The presence of the accused in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and
2. The physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
Note: It is not enough that he is somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
People v. Abellera, G.R. No. 166617
The accused should have proven that he was in some place where it was physically impossible for him to at the locus criminis during the commission of the crime.
People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 175325
When the distance between the place where the crime was committed and the accused said he was only 1 and ½ km, the accused, who at the time had the use of a motorized vehicle, has not established the physical impossibility.
Alibi is not always false and without merit. Sometimes, the fact that the accused was somewhere else may just be the plain and unvarnished truth.
Frame Up
Frame up is also viewed with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a defense in most prosecutions arising from the Dangerous Drugs Act. The legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. For such claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner (People v. Del Monte).
Self-Defense
It is likewise inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated.
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses due to its being capable of easy fabrication. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime. For it to prevail, the defense must establish that was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else.
Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime
Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about the crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible, for delay may be explained by the natural reticence of people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. More
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ than this, there is always the fear of reprisal. This is a matter
of judicial notice (People v. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331).
Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not necessarily an indiction that the charge is fabricated; it is possible for a rape victim to go through what psychologists describe as a “state of denial” which is a way of coping with the overwhelming emotional stress of an extremely shocking event.
Also, it may be on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant. It must be viewed in the context of the victim’s perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time of the time immediately thereafter. A rape victim is sometimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.
Ingal v. People (G.R No. 173282)
Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness’ credibility. Also, people react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.
See: People v. Teehankee, Jr. (249 SCRA 54); People v. Ortoa (GR. No. 176266); People v. Satioquia (414 SCRA 60);
People v. Sanidad (402 SCRA 381)
Delay by a witness in divulging what he or she knows about a crime is not by itself a setback to the evidentiary value of such witness’ testimony, where the delay is sufficiently justified by any acceptable explanation.
Also, Fear of reprisal or social humiliation are sufficient explanations. Filipinas, especially those in the rural areas, are by nature shy and coy, and rape stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator. Delay is not a sign of fabrication.
Positive and Negative Defenses
In Philippine jurisprudence, a positive testimony normally enjoys more weight than a negative testimony. A testimony that a fact exists enjoys more weight than a testimony that asserts that the same act does not exist.
Positive evidence is more credible than negative evidence. The reason for this rule is that the witness who testifies to a negative may have forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed (Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R. No. 156282).
A denial evidence is the weakest defense and can never overcome a positive testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of credible witness. Evidence that is negative
is self-serving in nature and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. It is inherently weak vis-à-vis positive identification.
Factum Probans and Factum Probandum
Evidence signifies a relationship between 2 facts:
a. The fact or proposition to be established (Factum probandum); and
b. Facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established (Factum probans).
Q: What is Factum Probandum?
A: It refers to the fact to be proved; the fact which is in issue and to which the evidence is directed.
Q: What is Factum Probans?
A: It is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue.
E.g. Kimmy claims to have been injured by the negligence of Dora who denies having been negligent, the negligence of Dora and the causal connection between such negligence, and the injuries of Kmmy taken as a whole, constitute the factum probandum of the suit. The evidence offered by Kimmy constitute the materials to prove liability of D. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to the factum probans.
Yet, factum probandum in some cases may be affected by the judicial admissions of a party. If the factum probandum “signifies the fact or proposition to be established,” then matters of judicial notice, conclusive presumptions and judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of factum probandum of a particular case, because such matters need not be established or proved.
Factum probandum refers to the elements of a cause of action from the point of view of the plaintiff and the elements of the defense from the standpoint of the defendant.
Q: What are the factum probandum in a suit for a collection of money, in the absence of any admission by the defendant?
A:
1. The existence of the debt of the defendant; 2. The maturity of the debt;
3. The demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay; and
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ NOTE: From the side of the defendant, the fact of payment of
the obligation or the prescription of the debt or the elements of any defense he may interpose would constitute the factum probandum.
Q: Under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in every tort case, what should be proven by the plaintiff?
A:
1. The damages suffered by the plaintiff
2. The fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond
3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault and the damages incurred.
Art. 2176, NCC
XXX
Q: In criminal cases, what does factum probandum include? A: In criminal cases, factum probandum includes all matters that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction.
Q: In case or robbery, what matters should be proven? A:
1. That there be personal property belonging to another 2. That there is unlawful taking of that property
3. That the taking is with intent to gain
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 293, RPC)
Q: How about in case of illegal possession of firearms and explosives?
A:
1. The existence of the subject firearm or explosive which may be proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw accused in the possession of the same;
2. The negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive which fact may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive.
Q: How about in case of prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or dangerous drugs?
A:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration
2. The delivery of the things sold and the payment therefor. Q: Is the presentation of the informant in illegal drug cases indispensable for a successful prosecution?
A: No, because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative.
Multiple admissibility
Q: When is there multiple admissibility?
A: There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a declaration may be admissible for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, as part of the res gestae, or as a declaration against interest.
Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another. An extrajudicial statement of a robbery subject is not admissible against his co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.
NOTE: If the testimony is offered to prove that the subject was completed pursuant to the contract, it cannot be offered to prove that the project was delayed.
It must be noted that the purposes for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection.
Q: May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary and as object evidence? A: A private document may be offered and admitted both as documentary evidence and as object evidence depending on the purpose for which the document is offered. If offered to prove its existence, condition or for any purpose other than the contents of a document, the same is considered as an object evidence. When a private document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered as a documentary evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 130 of Rules of Court).
Q: To be part of the res gestae, what is the requirement? A: The statement should have been made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior to or subsequent to such startling occurrence.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ A: The statement should have been made while the declarant
was conscious of an impending death. The facts of the case do not clearly show that this essential element of a dying declaration was met.
Q: When A was stabbed on the chest during a street brawl, he instinctively shouted for help. B, who was nearby, heard the shout and immediately ran towards A who, upon inquiry by B, stated that C has stabbed him. What rule or rules of evidence could B’s testimony be received, if A dies?
A: The testimony could be admitted either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae.
Conditional Admissibility
Q: What is conditional admissibility?
A: It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the same time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The proponent of the evidence may ask that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as promised, the court, may upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.
Curative admissibility
Q: What is the doctrine of curative admissibility?
A: It allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence (Adams v. Burlington, 1993).
Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the same subject matter.
Q: In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff, despite objections from the defendant, introduced evidence to show that in the past, the defendant had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. Is this evidence admissible? Discuss the effect of the doctrine of curative admissibility.
A: This kind of evidence is admissible because evidence that a person did certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same thing. If we follow the doctrine of curative admissibility, the court may be asked to give the party against whom the evidence was admitted the chance to
contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed and to show evidence of past acts of diligence of the defendant to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
NOTE: If the hearsay evidence prejudicial to the defendant is erroneously admitted despite the objection, under the principle of curative admissibility, the court shall allow hearsay evidence favorable to the same defendant.
Q: Does the doctrine of curative admissibility refer to a situation where incompetent evidence was erroneously received by the court despite the objection from the other party?
A: Local case law does not extensively address the matter but some American cases, they hold that the doctrine of curative admissibility, in its broadest form, allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence when necessary to counter the effect of improper evidence previously admitted by the other party without objection. Another case also allowed curative evidence even if there was a failure to object to the objectionable document.
It is submitted in our jurisdiction, the doctrine of curative admissibility should not be made to apply where the evidence was admitted without objection because the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the admissibility of the evidence. In our jurisdiction, admissible evidence not objected to become admissible.
NOTE: An objection to an otherwise inadmissible evidence is not merely suggested but required by the Rules of Court. Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court:
Objections to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made and objections to questions propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witnesses shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become apparent.
NOTE: It is only where the objection was incorrectly overruled, the court should allow the other party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence improperly admitted in order to cure the prejudice caused to the other party against whom the offered evidence was erroneously admitted. Common reason suggests that there is a waiver, there is no defect to cure.
Q: What is the reason for the limitation as to the application of the doctrine of curative admissibility?
A: If no limitations are placed on the doctrine of curative admissibility, the doctrine will predictably be open to abuse and will encourage counsel not to object to an admissible evidence to “open the door” for him to introduce
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ inadmissible evidence. The more logical rule should be done
which will not allow a party to be heard through the offering of inadmissible evidence if he declines or fails to timely object to the other party’s inadmissible evidence.
One American case puts it: “A breach of the rules of evidence by one party does not suspend those rules with respect to the other party”
Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Q: What is direct evidence?
A: It means evidence which if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption. It proves a fact without the need to make an inference from another fact.
Q: What is circumstantial evidence?
A: It indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established (People v. Matito).
When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact. The court, thus, uses a fact from which an assumption is drawn.
Conviction by circumstantial evidence
Q: In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction if certain requisites are present. What are they?
A:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which inferences are derived are proven 3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
NOTE: A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Hence, if the totality of the circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of innocence, conviction is proper.
People v. Bernal 388 SCRA 211
Circumstantial evidence may be a basis for conviction and such conviction can be upheld provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
Circumstantial evidence is not a weaker defense vis-à-vis direct evidence. As to probative value, the Court considers circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to direct
evidence because no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In both types of evidence what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Darilay (421 SCRA 45)
Direct evidence is not dispensable to prove a crime charged. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Bastian v. CA (G.R No. 160811)
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its findings of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.
If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be impossible to prove (People v. Sevilleno).
People v. Corpuz (412 SCRA 479)
When the prosecution’s evidence rests on circumstantial evidence alone, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, where the evidence admits 2 interpretations one of which is consistent with guilt and the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted.
Amora v. People (G.R. No. 154466)
Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction. Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence have long recognized that the accused may be convicted through circumstantial evidence.
Q: When is circumstantial evidence resorted to?
A: When to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free. For it to be sufficient, the following requisites must be present:
Xxx
c. The combination of all circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one who has committed the crime.
People v. Ochate 385 SCRA 353
Q: In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, what are the 4 guidelines?
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ A:
1. It should be acted upon with caution;
2. All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
3. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and
4. Facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused to convince a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.
Flight or non-flight of the Accused
The fact that the appellants never fled the locality where the crime was committed is not by itself a valid defense against the prosecution’s allegations because non-flight does not signify innocence. Non-flight is simply inaction. While flight indicates guilt, non-flight does not mean innocence (Gulmatico v. People).
The defense of non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the appellants (People v. Dacibar). Flight alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because flight alone is inherently ambiguous (Valdez v. People). Yet, in a case where the accused escaped from detention during the pendency of the case, flight was considered as an indication of guilt or of his guilty mind: “xxx the wicked flee even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion (People v. Isang).
Cumulative Evidence v. Corroborative Evidence
Q: What is cumulative evidence?
A: It refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given and that tends to prove the same proposition. E.g. Subsequent testimonies of B and C after the testimony of A.
Q: What is corroborative evidence?
A: It 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. It is such evidence which tends to confirm, validate, or strengthen evidence already presented. E.g. Findings of the crime laboratory that the gun bears only the fingerprints of the accused which is collaborative of the testimony of A.
Note: It is usually different from that previously offered but tends to prove the same fact. E.g. testimonial evidence from an eye witness and testimony from an expert who did not personally witness the signing of the document.
Corroborative testimony is not always required. There is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witness has to be corroborated, except where expressly mandated in determining the value and credibility of evidence. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered (People v. Pabalan). The testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to support conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court (People v. Rama).
Q: When is corroborative evidence necessary?
A: It is only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations are inaccurate (Mangangey v. Sandiganbayan).
Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness
Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases (People v. Rama).
Positive and Negative Evidence
These categories of evidence have been normally associated with testimonial evidence but there is no rule which precludes their application to other forms of evidence. Q: When is it considered as positive evidence?
A: It is positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does not exist or that a certain event happened.
Q: When is it considered as negative?
A: When the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist. NOTE: Positive and negative evidence may likewise refer to the presence or absence of something. Thus, the presence of fingerprints of a person in a particular place is positive evidence of his having been in said place although absence of his fingerprints does not necessarily mean he was not in the same place.
Q: Is a negative finding on a paraffin test a conclusive evidence that one has not fires a gun?
A: No, because it is possible for a person to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrates or gunpowder as when the culprit washes his hands or wears gloves (People v. Cerilla, November 28, 2007).
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Q: Is denial a negative or positive evidence?
A: It is a negative evidence. It is considered by the Court to be a very weak form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when the latter comes from the mouth of a credible witness. It is a negative and a self-serving which cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters (People v. Malicsi, 2008; People v. Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328).
NOTE: A mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the other victim of the identity and involvement of the accused in the crime attributed to him (People v. Nieto, 547 SCRA 511). Greater probative value is given to evidence that is positive in nature that that which is accorded to evidence that is negative in character.
Q: What is the rule regarding contradictory declarations and statements?
A: Greater weight is generally given to positive testimonies than to mere denials.
Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence
Q: How should the rules of evidence be construed?
A: Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules of evidence must be liberally construed. Rules of Procedure are merely tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice. Strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial justice.
Q: What is the rule in the relaxation of the rules?
A: A satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have always been required (Barcenas v. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593).
Absence of a vested right in the rules of evidence
Q: Is there a vested right in the rules of evidence?
A: No, because the rules of evidence are subject to change by the SC pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
Q: What is the rule regarding the change in the rules of evidence?
A: It is subject to the constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto laws.
Q: What is an ex post facto law?
A: It includes that which alters the rules of evidence and receive less or different testimony than that required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused (Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil 74).
Waiver of Rules of Evidence
Q: May the rules of evidence be waived?
A: Yes. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of waiver.
Q: May the parties stipulate waiving the rules of evidence? A:
Art. 6 of the NCC
Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (4a).
As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs and public policy are transgressed or no rights are violated, the rules of evidence may be waived by the parties.
B. Admissibility of Evidence
Rule 128
Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
Q: What elements should be present for an evidence to be admissible?
A:
1. The evidence is relevant
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent) Q: What are the two axioms of admissibility by Wigmore? A:
1. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible
2. That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids them. NOTE: The first axiom is, in substance, the axiom of relevance while the second axiom is of competence.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Q: Will relevancy alone make the evidence admissible?
A: No. An item of evidence may be relevant but not admissible. It is not admissible because although relevant, it may be incompetent, i.e., it is excluded by law or by a particular rule or by both.
Illustrations
1. In a prosecution for homicide, the witness swears that the accused killed the victim because his ever truthful boyfriend told him so. The testimony although relevant is not admissible because the witness was not testifying based on his personal knowledge of the event. The testimony offered is relevant but incompetent.
2. In the prosecution for robbery, the wife of the accused testified that the husband admitted to her in confidence that it was he who killed their neighbor. This testimony is not admissible.
3. A defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at the accused without the latter’s provocation. The testimony is competent and relevant.
4. Documents obtained in violation of constitution guarantees although containing relevant matters are inadmissible because they are illegally obtained as when evidence is illegally seized.
Inadmissible Evidence under Anti-Wiretapping law (RA 4200)
Q: To what proceedings this rule apply? A:
1. Judicial 2. Quasi-judicial 3. Legislative 4. administrative
Q: Is it applicable in impeachment proceedings?
A: It is not yet well-settled. According to Chief Justice Puno in the case Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment proceedings are sui generis.
Q: What do you mean by sui generis?
A: It means “of its own kind or class, i.e., the only one of its kind; peculiar.
Q: What are the kinds of evidence the above rule cover? A:
1. any communication or spoken word
2. the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the communication or spoken word or any part thereof.
Q: Does it include the unlawful recording of open and public communications?
A: No. What the law protects are private conversations and communications.
NOTE: It is considered unlawful to: a. secretly overhear
b. intercept
c. record private communication or spoken word when doing so is without the authority of all the parties to such private communication.
If there is only one party authorizes the recording and the other does not, there is a violation of law.
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under R.A. 4200.
People v. Navarro
This case involves the killing of a reporter preceded by a heated altercation between the accused and the victim in front of several people in a police station. The SC ruled that the tape recording is admissible and is not a transgression of the provisions of R.A. 4200 because the recorded altercation is not a private communication. Since the heated discussion occurred in the presence of other persons, it could not be private.
Q: What are the modes of recording private conversations? A:
1. To tap any wire or cable; 2. To use a Dictaphone; 3. To use a tape recorder; or
4. To use any device otherwise described.
Q: Is a telephone extension line embraced by the any devise otherwise described?
A: Yes. An extension telephone line cannot be placed under the category of the enumerated devices (Ganaan v. IAC). The law considers it unlawful to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any such record, or copies thereof of any communication or spoken word secured or
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ obtained in a manner violative of the law. It is even also
unlawful to communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in writing to another.
The acts mentioned as punishable would not constitute a violation of the law if done by a peace officer authorized by a written order of the court in cases involving:
a. Treason b. Espionage
c. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war d. Piracy
e. Mutiny in the high seas f. Rebellion
g. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion h. Inciting to rebellion
i. Sedition
j. Conspiracy to commit sedition k. Inciting to sedition and l. Kidnapping
Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications under the Human Security Act of 2007
Under the Human Security Act of 2007, the provisions of R.A. No. 4200 notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official may listen to, intercept, and record any communication, message, conversation, discussion or written or spoken words between:
a. Members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or
b. Group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Q: Is the written order f the CA necessary?
A: Yes. Such written order of a division of the CA shall be granted only upon a written application by a police or law enforcement official. This official must be one who is authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file such application. Note that Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 9371 requires only an ex parte application.
Q: For the written order to be issued, what are the matters to be established?
A:
1. There is probable cause to believe that the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed. The finding of probable cause must be shown based upon the personal knowledge of the applicant of facts and circumstances indicating the same.
2. Probable cause to believe that evidence essential to the conviction of the charged or suspected person, or evidence that would solve or prevent the crime will be obtained; and
3. There is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.
The authorization shall be effective in the written order which shall not exceed 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order by the applicant. It may be renewed for a non-extendible period of 30 days upon proper application under the conditions set forth on Sec.9, No. 9373.
The person under surveillance or whose communications are intercepted has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities or to challenge the legality of the interception before the CA which issued the written order.
Inadmissible evidence in connection with arrests, searches and seizures
People v. Aminnudin
This case demonstrates the inadmissibility of evidence due to the legal infirmity of an arrest for noncompliance with the requisites of the flagrante delicto exception. Accordingly, the accused was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. He was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. Also, from the information received by the officers, they could have obtained a warrant since they had at least 2 days to comply with the bill of rights.
See: People v. Molina (352 SCRA 174) Malacat v. CA
A warrantless arrest cannot be justified where no crime is being committed at the time of the arrest because no crime may be inferred from the fact that the eyes of the person arrested were “moving fast” and “looking at every person “ passing by.
See: People v. Mengote (210 SCRA 174)
People v. Laguio (G.R. No. 128587)
Reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Flight is not a reliable indicator of guilt. When petitioner was
arrested without a warrant, he was neither caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest affected in hot pursuit.
People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 182348)
Q: What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
A:
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law; and
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. The possession must be with knowledge of the accused or animun possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles.
In this case, since the accused was not in possession of the illegal drugs when he was arrested, his arrest was illegal and the confiscated drugs cannot be used in evidence against him.
Constructive possession
In People v. Torres (501 SCRA 591), it was held that there was constructive possession even when the accused was not at home when the prohibited drugs were found in the master’s bedroom of his house.
In People v. Tira (430 SCRA 134), there was constructive possession when illegal drugs were found concealed in the bed and room of both accused.
People v. Lagman
The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof.
Also, illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element, but the prosecution must prove the intent to possess. Possession is not only actual. It may be constructive.
Q: When does constructive possession exist?
A: It is when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
Relevant Evidence
Sec. 4.Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
Evidence to be relevant must have such a relation to the act in issue as to induce the belief in its existence or non-existence.
Q: Explain the concept of relevance.
A: It deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proved. Thus, 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.
NOTE: The matter of relevance requires the existence of a fact in issue. This fact in issue must be a disputed fact. Thus, it is obvious that the evidence offered to prove an undisputed fact is irrelevant, and as such, is inadmissible. Where there is no issue as to a matter of fact, there exists no purpose for an item of evidence.
Q: What is the test for relevance?
A: If the evidence induces belief as to the existence or the non-existence of the fact in issue, the evidence is relevant. If it does not issue such belief, it is irrelevant.
NOTE: Although competency of the evidence is a necessary component of admissible evidence, the question that most often arises in court is the relevance of the evidence. When an advocate offers a piece of evidence for the court’s consideration, he offers the evidence to prove a fact. This may either be:
a. Immediate fact in issue b. Ultimate fact in issue
Q: Jollibee is indebted to BDO. When the obligation falls due, he fails to pay and the bank sues for collection. As part of the evidence of BDO, the accountant of Jollibee is placed on the stand and in the course of his examination he asked if he, in turn, is also indebted to BDO. The lawyer of Jollibee interposes an objection to the question that it is impertinent. How would you rule on the objection?
A: The objection of Jollibee that the question is impertinent or irrelevant should be sustained. The issue in the case is the indebtedness of Jollibee to BDO and not the indebtedness of the accountant of Jollibee to the bank.
Test for determining the Relevancy of Evidence
Q: What should be the test in determining the relevancy of evidence?
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ A: The relevance is a matter of relationship between the
evidence and a fact in issue. The determination of relevance is thus, a matter of inference and not of law. The test would therefore be one of logic, common sense and experience. NOTE: The matter of relevance is a matter that is addressed to the Court (People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761). Accordingly, there is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience.
Relevance of Evidence on the Credibility of Witness
Q: Evidence on the credibility or lack of it of a witness is always relevant. What is the purpose of the same?
A: In every proceeding, the credibility of the witness is always an issue. The credibility of the witness has the inherent tendency to prove and disprove the truthfulness of his assertion and consequently, the probative value of the proffered evidence.
Q: What if the credibility of a witness is found wanting? A: Sec. 11 of Art. 132, authorizes his impeachment by contradictory evidence, by evidence that in the past, he has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony or by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad.
Q: How should the court assess the testimony of a witness? A: The Court shall be guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
Q: What is the purpose of cross-examination?
A: The importance of the credibility of a witness in a judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules which allow the adverse party to test such credibility through a process called cross-examination.
NOTE: The adverse party can test the credibility of the witness through cross-examination not only on matters taken up in the direct examination. The broad spectrum of the questions allowable in a cross examination of a witness includes questions on matters connected with those taken up by direct examination. It includes questions designed to grant the cross-examiner sufficient fullness and freedom to test the accuracy and truthfulness if the witness, his interest or bias, or the reverse (Sec. 6, Rule 132).
Q: What are the instances that questions of the cross-examiner are circumscribed by the matters taken up in the direct examination and thus questions outside the subject matter of direct examination are not allowed?
A:
1. An accused may testify as a witness on his own “behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination” (Sec. 1 [d], Rule 115).
2. A hostile witness may be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross examination must only be the subject of his examination-in-chief (Sec. 12, Rule 132).
Competent Evidence
Q: What is a competent evidence?
A: Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
Q: What is the test of competence?
A: It is the law or the rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent.
NOTE: Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence to be received as such. However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers to the qualifications of the witness. In other words, competence refers to his eligibility to take the stand and to testify. It is in the context that the term is normally associated with.
Q: Is objection on the ground that it is incompetent an accepted form of objection?
A: No, because it is a general objection. The objection should specify the ground for its incompetence such as leading, hearsay or parol.
Note that courts neither need nor appreciate generalities. General objections are viewed with disfavor because specific objections are required by Sec. 36, Rule 132. Thus, for purposes of trial objections, evidence is never incompetent. It is people who are. It is a sloppy usage to object to a testimony or a document as incompetent. Such term more appropriately describes a witness who under evidentiary rules, does not possess the qualifications of a witness or suffers from disqualification to be one.
Competence of electronic evidence
Electronic evidence is competent evidence and is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and is authenticated in the manner prescribed (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ Collateral matters
Q: When is a matter collateral?
A: A matter is collateral when it is on a “parallel or diverging line, merely “additional” or “auxiliary.” This term connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute.
For instance, the motive of a person and in some instances, his reputation are matters that may be considered collateral to the subject of a controversy. A very strong motive to kill the victim does not ipso facto make motive relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence because the person with absolutely no motive to kill could be the culprit.
Evidence of the bad reputation of the accused for being troublesome and aggressive does not make the evidence admissible to prove his guilt. After all, the culprit could have been the person with the most endearing reputation.
When collateral matters are allowed
Q: Are collateral matters allowed?
A: As a rule, evidence on a collateral matte is not allowed. It is not allowed because it does not have the direct relevance to the issue of the case.
Q: Is this rule absolute?
A: No. A collateral matter may be admitted if it ends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
While the evidence may not bear directly on the issue, it will be admitted if it has the tendency to induce belief as to the probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have the effect of corroborating or supplementing facts previously established by direct evidence.
In civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. Also, evidence of the good character has been previously impeached.
Admissible evidence distinguished from credible evidence
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
Means that the evidence is of such character that the court is bound to receive it or allow it to be introduced at the trial. It does not, however, guarantee credibility.
Refers to the worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of
belief. It means
“believability.”
Competency of witness v. Credibility of witness
Also, the competency of witness differs from his credibility. A witness may be competent, and yet give incredible testimony; he may be incompetent, and yet his evidence if received, is perfectly credible.
Admissibility and weight of the evidence
Admissibility Probative value
Refers to the question of whether certain pieces of
evidence are to be
considered at all
Refers to the question of
whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue. Depends on its relevance and
competence
Pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade NOTE: To admit evidence and not believe it are not incompatible with each other.
Jurisprudential tenets on probative value and credibility 1. Whether or not a witness or evidence is credible is an
issue addressed to the judgment of the trial court (People v. Castro, 2008).
2. The determination of the credibility of a witness is within the domain of the trial court (Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288) and is given great weight and respect because the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witness and their demeanor during the trial.
3. However, where the trial judge did not hear the testimonies himself, he would not be in a better position than SC to assess the credibility of witnesses on the basis of their demeanor (BPI v. Reyes, 2008). It had the unique advantage of having personally observed the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct, and attitude (People v. Nueva, 2008).
4. Testimonies or child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since where a woman, more so if he is a minor, says that she is raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. There could not have been a more powerful testament to the truth than this “public baring of unspoken grief” (People v. Aguilar, 2007).
5. No woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh, and endure public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress. Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of the violator.
6. The court will not disturb the factual finding of the trial court unless there is a showing that the latter had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________ 7. Minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect the
credibility of witness, and these may even serve to strengthen their credibility as these negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed (Ingal v. People, 2008)
8. Accuracy in accounts had never been applied as a standard to which credibility of witnesses are tested since it is undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to stresses and passage of time (People v. Tolentino, 2008).
9. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against the witness; credibility since the sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open court (People v. Bajada, 2008).
10. The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the SC if supported by substantial evidence in recognition of their expertise on specific matters under consideration (Quiambao v. CA, 454 SCRA 17).
11. A community tax receipt is not credible and reliable in proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized (Baylon v. Almo, 2008).
12. In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered (Bastian v. CA, 2008).
13. The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder (People v. Zeta, 2008).
Chapter II
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ADMISSIONS
A. Judicial Notice
RULE 129
SECTION 1.Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Sec. 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a)
Sec. 3.Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)
NOTE: There are matters in litigation which must be admitted without need for evidence.
Examples:
1. That a place where the crime was committed, such as Quezon City actually exists
2. There is no need to adduce evidence that the statute allegedly violated exist because the court is charged with knowledge of the law it being the product of an official act of the legislative department of the Philippines 3. There is likewise no need to adduce evidence that there
are 24 hours in a day and that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
4. The fact the Cebu lies in the Visayan Region needs no further evidence.
Q: What is the basis of judicial notice?
A: It is based on the maxim, “what is known need not be proved,” hence when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially cognizable facts.
Function of Judicial notice
Q: What is the function of judicial notice?
A: To abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need no evidence because judicial notice is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence. It takes the place of proof and is of equal force. Evidence shall be dispensed with because the matter is so well known and is of common knowledge not to be disputable.
NOTE: Judicial notice cannot be used to fill in the gaps in the party’s evidence. It should not be used to deprive an adverse party of the opportunity to prove a disputed fact.
Q: What are the kinds of judicial notice? A:
1. Mandatory- no motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial notice of a fact because this is a matter which a court ought to take judicial notice of. 2. Discretionary
