RULE 128
EVIDENCE
defined-• Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence
• The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
• Rules 128 and 133 of the Revised Rules of Court • Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14,
1989 approving the Proposed Rules on Evidence submitted by the Rules of Court Revision Committee on August 31, 1987
• Rule 115, Section 1, Formerly Rule III, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (Right of defendant at the trial); • Substantive and Remedial Statutes;
• Judicial decisions
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE ONLY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS “The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact.” The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, is ultra vires because a barrio councils, which are not courts, have no judicial powers. – Miguel v Catalino,20 SCRA 234
Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an exhibit is not admissible in a judicial proceeding as evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact of ownership and possession. Supra TRUTH IS BEST ASCERTAINED UNDER AN ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. –Republic v Valencia, 141 SCRA 462
EVIDENCE distinguished from:
PROOF-• Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full conviction, or establish the proposition to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.
TESTIMONY-• That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by witnesses verbally. Evidence is the generic term and testimony that of the species.
ARGUMENT-• Argument and evidence, taken together, represent the means by which the tribunal is sought to be persuaded as to some fact-in-issue.
FACTUM PROBANDUM distinguished from FACTUM PROBANS:
FACTUM PROBANDUM (Fact in
issue)-• The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established
• Refers to proposition
FACTUM
PROBANS-• Is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is to be established • Materials which establish the proposition
KINDS AND DEGREES OF EVIDENCE
Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence: • DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the
fact in dispute without the aid of any interference or presumption (Lake County vs. Nellon.)
• CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – is the proof of a fact or facts from which taken either singly or collectively, the existence or a particular fact, in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence (State vs. Avery, 113, Mo., 475, 494, 21, S.W. 193)
Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence: • PRIMARY EVIDENCE – that which the law
regards as affording the greatest certainty of fact in question. Also referred to as the best evidence
• SECONDARY EVIDENCE – that which is inferior to the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best evidence is not available. Known as the substitutionary evidence
Positive Evidence and Negative Evidence:
• POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. Entitled to a greater weight since the witness represents of his personal knowledge the presence or absence of a fact
• NEGATIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness did not see or know of the occurrence of a fact. There is a total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without any representation or disavowal that the fact in question could or could not have existed or happened. It is admissible only if it tends to contradict positive evidence of the other side or would tend to exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other side.
Corroborative Evidence and Cumulative Evidence: • CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – is
additional evidence of a different kind and character tending to prove the same point (Wyne v. Newman, 75, Va., 811, 817)
Case:
“The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the victimsdied because of stab wounds inflicted by the armed men who entered their residence on the night of December 4, 1965 remain uncontroverted. XXX Their death certificates therefore are only corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.” (People vs. Watson (1965))
• CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – evidence of the same kind and to the same stale of facts.
Case:
“Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a certain paper, evidence of his school fellows as to his capacity is
cumulative to that of his teachers and medical men upon the same question.” (Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))
Prima Facie Evidence and Conclusive Evidence: • PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – is that which
suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and overcome by other evidence
• CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE – is that which is incontrovertible. When evidence is received which the law does not allow to be contradicted.
Cases:
“Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter written by his agent to the adverse party, is bound by the statements contained therein.” (Lilian Realty Co. v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)
“In an action to recover money paid in settlement of an account in stock transactions, plaintiff is bound by his own testimony that the transactions were gambling transactions, so as to preclude recovery by him. (Atwater v. A.G. Edwards Brokerage Co, 147 Mo. A. 436, 126 S.W. 822)
Relevant Evidence and Material Evidence:
• RELEVANT EVIDENCE – evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action. The test is the logical relation of the evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether the former tends to establish the probability or improbability of the latter.
• MATERIAL EVIDENCE – evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. The test is whether the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not. As to whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial order and by the admissions or confessions on file
• Competent Evidence:
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law in a particular case (Porter v. Valentine)
Irrelevant, Incompetent, Inadmissible, and Immaterial Evidence:
• Irrelevant in strictness, signifies that the offered piece of evidence has no probative value. The rules of circumstantial evidence are what determine the irrelevancy.
• Incompetent, in strictness, signifies that an offered witness is not qualified, under the rule of testimonial evidence.
• Immaterial, in strictness, signifies that the offered evidential fact is excluded by some rule of evidence, no matter what the rule. The rules of substantive law ad of pleading are what determine immateriality.
Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence:
• Rebuttal Evidence – is that which is given to explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party (State v. Silva).
• It is also defined as evidence in denial of some affirmative care or fact which the adverse party has attempted to prove. (Carver v. United States, 160 U.S. 553)
Object (Real) Evidence:
• Directly addressed to the senses of the court and consist of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an ocular inspection, or at place designated by the court for its view of observation of an exhibition, experiment or demonstration. This is referred to as autoptic preference.
Documentary Evidence:
• Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material substances
Testimonial Evidence:
• Is that which is submitted to the court through the testimony or deposition of a witness
Expert Evidence:
• Is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other persons (U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
Substantial Evidence:
• Is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corp. v. Ministry of Labor, 146 SCRA 79)
ROLE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system of law?
• Enforcement of the rules requires the application of the law to an individual person.
WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINE: • All rights and liabilities are dependent upon
and arise out of facts.
• Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose the ascertaining of some right or liability. If the proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the liability to punishment of the person accused. If the proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain some right of property or status, or the right of one party and the liability of other to some form of relief.
• It is necessary that we have Rules of Evidence which will limit the field of matters that can properly be taken into consideration in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the law of evidence, as we have, is in the shape of a set of primary rules for the exclusion of evidence that is logically probative, which but for such exclusionary rules would be legal evidence, and a further set of exceptions to these rules.
• To facilitate the ascertainment of truth. GOOD COMMAND OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL:
• Cases are not always won by the righteousness of the client’s cause but by the evidence which his counsel presents in court to support his claim or defense
RULES OF EVIDENCE NOT STATIC:
• Rules of Evidence…are not static. They are constantly undergoing change, in the interest of the successful development of the truth. The changes are sometimes made by the legislatures, sometimes by the Courts.
Section 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.
(Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court, hereinafter, RROC) REASONS FOR THE RULE:
• The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all courts and in all trials and hearings for the following:
The relation between the evidentiary fact and a particular proposition is always the same, without regard to the kind of litigation in which that proposition becomes material to be proved;
If the rules of evidence prescribe the best course to arrive at the truth that
must be ad are the same in all cases and in all civilized countries
DIFFERENCE IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES:
CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend by
accord Theattends accused by compulsion There is no presumption as to either party Presumption of innocence attends the accused
throughout the trial until the same has been overcome by prima facie evidence of his guilt An offer to compromise does not, as a general rule, amount to an admission of liability It is an implied admission of guilt Must prove by preponderance of evidence: Reason is that there is no presumption ad due to the fact that the proof will only result in a judgment of pecuniary damages
Guilt beyond
reasonable doubt
APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE:
• The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (Del Rosario & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669); Employees’ Compensation Commission (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation vs. Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79); Securities and Exchange Commission; Commission on Elections (Geromo v. COMELEC, et al., 118 SCRA 165); Agrarian Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA 226); Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue v. Johnson, 290 Fed. 621); Court of Tax Appeals (Celestino Co. & Company v. Collector of Internal Revenue, BTA Case No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954, affirmed by the Supreme Court on Aug. 31, 1956, G.R. No. L 8506); Probation Court; Board of
Transportation; Police Commission; Oil Industry Commission; and other similar bodies (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500; Ayala de Roxas v. Case, 8 Phil. 197)
NO VESTED RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN RULES OF EVIDENCE:
• There is no vested right of property in rules of evidence. Hence, any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force at the time the action accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable.
RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ALTERED BY LEGISLATION:
• A Constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of evidence has the legal effect of making it unalterable by ordinary statutory legislation.
RULES OF EVIDENCE MAY BE WAIVED (when available):
• The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case
• The can also make the waiver in a contract Case:
“A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured person is valid.” (National Acc. Soc. V. Ralstin, 101, Ill. App., 192; Connel v. Travelling Men’s Ass’n, 139, 444 N.W. 820)
“Contract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to a physician is also valid.” (Keeler v. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App., 627, 69 S.W. 612) “However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege against the disclosure of state secrets is void.” (Rowland v. Rowland, 40 N.I. Eq., 281)
POLICY TO BE OBSERVED BY COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
• Reception of evidence of doubtful admissibility is in the long run the less harmful course, since all materials necessary for final adjudication would come before the appellate tribunals (Obispo, et. Al. vs. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)
Case:“Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of the rules of evidence which crystallized through constant use and practice and are very useful and effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective administration of justice. But in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them…xxx” (Banaria v. Banaria, et. al., CA. No. 4142, May 31, 1950)
“Even in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of such question, it would be more in keeping with the administration of justice to allow the answer to such question and render the ruling as to its admissibility when all evidence are in.” (People v. Jaca, et al., G.R. No. L-10971, Nov. 28, 1959)
“Where a judge is in doubt as to the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence, he should declare in favor of admissibility rather than non-admissibility.” (The Collector v. Palakadhari, 12 A. (1899))
RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence. 1. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.
a. Evidence is relevant to the issue
b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class of evidence which is excluded by the law or the Rules of Evidence
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga ( G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of
Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
2. Two axioms of Admissibility
a. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. – It prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect rational persuasion. b. All facts having rational probative
value are admissible, unless some specific rule forbids. – This principle does not mean that anything that has probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.
3. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of evidence Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence The admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence.
The weight of evidence has to do with the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade.
The admissibility of evidence does not depend on its weight and sufficiency; credibility and weight being questions of fact.
The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by numerical superiority of witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
It involves credibility of witnesses and all inherent probabilities and improbabilities deducible from the evidence as a whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the time the murder was committed; or 2. A distinguished physician
testifies that he was attending the defendant in his home at the time the murder was committed. As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD ( G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude it.
B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.
Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet received, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court as a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and (2) to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:
• Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike out the evidence thus conditionally admitted
C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and received without objection and the opponents afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining or otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise ensue from the original fact. 5. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules
Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules Governed by the rules
of evidence Evidence excluded by the Constitution
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004) . Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures. Since both Rule 24, Administrative
Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against the respondent.
A. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations. Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between a witness and another person is admissible in any case in which a face to face conversation between a witness and another person would be admissible in evidence, provided that the identity of the person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily established, but not otherwise. Proof of Identity – through witness’ recognition of the voice of the person with whom he was speaking, however, it may be established by means other than the recognition of the voice.
B. Admissibility of radio broadcast.
Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence when the identity of the speaker is established by the following:
• By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his message or speech
• By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker
C. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.
Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of course, to the general rules relating to hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to the proper authentication by foundation testimony.
1. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of communications are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.
REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT
A. UNLAWFUL ACTS 1. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, • to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, • to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described
2. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence,
• to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or
• to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. 3. Section 2.
• Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order
issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.
B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1. Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
• crimes of treason, • espionage,
• provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
• piracy,
• mutiny in the high seas, • rebellion,
• conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
• inciting to rebellion, • sedition,
• conspiracy to commit sedition, • inciting to sedition,
• kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
• and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security
Requirements:
• That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only
upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
2. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and
confidential business
correspondence shall not be authorized.
C. Admissibility
Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a “tap” of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication… The extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire not installed for that purpose.
2. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation can be given probative value:
a. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
b. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
d. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
e. A showing of manner of the preservation of the recording;
f. Identification of the speakers; and g. A showing that the testimony elicited
was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
D. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized. Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17) Case:
Ambre vs. People ( G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
E. Admissibility of Electronic Documents. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
1. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules and related laws; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic Evidence
F. Scientific Detection Devices. 1. Lie detector
2. Speed detection and recording devices 3. Chemical tests for drunkenness 4. Truth serums and hypnosis 5. Blood grouping tests
RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.
1. Relevancy of Evidence
a. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue; or to a fact which, by the process of logic, an inference may be made as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
b. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and logical connection between them and the matter in issue that proof of the former logically tends to make the latter more probable or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish the truth concerning a controversial issue.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba ( G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
2. Test of Relevancy
a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue is logically inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the proposition at issue more or less probable, or which is calculated to explain or establish facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged
e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the offense charged.
3. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source.
Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule, depend upon its source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the evidence, weight being a matter for the court.
4. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy
Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy Means that evidence
must be absolutely essential to the fact in issue.
Requires a higher standard of evidentiary force and includes logical relevancy. The main condition of
admissibility
All rules excluding evidence which is logically relevant are exceptions to the general rule.
The attribute of all those logically relevant matters which are not declared inadmissible by one or more of the excluding rules.
Case:
People vs. Yatar ( G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that would result from its admission.
5. Issue defined.
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.
6. Fact defined
It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:
a. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
b. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular individual in doing a particular act
7. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the case
Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue
Those facts the truth or existence of which the right or liability to be ascertained in the proceeding depends
Facts from the existence of which inference as to the truth or existence of the right or liability to be ascertained may logically be drawn
8. Collateral facts defined
Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
9. Collateral facts in evidence
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it. Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Relevant collateral matters: a. Intention to commit crime b. Motive and absence of motive c. Circumstances preceding the crime d. Guilty knowledge
e. Plan, design or conspiracy f. Opportunity
g. Alibi h. Value
10. Probability and improbability of evidential fact
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be measured by the degree
with which the fact as stated accords with the general experience of mankind.
RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence. 6. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.
a. Evidence is relevant to the issue
b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong to that class of evidence which is excluded by the law or the Rules of Evidence
Cases:
People vs. Soriaga ( G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011). The non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
7. Two axioms of Admissibility
a. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible. – It prescribes that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented on the hypothesis that it is calculated,
according to the prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect rational persuasion. b. All facts having rational probative
value are admissible, unless some specific rule forbids. – This principle does not mean that anything that has probative value is admissible. But everything having a probative value is ipso facto entitled to be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is a superadded and abnormal rule.
8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of evidence
Admissibility of
Evidence Weight of Evidence
The admissibility of
evidence is
determined by its
relevance and
competence.
The weight of evidence has to do with the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade.
The admissibility of evidence does not depend on its weight and sufficiency; credibility and weight being questions of fact.
The weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by numerical superiority of witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
It involves credibility of witnesses and all inherent probabilities and improbabilities deducible from the evidence as a whole. ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of defense, he attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home in bed at the time the murder was committed; or 2. A distinguished physician
the defendant in his home at the time the murder was committed. As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally admissible. But it is likely that the court would give greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested physician than of a mother, who might be expected to commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD ( G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011). Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
9. Types of Admissibility
A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose does not exclude it.
B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.
Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet received, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court as a condition precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and (2) to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:
• Upon motion by the opposite party, the court may strike out the evidence thus conditionally admitted
C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party and received without objection and the opponents afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining or otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise ensue from the original fact. 10. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules
Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules Governed by the rules
of evidence
Evidence excluded by the Constitution
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004) . Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against the respondent.
G. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations. Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation between a witness and another person is admissible in any case in which a face to face conversation between a witness and another person would be admissible in evidence, provided that the identity of the person with whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily established, but not otherwise.
Proof of Identity – through witness’ recognition of the voice of the person with whom he was speaking, however, it may be established by means other than the recognition of the voice.
H. Admissibility of radio broadcast.
Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio broadcast is admissible as evidence when the identity of the speaker is established by the following:
• By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast his message or speech
• By the witness recognition of the voice of the speaker
I. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.
Recording of conversations, statement, confessions, speech, and the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in evidence, subject of course, to the general rules relating to hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like, and subject to the proper authentication by foundation testimony.
3. The wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of communications are prohibited and penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.
REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT
D. UNLAWFUL ACTS 4. Section 1, par 1.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private
communication or spoken word, • to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, • to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described
5. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence,
• to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or
• to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person
• Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. 6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.
E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par 1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving:
• crimes of treason, • espionage,
• provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
• piracy,
• mutiny in the high seas, • rebellion,
• conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
• inciting to rebellion, • sedition,
• inciting to sedition,
• kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
• and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security
Requirements:
• That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
4. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human security Act)
• The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
• Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and
confidential business
correspondence shall not be authorized.
F. Admissibility
Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a “tap” of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication… The extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire not installed for that purpose.
4. Requisites to be established before a recording of conversation can be given probative value:
h. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; i. A showing that the operator of the
device was competent;
j. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; k. A showing that changes, additions,
or deletions have not been made; l. A showing of manner of the
preservation of the recording; m. Identification of the speakers; and n. A showing that the testimony elicited
was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
J. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized. Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution:
5. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. ( Sec. 2)
6. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication ( Sec. 3)
7. Right of a person under investigation for an offense (Sec. 12)
8. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
Case:
Ambre vs. People ( G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
K. Admissibility of Electronic Documents. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
3. It complies with the Rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules and related laws; and
4. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on Electronic Evidence
L. Scientific Detection Devices. 6. Lie detector
7. Speed detection and recording devices 8. Chemical tests for drunkenness 9. Truth serums and hypnosis 10. Blood grouping tests
RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.
11. Relevancy of Evidence
c. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue; or to a fact which, by the process of logic, an inference may be made as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
d. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such rational and logical connection between them and the matter in issue that proof of the former logically tends to make the latter more probable or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish the truth concerning a controversial issue.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba ( G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005).Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or
non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
12. Test of Relevancy
a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue is logically inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to make the proposition at issue more or less probable, or which is calculated to explain or establish facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis being one which, if sustained, would logically influence the issue
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged
e. The test is the connection between the fact proved and the offense charged. 13. Relevancy does not generally depend upon
its source.
Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a general rule, depend upon its source. Neither does relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the evidence, weight being a matter for the court.
14. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy
Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy Means that evidence Requires a higher
must be absolutely essential to the fact in issue.
standard of evidentiary force and includes logical relevancy. The main condition of
admissibility All rules excluding evidence which is logically relevant are exceptions to the general rule.
The attribute of all those logically relevant matters which are not declared inadmissible by one or more of the excluding rules.
Case:
People vs. Yatar ( G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely harm that would result from its admission.
15. Issue defined.
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies. Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by the other.
16. Fact defined
It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:
c. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
d. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a particular individual in doing a particular act
17. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to the case
Facts in issue Facts relevant to the issue
Those facts the truth or existence of which the right or liability to be ascertained in the proceeding depends
Facts from the existence of which inference as to the truth or existence of the right or liability to be ascertained may logically be drawn
18. Collateral facts defined
Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are not directly connected with the principal matter in issue in dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
19. Collateral facts in evidence
General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they tend to draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice and mislead it. Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Relevant collateral matters: i. Intention to commit crime j. Motive and absence of motive k. Circumstances preceding the crime l. Guilty knowledge
m. Plan, design or conspiracy n. Opportunity
o. Alibi p. Value
20. Probability and improbability of evidential fact
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from the standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact per se. Its probability or improbability is to be measured by the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the general experience of mankind.
G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLLY SORIAGA y STO. DOMINGO
For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there
is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police, Soriaga was placed under arrest and brought to the office of the Anti-illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force. The evidence seized was turned over to police investigator PO2 Reynaldo Juan. An examination was conducted on the contents of the plastic sachet which tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.Soriaga was charged with Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165. In addition to the above-mentioned charge, Soriaga was indicted for illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court rendered a decision acquitting Soriaga of this charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs but finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegally selling dangerous drugs. Soriaga appealed the decision arguing that that buy-bust team failed to comply with the requisites of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules requiring the immediate inventory and photograph of the items seized in the buy-bust operation. Further, Soriaga proceeds to question the chain of custody of the seized shabu.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs render the items seized or confiscated inadmissible as evidence.
HELD:
No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."
The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant
to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010
BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President,
Mr. RICARDO BANGAYAN, vs.
SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN
The testimony and the documentary evidence presented are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
FACTS:
Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was charged with qualified theft. On the premise that respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and deposited the corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum against the respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank and Metrobank which was granted by the trial court. The prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of ElenitaMarasigan, the representative of Security Bank whose testimony sought to prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group, Inc., was able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and marking as the same checks received by respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her
personal account with Security Bank. But before the testimony could be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the exclusion of Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying documents thus far received, bearing on the subject Security Bank account. This time respondent invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court in its order denied respondent’s motion to suppress. ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are irrelevant to the case, and whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits and, hence, excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.
HELD:
Yes. In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule, petitioner in the instant case posits that the account maintained by respondent with Security Bank contains the proceeds of the checks that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself and, thus, falls under one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation. What indeed constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action. Given this perspective, the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioner’s trust and confidence and stealing cash. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some material way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention of the supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept. It comes clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary evidence relative to respondent’s Security Bank account serves no other purpose than to establish
