CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

What is evidence?

Evidence - is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a

judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
1. Means – refers to any mode or method accepted by law to prove the
existence or non-existence of a fact.
2. Sanctioned by these rules – only evidence allowed by the Rules of
Court, and other applicable laws/statutes may be used in court
3. Ascertain the truth – underscores that one of the purposes of evidence
is to guide the court in discovering the truth of disputed factual issues.

Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt means that the degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. There should be moral
certainty. Moral certainty is a certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.

What is the purpose/rationale of Evidence?

1. Question of truth - Courts rely on evidence to determine the truth or
falsity of the factual allegations raised in pleadings. It is the judicial
mechanism that ensures litigation is decided based on facts
established by proper and reliable means.
2. Due Process - The rules on evidence form part of procedural due
process. By carefully defining the manner of presenting and
evaluating evidence, the legal system seeks to protect the rights of
parties and ensure fairness.
- what is due process? Legal matters be resolved according to
established rules and principles, ensuring fairness and justice.
- What are the two components of due process? Substantive due
process and Procedural due process.
- Where does evidence fall on the two components of due process?
Procedural due process.

Factum Probandum vs Factum Probans

Factum Probandum - The factum probandum is the principal fact in issue, the
ultimate fact, or the proposition that a party seeks to establish in the
litigation. This is the core matter that the party must prove to prevail, such
as the fact of liability, the fact of negligence, or the fact of ownership.

Factume Probans - The factum probans consist of the supporting facts or

pieces of evidence—documentary, testimonial, or object—employed to prove
the factum probandum.
Example of Factum probandum and Factum probans
- Factum Probandum: The accused committed the crime of theft by
taking personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain,
without the owner’s consent.
- Factum Probans: Testimonies of witnesses who saw the accused
take the item, the recovered stolen item, and any relevant
documentary evidence (e.g., a receipt proving ownership)—all these
are used to establish each element of theft.

Proof vs Evidence – which come first?

Proof is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction and persuasion
of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
Proof is the effect of the evidence. Without evidence there can be no proof.

Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence?

In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden to prove that the crime was
committed because the accused has in his favor the constitutional right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. And due to this right, the conviction of
the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the
strength of the prosecution.

It is the duty of the Prosecution to present evidence on the facts in issue

necessary to establish his claim.

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to

establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.

Presumption of Regularity
- Official acts are presumed regular unless there is affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.
- Mere allegations and self-serving statements are insufficient to
overcome this presumption; clear and convincing evidence is
required.
- Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public enjoy the
presumption of regularity and are prima facie evidence of the truth
of the facts stated therein.

In order to rebut this principle clear and convincing evidence must be

presented.

Presumption of Innocence – is a right granted by the Constitution,

particularly the bill of rights, to the accused. It must be proven that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Presumption of innocence must prevail over presumption of regularity
because it is a right granted by the constitution while presumption of
regularity is customary and made in the context of an existing rule of law or
statute.

“Whenever there is an unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody

requirements, the prosecution cannot invoke the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty to conveniently disregard such lapse.
Noncompliance obliterates proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
warranting an accused's acquittal. Thus, the constitutional right to
presumption of innocence prevails.” – PP vs Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053

Hierarchy Of Evidence or the Order of Preference

1. Object Evidence vs. Testimonial Evidence
2. Documentary Evidence vs Testimonial Evidence
3. Positive Evidence vs Negative Evidence
4. Direct Evidence vs Circumstantial Evidence
5. Testimony in court vs Sworn statements or affidavits

WHEN is Circumstantial Evidence sufficient?

1. There is more than 1 circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial Evidence - proves a series of collateral facts and

circumstances which, taken together or in connection with each
other, leads logically to a conclusion about the main fact in dispute.

Examples of Circumstantial Evidence

1. Motive and Opportunity: Evidence showing the accused had a
strong motive to commit the crime and was near the scene at the
relevant time.
2. Chain of Possession: Evidence that stolen property was found in the
possession of the accused shortly after the theft.
3. Behavior Before/After Crime: Unusual conduct (e.g., flight from
jurisdiction, hiding, self-incriminating statements) that inferentially
points to guilt.
4. Inconsistent or Illogical Explanation: Accused’s statements or
behavior that are at odds with established facts, thereby strengthening
an inference of culpability.

Direct Evidence - Evidence that proves the fact in issue without the need for
inference or presumption.

Examples of Direct Evidence

 1. Testimonial: An eyewitness who testifies that they personally saw the
accused fire a gun at the victim.
2. Documentary: A legally admitted document that on its face directly
establishes the fact in question (for instance, a valid deed of sale
proving ownership or transfer of property).
3. Real or Object Evidence: A video recording of the incident showing
the commission of the crime, provided it is properly authenticated and
meets other standards of admissibility.

Evidentiary weight of expert witness

It refers to the relative value or persuasiveness of the totality of proof offered

The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within

the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character
of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of
the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in
favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the
relative opportunities for study or observation of the matters about which he
testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements.
The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be
considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case
and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given
controlling effect (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058). The problem of the credibility of
the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion
of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of
an abuse of that discretion.

For an evidence to be admissible, it must be RELEVANT and COMPETENT.

Relevance - evidence to be relevant must have such a relation to the fact in

issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 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.

Competence - Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the

Constitution, the law or these Rules. Competence is primarily therefore, a
matter of law or a matter of rule. The question as to competence is: Is the
evidence allowed by the law or by the rules? If it is allowed, the evidence is
competent. If it is not allowed, it is incompetent.

JUDICIAL NOTICE – is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may

properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE – 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, official acts of
the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. The new rule clarifies that only the official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the National Government are those
subject of mandatory judicial notice. Consequently, the official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of local government units are
generally not subject of mandatory judicial notice.

DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION; Foreign laws do not prove

themselves in this jurisdiction, and our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be properly pleaded
and proved. Under the Rules of Court, the record of public documents of a
sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official publication
thereof, or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof.
Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the
legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized
Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The
attestation must state in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under
the official seal of the attesting officer.

DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE – A court may take judicial notice of

matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. Generally speaking, matters of
judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively
settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining
what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence,
it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety.

JUDICIAL ADMISSION – An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party

in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact,
made. A judicial admission is a verbal declaration or written statement made
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which does not
require proof. It is binding upon the party making these admissions. A judicial
admission is a waiver of proof, and production of evidence is dispensed with.
It removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. To
contradict one's own admission, the Rules require that the party who made
the admission must show that it was made through palpable mistake, or that
the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.