February 23, 2021
Evidence
Activity 1
100 pts
Reyes, Joselle J.
I. Distinguish the classifications of evidence
1. As to its ability to establish the fact in dispute:
Direct Evidence Vs Circumstantial Evidence
Direct Evidence is an evidence which proves the fact in
dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.
Circumstantial evidence is an evidence which indirectly
proves a fact in issue through an inference drawn from
the evidence established.
2. As to the degree of its value in establishing a disputed fact:
Prima Facie Evidence Vs Conclusive Evidence
• Prima Facie Evidence is that evidence which standing
alone unexplained or uncontradicted is sufficient to maintain the
proposition affirmed. By itself it is sufficient to establish the
factum probandum if no evidence to the contrary appears.
• Conclusive Evidence is that evidence which is
incontrovertible or one which the law does not allow to be
contradicted.
3. As to the similarity of character or nature of the additional
evidence:
Corroborative Evidence Vs Cumulative Evidence
• Corroborative Evidence is an additional evidence of a
different kind and character from that already given, tending to
prove the same point.
• Cumulative Evidence is an additional evidence of the
same kind and character as that already given and tends to
prove the same proposition.
4. As to its weight and acceptability
Primary or Best Evidence Vs Secondary or Substitutionary
Evidence
• Primary or Best Evidence is an evidence which affords
the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
• Secondary or Substitutionary Evidence is an evidence
which is inferior to primary evidence and admissible only in the
absence of the latter.
5. As to its nature:
Object Evidence Vs Documentary Evidence Vs Testimonial
evidence
• Object Evidence is an evidence directly addressed to the
senses of the court and is capable of being exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.
• Documentary Evidence is an evidence consists of writings
or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof
of their contents.
• Testimonial Evidence is the testimony of a witness usually
on oath or affirmation given by his word of mouth in the witness
stand.
6. As to quality:
Admissible Evidence Vs Material Evidence
• Admissible Evidence is that evidence that is relevant and
competent.
• Material Evidence is the evidence which tends to prove or
disprove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleadings.
7. Rebuttal vs Sur-rebuttal evidence
Rebuttal Evidence is that kind, which is given, to explain,
repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by
the adverse party. It is evidence in denial of tree affirmative
case or fact which the adverse party has attempted to
prove.
Sur-rebuttal Evidence is a reply to rebuttal evidence.
8. Positive vs Negative evidence
• In a Positive Evidence, a witness affirms in the
stand that a certain state of facts does exist or that a
certain event happened.
• In a Negative Evidence, a witness states that an
event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to
exist does not actually exist.
II. When is Judicial Notice discretionary?
• Judicial Notice is discretionary under the following
circumstances:
a. Matters which are of public knowledge;
b.Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
c. Matters ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
III. What is the Doctrine of Processual Presumption/ Doctrine of
Presumed Identity Approach?
• Doctrine of Processual Presumption/ Doctrine of
Presumed Identity Approach refers to a situation where a
foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not
proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same
as ours (Philippine Law).
IV. Distinguish between Judicial Admission and Extrajudicial
Admission
1. As to how made
Judicial Admission is made in pleading filed or in the
progress of trial as to dispense with the introduction of
evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some
rules of practice necessary to be observed and
complied with.
Extrajudicial Admission is an admission made out of
court.
2. As to conclusiveness
• Judicial Admission is conclusive upon the party making
them.
• Extrajudicial Admission is generally disputable except
when the elements of estoppel are present.
V. Read and digest the following cases: People vs Flores, et. Al.,
G.R. No. 71980, March 18, 1991; and
Zpeople vs Cui, et. Al., G.R. No. 121982. September 10, 1999
People of the Philippines vs Leonardo Flores, et. al
G.R. No. 71980; March 18, 1991
Facts: Mercedes Dulay, the victim in this case was
mercilessly raped and killed by the defendants which was
perpetrated during nighttime. The defendants were charged
with rape with homicide and robbery in the RTC of Lingayen,
Pangasinan.
Accused Flores executed a sworn statement at the
Manaoag police station(MPS) . Flores, although informed of his
right to be assisted by a counsel, he opted to give a statement
voluntarily and freely. He narrated the events that transpired
and provided the names of his companions. However, the other
defendants denied having been involved in the perpetration of
the crime.
The RTC ruled that Flores’ detailed recital of facts at the
trial together with his extrajudicial confession proves the guilt of
the defendants.
Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of Flores is
considered inadmissible evidence?
Ruling: Yes, the extrajudicial confession of Flores is
considered inadmissible evidence because he was not assisted
by a counsel. Furthermore, his extrajudicial confession may not
be accorded probative value in view of his admission of the
crime in an open court. Thus, only his judicial confession should
be given weighed and considered.
People of the Philippines vs. Leonilo Cui, et. al.
G.R. No. 121982; September 10, 1999
Facts: A group of armed robbers raided the compound of
Johnny and Rose Lim. The victims were able to identify the
faces of the leader, Wilfredo “Toto” Garcia and two of his men,
Mawe Garcia and a certain Edgar. The other robbers were not
identified as they had flour sacks over their heads. The robbers
also abducted the youngest daughter of the Lims.
The Lims then sought for the assistance of Metrodiscom
Intelligence Security Team (MIST). Identifying Toto Garcia was
a valuable lead. They were able to identify that the gang based
their operation at Quiot, Pardo, Cebu. The Lims informed the
police that their house guard Eduardo Basingan was from the
said place, they then interrogated Basingan.
During the interrogation of Basingan, he provided the other
names of the accused and narrated how the group plotted the
commission of the crime. Also, he stated that he was asked to
join the plot, but he refused to join them. Basingan executed a
sworn statement reiterating these revelations in writing.
The Lims formalized then their complaint against the
defendants and charged them for kidnapping with Ransom.
Basingan executed a second sworn statement reiterating his
first, In addition he detailed the role of the Cuis in the planning
of the crime at bar.
The trial court convicted the Cuis, Obeso, Sarte, Basingan and
Nacario.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the
extrajudicial statement made by Eduardo Basingan?
Ruling: No. There is no question that Basingan escaped and
never testified in court to affirm his accusation against the Cuis,
Obeso and Sarte. Thus, the trial court committed reversible
error in admitting and giving weight to the sworn statements of
Basingan.
The testimony of Sgt. Ouano confirming the content of
Basingan’s sworn statements is not proof of its truth and by
itself cannot justify the conviction of appellants. Both the
extrajudicial sworn statement of Basingan and the testimony of
Sgt. Ouano are clear hearsay.
VI. Explain: The body of the accused as object evidence in criminal
case
• The body of the accused as object evidence in criminal
cases provides that the accused may be compelled to
submit himself to an inspection of his body for the purpose
of ascertaining identity or for other purposes. Thus, the
accused may be compelled to discharge morphine from his
mouth, place his feet over bloody footprints, and a woman
charged with adultery to submit herself to medical
examination to determine whether she is pregnant.
VII. What are the requisites of admissibility of Object evidence?
The requisites of admissibility of Object Evidence are the
following:
a. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;
b. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted;
c. The authentication must be made by a competent
witness; and
d. The object must be formally offered in evidence.
VIII. What are the purposes of authentication?
The purposes of authentication are the following:
a. To prevent the introduction of an object different from
the one testified about; and
b. To ensure that there have been no significant changes
in the object’s condition.
IX. What are the types of authentication?
The types of authentication are the following:
a. By testimony- If the real evidence is of a type which can
be readily identified by a witness, the witness’ testimony
will be sufficient authentication;
b. By chain of custody- If the real evidence is of a type
which cannot be easily recognized or readily be
confused or tampered with, the proponent must present
evidence of its chain of custody. It must be shown that
there was a strong probability of correct identification.
X. Define and explain the Doctrine of Chain of Custody.
Doctrine of Chain of Custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or
confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping
to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the
final disposition.
XI. What is the purpose of establishing a Chain of Custody?
The purpose of establishing a Chain of Custody is to ensure
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much that unnecessary doubts as to the identity
of the evidence are removed.
