Evidence Question and Answer

1.) What is the Quantum of Evidence required in (1) a criminal case and (2) a civil case? Explain. Answer: A.) Criminal cases: - Proof of Guilt Must Be Beyond reasonable doubt. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. B.) Civil Cases: - Preponderance of Evidence This means that the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other. 2.) What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence? Explain each requisite. Answer: The following are the requisites for admissibility of evidence: 1. Relevancy – Evidence which has connection to the issue thereof and has a tendency to establish the fact which it is offered to prove (logical relevancy), and offered to prove a matter which has been properly put in issue as determined by the pleadings in civil cases, or as fixed by the pretrial order, or as determined by substantive law (legal relevancy). 2. Competency – The evidence must not be excluded by law or rules. 3.) Epad and two other suspects were rounded up in connection with a rape with homicide case. In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and Epad’s own wife and son, he confessed his guilt, disclosed how he killed one Maria and volunteered to show them the place where he hid her bags. On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." He testified that that afternoon, he was at his parent's house attending the birthday party of his nephew. The confession was captured on videotape. The lower trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Is Epad’s extrajudicial oral confession unassisted by a counsel admissible as evidence? Answer: Yes. Appellant was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform appellant of his constitutional rights when he was investigated and interrogated. Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's confession before the mayor is inadmissible, it was the appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights, Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. Thus, they are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. 4.) How are the rules of Evidence construed? Answer: - The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. - Where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. - The intention of the parties is to be pursued. - when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is shall prevail. - the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown. - The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation - however, evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. - In words vs Printed form, the former controls the latter. - When the document is difficult to decipher, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. - When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made. - When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. - The usage of the instrument can be used in order to determine the true character of the instrument. 5.) X was accused of the crime of murder. The prosecution presented evidences such as the dead body of the victim, the post-mortem report conducted by the coroner, the death certificate of the victim from the hospital, and the sworn testimony of Y as the witness to the said crime, in order to prove that X indeed committed the crime. What are the factum probandum and the factum probans in this case? Answer: The factum Probandum in this case are the aforementioned dead body of the victim, the post-mortem report, the death certificate of the victim from the hospital, and the sworn testimony of Y as the witness to the crime, as presented by the Prosecution. The factum Probans is the culmination of all the evidences provided in the factum probandum that which will become proof that X committed the murder. 6.) B1 and B2 had a confrontation in the office of B1. B2 secretly recorded their verbal confrontation and used it as evidence in his action against B1, who in turn filed a criminal case against B2 for violation of R.A. 4200 (The Anti Wire Tapping Law). B2 held that the taping by a participant to a conversation is not covered by the law. Is the recording admissible as evidence? The law does not make a distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized is a party or not to the private conversation. The nature of the conversation is immaterial. What is penalized is the act of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording private communications by the devices enumerate under Section 1. (Ramirez vs. C.A., September 28, 1995) 7.) Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence Answer: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Rule 131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence established against him (See: Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 September 23, 1985). 8.) Johair was convicted of arson by the Regional Trial Court in the place where we live. He allegedly burned the house of our neighbor. No witness was presented who could have seen directly and plainly Johair committing any act that would constitute arson. There were testimonies, however, that say that Johair threatened to burn our neighbor’s house and that there was an ongoing verbal altercation between my Johair and his neighbor. There was also a testimony stating that previously Johair already tried to burn that house in a different incident but it is not the same incident that consequently led to his indictment and conviction. The court says Johair’s conviction was based on purely “circumstantial evidence” is valid. What is circumstantial evidence? Is it possible to convict a person, beyond reasonable doubt, mainly on the basis of circumstantial evidence? Answer: “Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are classifications of evidence with legal consequences. The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference does not relate to the probative value of the evidence. Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, “indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.” The probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to circumstantial evidence. The Rules of Court do not distinguish between “direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred.” The same quantum of evidence is still required. Courts must be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused is its perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. After all, evidence is always a matter of reasonable inference from any fact that may be proven by the prosecution provided the inference is logical and beyond reasonable doubt.” The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence. The circumstances must be considered as a whole and should create an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused authored the crime. The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be “consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” Succinctly, Johair, based on circumstantial evidence may be held guilty for arson, as the same had already been established in a number of cases. As cited in the same case, “The crime of simple arson was proven solely through circumstantial evidence in People v. Abayon. None of the prosecution’s witnesses actually saw the accused start the fire. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, taken in its entirety, all pointed to the accused’s guilt. In People v. Acosta, there was also no direct evidence linking the accused to the burning of the house. However, the circumstantial evidence was substantial enough to convict the accused. The accused had motive and previously attempted to set a portion of the victim’s house on fire. Moreover, he was present at the scene of the crime before and after the incident.” Clearly, so long as the commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator and the finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence, the same may be sufficient to support a conviction. Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated by the witnesses and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. 9.) Pilandok is charged with drunk driving. The prosecution wants to offer evidence that Pilandok is a member of a violent street gang. Can the prosecution prove that Pilandok is indeed a member of a street gang? Answer: The evidence is irrelevant because the crime charged has nothing to do with gang activities. The evidence would only serve to stir up bias against Epad. (relevancy in admissibility of evidence) 10.) In a civil case of unlawful detainer against defendant Aminah. Plaintiff Akimah presented the original demand letter showing that Aminah was notified of the unlawful possession of the property and a Xerox copy of their lease contract, alleging she will present the original later. Is this kind of evidence allowed? Answer: Yes. Under the rule on conditional admissibility of evidence, the Xerox copy of the lease contract presented by Akimah is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily, subject to the condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts will later be proven, or that the party will later submit evidence that it meets certain requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the record. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BILLY ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. RULE 128 SECTION 3 September 10, 2015, Alfredo Salucana went to the police station to report a mauling incident where Billy Acosta purportedly hit him with a wood, Salucana also reported that Acosta was planting Marijuana in his house. This prompted the police officers to proceed to Acosta’s house where after Salucana’s positive identification of Acosta, the latter was immediately arrested. After such arrest, SPO4 Legaspi found 13 hills of marijuana, which they uprooted, marked and inventoried. Acosta denied the charges and argued that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence as the "plain view" doctrine is not applicable. RTC found Acosta guilty which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court found Acosta not guilty. Section 3 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides as a general rule that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. One of the exceptions is when "plain view" doctrine is applicable. This applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana plants in the area. Thus, the second requisite is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable, the seized marijuana are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree. Section 3 of Rule 128 provides that an evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. In this case the evidence against Acosta was obtained in violation of his rights against reasonable searches and seizures, and given that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Acosta's conviction to be improper and therefore, Billy Acosta is Acquitted. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BILLY ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. RULE 128 SECTION 3 September 10, 2015, Alfredo Salucana went to the police station to report a mauling incident where Billy Acosta purportedly hit him with a wood, Salucana also reported that Acosta was planting Marijuana in his house. This prompted the police officers to proceed to Acosta’s house where after Salucana’s positive identification of Acosta, the latter was immediately arrested. After such arrest, SPO4 Legaspi found 13 hills of marijuana, which they uprooted, marked and inventoried. Acosta denied the charges and argued that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence as the "plain view" doctrine is not applicable. RTC found Acosta guilty which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court found Acosta not guilty. Section 3 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides as a general rule that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. One of the exceptions is when "plain view" doctrine is applicable. This applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana plants in the area. Thus, the second requisite is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable, the seized marijuana are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree. Section 3 of Rule 128 provides that an evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. In this case the evidence against Acosta was obtained in violation of his rights against reasonable searches and seizures, and given that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Acosta's conviction to be improper and therefore, Billy Acosta is Acquitted