Evidence

Evidence SCANNER Normal JOJO 3 33 2002-01-14T03:26:00Z 2002-01-15T11:09:00Z 3 1429 8150 SC 67 16 10008 9.2720 120

2. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

The study of the law on Evidence involves two main problems, viz .: (1) determining whether a given piece of evidence is admissible; and (2) the proper presentation of that evidence so that the court will consider it in resolving the issues and deciding the case. Although evidence may, by itself, be admissible, the court may not admit or consider it in the resolution of the case unless the evidence was properly presented.

A. Axiom of Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issues and is competent, i.e ., it is not excluded by the law or the Rules of Court. 4 Evidence is relevant if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue . 5 It is of a lesser degree of reliability as evidence than material evidence. Material evidence directly proves a fact in issue. Thus, the testimony of an eyewitness to the commission of a crime is material; the evidence of motive or flight of the accused may be relevant. Evidence that is material or relevant must also be competent to be admissible. For example, although the testimony of the eyewitness may be material, it may be inadmissible if it is excluded by the marital disqualification rule.

Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case. It is therefore inadvisable for a judge to ask an objecting counsel why an offered piece of evidence is irrelevant or immaterial. By his inquiry, he shows his unfamiliarity with the issues in the case. A judge is expected to be aware of the issues which he was supposed to have defined and limited in his mandatory pre-trial order. On the other hand, the grounds for objection to the competency of evidence must be specified 6 and are determined by the Rules or the law.

The opposites of the three requisites for admissibility of evidence, viz, irrelevancy, immateriality or incompetency, are the general grounds for objection. The first two are valid grounds for objection without need of specification or explanation. The third ground for objection, incompetency, if offered without further explanation, is not valid for being unspecific, except when invoked in reference to the lack of qualification of a witness to answer a particular question or give a particular evidence.

B. Proper Presentation Of Evidence

Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain processes of presentation for its admissibility and admission.

1. Object evidence

Object evidence must generally be marked (Exhibit A, B, etc. for the plaintiff; Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc. for the defendant) either during the pre-trial or during its presentation at the trial. It must also be identified as the object evidence it is claimed to be. This requires a testimonial sponsor. For example, a forensic chemist identifies marijuana leaves as those submitted to him in the case for examination. Further, object evidence must be formally offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. 7

2. Oral evidence

Oral evidence is presented through the testimony of a witness. Under the 1989 Rules on Evidence, oral evidence must be formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify. 8 Objections may then be raised against the testimony of the witness. If the objection is valid, as when the witness' testimony is barred by the hearsay rule or the opinion rule, the witness will not be allowed to testify. If the witness is otherwise allowed to testify, he shall be sworn in, either by taking an oath or making an affirmation. 9 It is essential that the proper foundation for the testimony of a witness must be laid. An ordinary witness must be shown to have personal knowledge of the facts he shall testify to; otherwise, his testimony will be hearsay, or he will be incompetent to answer the questions to be asked of him. An expert witness must be specifically qualified as such; otherwise, he cannot validly give his opinion on matters for which he may have been summoned as a witness.

However, the requirement of qualifying an expert witness may be dispensed with if:

(a) the adverse counsel stipulates on the expert's qualification; or

(b) the court takes judicial notice of the witness' expertise, because the judge happens to be aware thereof on account of the judge's judicial functions.

3. Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence is (1) marked; (2) identified as the document which it is claimed to be (as when the witness asserts that the document presented to him is the same contract which he claims was executed between the two parties); (3) authenticated, if a private document, by proving its due execution and genuineness; and (4) formally offered after all the proponent's witnesses have testified. 10

Rule 132, Sec. 34 provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered, and that the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. In this connection, it has been asked whether it would be proper for the judge to disregard a witness' direct testimony given without the prior formal offer thereof which Rule 132, Sec. 35 requires, and corollarily, whether the adverse party may be required to cross-examine that witness. In People v. Marcos, 11 the Supreme Court ruled that if a witness has given unoffered direct testimony without objection from the adverse party, the latter is estopped from raising that objection which he is deemed to have waived; hence, although not formally offered, the testimony may be considered by the court.

The view can be advanced, however, that although the aforesaid testimony was not expressly formally offered, it was nonetheless formally offered, albeit impliedly and automatically, the moment each question was propounded to elicit an answer. This view is premised on two related provisions in Rule 132, Sec. 36, i.e ., that 'Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made,' and that ' Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall have become reasonably apparent.' Clearly, the purpose of the express formal offer of oral evidence before the witness testifies is merely to determine, on the basis of the stated substance of the testimony and its purpose, whether the witness shall be allowed to testify. Once the witness is allowed to testify, each question propounded to elicit specific oral evidence may still be objected to as soon as a ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent. But it is fundamental that an objection to evidence can be validly raised only after an offer is made. Thus, every question asked of a witness especially on direct examination presupposes a formal offer of the answer, the oral evidence, sought to be elicited. It would seem therefore that unlike documentary and object evidence which are formally offered only after all the witnesses of a party have testified, oral evidence is offered twice: once, expressly, before the witness testifies, and again, with each question propounded to the witness.

C. Formal Offer Of Evidence; Need For Statement Of The Purpose Of Evidence

Evidence not formally offered will not be considered by the court in deciding the case. 12

A party makes a formal offer of his evidence by stating its substance or nature and the purpose or purposes for which the evidence is offered. 13 Without a formal offer of evidence, and hence without a disclosure of its purpose, it cannot be determined whether it is admissible or not. This is so because it is the intended purpose of a piece of evidence which determines what rule of evidence will apply for its admissibility. A piece of evidence may be admissible if offered for one purpose but may be inadmissible if offered for another. For example, the testimony of a witness, in a libel case, that he heard the defendant call the plaintiff a liar and a crook is certainly inadmissible for being hearsay, if offered to prove the truth of the perceived statement. However, the same testimony is perfectly admissible if offered simply to prove that the statement was uttered. For that purpose, the witness would be the only person qualified to testify on, and prove, what he heard defendant say. Similarly, the declaration of a dying person made without consciousness of his impending death will not qualify as a dying declaration, although it may be admissible if offered as part of the res gestae.

It must be noted that the mere marking, identification, or authentication of documentary evidence does not mean that it will be, or has been, offered as part of the evidence of a party. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Santito , Jr . 14

Annexes attached to pleadings, if not offered formally, are mere scraps of paper and should not be considered by the court, 15 unless the truth of their contents has been judicially admitted.

To the general rule that the court shall not consider any evidence not formally offered, there are certain exceptions:

1. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full blown trial is held in the interest of speedy administration of justice;

2. In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge bases his decisions on the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits and documents filed with the court;

3. Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of by the court;

4. Documents whose contents are judicially admitted;

5. Object evidence which could not be formally offered because they have disappeared or have become lost after they have been marked, identified and testified on and described in the record and became the subject of cross-examination of the witnesses who testified on them during the trial, e.g., marijuana involved in a prohibited drugs prosecution . 16

4 Rules of Court, Rule 128, Sec. 3.

5 Ibid.

6 Rules of Court, Rule 134, Sec. 36 .

7 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35.

8 Ibid.

9 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 1 .

10 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35.

11 G.R. No. 91646, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 748.

12 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 34.

13 Ibid.

14 People v Santito, Jr. , G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991, 201 SCRA 87.

15 Llaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 63226, December 20, 1991 204 SCRA 887 (Although the decision in Llaban was withdrawn by the Supreme Court on March 17, 1993, the withdrawal affected only the validity of the final disposition of that case. This did not void the soundness of the Court's pronouncement on the treatment of annexes attached to pleadings.)

16 People v. Napat-A , G. R. No. 84951, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 403; Tabuena v. Court of Appeals , G. R. No. 85423, May 6, 1991 196 SCRA 650.