Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: GENERAL CONCEPTS, EXPERT TESTIMONY MAY BE ADMITTED The opinion…

- - - - RULES OF COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN AGRARIAN CASES, EVEN IN SUPPLETORY CHARACTER
        Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 provides that the "Rules of Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character."
        (Reyes v. CA)
        
        IN AGRARIAN CASES AFFIDAVITS AND COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
        The same provision states that
        "In the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence."
        (Reyes v. CA)
        
        IN AGRARIAN CASES, ONLY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED
        Moreover, in agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence required is no more than substantial evidence.
        (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96492, [November 26, 1992], 290 PHIL 425-432)
        
        SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE
        In Bagsican vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 226, the Supreme Court defined what substantial evidence is:
        "Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an ordinary civil case.
        
        DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
        RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION
        It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and
        
        CONTRARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial,
        
        2 more items...
        
        AFFIDAVITS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN AGRARIAN CASES EVEN IF AFFIANTS ARE NOT PRESENTED OR CROSS-EXAMINED
        This is true though the affiants are not presented or cross-examined
        Finally, we rule that the trial court did not err when it favorably considered the affidavits of Eufrocina and Efren Tecson (Annexes "B" and "C") although the affiants were not presented and subjected to cross-examination.
        (Ruling of Appellate Court as adopted by SC
        (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96492, [November 26, 1992], 290 PHIL 425-432)
      - RAPE CASES
        
        3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN REVIEW OF RAPE CASES
        As aptly recalled by the trial court, there are three guiding principles in the review of rape cases, to wit:
        
        EASIER TO PROVE THAN TO DISPROVE
        (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove;
        
        TERSTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT IS SCRUTINIZED WITH EXTREME CAUTION
        (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and
        
        EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION STANDS OR FALLS ON ITS OWN MERITS, NOT TO DRAW STRENGTH FROM WEAKNESS OF DEFENSE
        (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
        
        (People vs. Gallo, 284 SCRA 590 [1998]; People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 [1998]; People vs. Auxtero, 289 SCRA 75 [1998]; People vs. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 [1998]).||| (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        PRIMORDIAL CONSIDERATION IN RAPE IS CREDIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY
        Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        TESTIMONY OF RAPE VICTIMS AGED 12-16 DESERVE FULL CREDENCE
        Declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence (People v. Bernaldez, 294 SCRA 317 [1998])
        When the offended parties are young and immature girls from ages 12-16, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court if the matter about which they testified were not true (People v. Clopino).
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        TESTIMONY OF RAPE DESERVES CREDENCE WHERE THERE IS NO MOTIVE TO FALSELY TESTIFY AGAINST THE ACCUSED
        Pertinently, no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251 [1998]).|||
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        DELAY IN REPORTING EXCUSABLE IN RAPE
        As regards the initial delay of the victim in reporting the rape incident, suffice it to state that the delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is not uncommon (People vs. Gallo, supra).
        In the case at bar, the victim's fear of her father who had moral ascendancy over her, was explicit. She testified that she did not disclose the incident to her father because of fear both of her father as well as of accused-appellant. Such reaction is typical of a twelve-year-old girl and only strengthens her credibility.|||
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        1 more item...
        
        MEDICAL EXAMINATION IS NOT INDISPENSABLE IN THE
        PROSECUTION OF RAPE
        It is well-settled that a medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of rape (People vs. Lacaba, G.R. No. 130591, November 17, 1999; People vs. Salazar, 258 SCRA 55 [1996]; People vs. Venerable, supra). The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape (People vs. Taneo, supra).
        It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is proper (People vs. Auxtero, supra). In the instant case, the victim's testimony alone is credible and sufficient to convict.
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Their lone testimony suffices as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
        
        MINOR LAPSES IN A WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS EXPECTED WHEN THEY RECOUNT DETAILS OF AN EXPERIENCE SO HUMILIATING AND PAINFUL TO RECALL
        Minor lapses in a witness' testimony should be expected when a person recounts details of an experience so humiliating and so painful to recall as rape (People vs. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478 [1998]).
        
        RAPE IS USUALLY NOT REMEMBERED IN DETAIL
        Rape, as a harrowing experience, is usually not remembered in detail. For, such an offense is not something which enhances one's life experience as to be worth recalling or reliving but, rather, something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim for the rest of her life, which her conscious or subconscious mind would prefer to forget (People vs. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 [1997]).
        These lapses do not detract from the overwhelming testimony of a prosecution witness positively identifying the malefactor (People vs. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]).
        Further, the testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein (People vs. Natan, 193 SCRA 355 [1991]).|||
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
    - - ADMISSIBILITY vs PROBATIVE VALUE
        Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of 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.
        (Atienza v. Board of Medicine, G.R. No. 177407, [February 9, 2011], 657 PHIL 536-546)
        
        ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
        vs
        PROBATIVE VALUE
        ADMISSIBILITY = RELEVANCE AND NON-EXCLUSIONARY
        Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules (Section 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court) or is competent. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law.
        PROBATIVE VALUE = DEPENDS ON JUDICIAL EVALUATION AS IN RULE 133 AND IN JURISPRUDENCE
        On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the Court.
        EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE BUT BE OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE AND VICE VERSA
        Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception.
        (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 1998 ed., p. 550) (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IS ADMISSIBLE BUT HAS LITTLE PROBATIVE VALUE
        Withal, although the medical certificate is an exception to the hearsay rule, hence admissible as evidence, it has very little probative value due to the absence of the examining physician.
        
        Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the prosecution relied solely on the medical certificate (stating that there was "[h]ymen rupture, secondary to penile insertion" as well as "foul-smelling discharges." The diagnosis was "[r]uptured hymen secondary to rape" [p. 68, Record]).
        In fact, reliance was made on the testimony of the victim herself which, standing alone even without medical examination, is sufficient to convict (People vs. Topaguen, 369 SCRA 601 [1997]).
        
        MEDICAL EXAMINATION IS NOT INDISPENSABLE IN PROSECUTION OF RAPE
        It is well-settled that a medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of rape (People vs. Lacaba, G.R. No. 130591, November 17, 1999; People vs. Salazar, 258 SCRA 55 [1996]; People vs. Venerable, supra).
        The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape (People vs. Taneo, supra).
        It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is proper (People vs. Auxtero, supra).
        In the instant case, the victim's testimony alone is credible and sufficient to convict.
        (People v. Turco, Jr., G.R. No. 137757, [August 14, 2000], 392 PHIL 498-517)
        
        How is admissibility an
        affair of logic and law?
      - PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
        
        SC DOES NOT ADDRESS QUESTIONS OF FACT
        
        THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ADDRESS QUESTIONS OF FACT OR THE "TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF ALLEGED FACTS"
        This Court does not address questions of fact which require us to rule on "the truth or falsehood of alleged facts," 37 except in the following cases:
        ||| (Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, [February 3, 2016], 780 PHIL 258-272)
        
        EXCEPTIONS
        
        FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION - when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures;
        
        INFERENCE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE - when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
        
        GAD - when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
        
        JUDGMENT IS BASED ON MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS - when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts;
        
        CONFLICTING FINDINGS OF FACT - when the findings of fact are conflicting;
        
        ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE ARE CONTRADICTED BY FINDINGS - when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
        
        TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS ARE CONTRADICTED - when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
        
        NO CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
        
        when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
        
        UNDIPSUTED FACTS SET FORTH IN PETITION AS WELL AS IN PETITIONER'S MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS - when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and
        
        BASED ON ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OR AND CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD - when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. 38
        
        VOID CONTRACTS/DOCUMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
        
        PURRPOSE OF INTRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE = TO ASCERTAIN TRUTHFULNESS OF A MATTER AT ISSUE
        The purpose of introducing documentary evidence is to ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue, which can be the entire content or a specific provision/term in the document.
        The deed of sale as documentary evidence may be used as a means to ascertain the truthfulness of the consideration stated and its actual payment.
        The purpose of introducing the deed of sale as evidence is not to enforce the terms written in the contract, which is an obligatory force and effect of a valid contract.
        The deed of sale, rather, is used as a means to determine matters that occurred in the execution of such contract, i.e., the determination of what each party has given under the void contract to allow restitution and prevent unjust enrichment.
        Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. 54
        There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by the Rules for its admissibility. 55
        
        RATIO: ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT IS TO ASCERTAIN A MATTER OF FACT, NOT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE DOCUMENT ITSELF
        Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself.
        
        LIBERAL POLICY TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DOUBTFUL RELEVANCY, INCOMPETENCY, OR ADMISSIBILITY
        
        LIBERAL POLICY NOT TO REJECT EVIDENCE ON DOUBTFUL OR TECHNICAL GROUNDS
        It is also settled in jurisprudence that with respect to evidence which appears to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, the safer policy is to be liberal and not reject them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admit them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent; for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent.
        On the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them. 56
        In the present case, the deed of sale was declared null and void by positive provision of the law prohibiting the sale of conjugal property without the spouse's consent. It does not, however, preclude the possibility that Tomas paid the consideration stated therein. The admission of the deed of sale as evidence is consistent with the liberal policy of the court to admit the evidence which appears to be relevant in resolving an issue before the courts.
        (Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, [February 3, 2016], 780 PHIL 258-272)
        
        PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
        
        PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE DEFINED: GOOD AND SUFFICIENT ON ITS FACE
        Prima facie evidence is defined as evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, OR the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.
        (Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, [February 3, 2016], 780 PHIL 258-272)
        
        1 more item...
        
        HE WHO ALLEGES HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
        In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. 40
        
        STRENGTH OF OWN EVIDENCE, NOT ON WEAKNESS OF DEFENSE OF OPPONENT
        Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. 41
        
        PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE DEFINED
        Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." 42
        Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 43
        ||| (Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, [February 3, 2016], 780 PHIL 258-272)
        
        It might get tricky when it's preponderance of evidence.
        When we assert that "my side has more believability than yours", we could be basing it on the weakness of the other side's case.
        Maybe what the Court does not accept is exclusively relying on the weakness of the defense of one's opponent.
        
        What I do know is that before "preponderance of evidence", there is substantial evidence.
        I take this to mean that before one side can assert that its case is "worthier of belief", it must be worthy of belief on its own first.
        Preponderance of evidence is not merely having more weight than the other side's case. It is an independent question whether it is believable at all on its own, without reference to the other side's case.
  - - - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
        PROVIDED BY LAW
      - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
        BY THE RULES
      - LA & NLRC ARE NOT COVERED BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
        It is settled that proceedings before the NLRC are not covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure as observed in the regular courts. 20
        The LA and the NLRC are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.
        In this light, the LA need not resort to the technical rules of evidence, in order to ascertain whether the notes were written by Hernani.|
        (Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Pedrajas, G.R. No. 192993, [August 11, 2014])
      - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT STRICTLY GOVERNED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE; SUMMARY IN NATURE
        Moreover, proceedings in administrative investigation are not strictly governed by the technical rules of evidence. They are summary in nature. 12
        
        OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD SUFFICES
        As we have declared in Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar: 13
        It is settled that "technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense."
        It is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. Otherwise stated, in the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Citations omitted.) ||| (In re Maceda, A.M. No. P-12-3093, [March 26, 2014], 730 PHIL 401-413)
        
        MACEDA CONTESTED ONLY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, WAIVING HER OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST ITS FALSITY
        (Maceda contested the admissibility of the evidence used against her, arguing they were obtained without her consent considering these were documents that required her approval to be released; however, she merely contested the admissibility but not the truth in or falsity of these of these documents)
        Maceda cannot claim that the admission and consideration of the documentary evidence attached to the letter-complaint violated her right to due process. She undeniably had the opportunity to contest the truth of the documents and/or submit controverting evidence to the same, but she failed to do so.
        (In re Maceda, A.M. No. P-12-3093, [March 26, 2014], 730 PHIL 401-413)
        
        THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS NOT IMPERATIVE IN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS
        (UNLIKE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
        We already clarified in Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission 14 the extent of the right to counsel, thus:
        However, it must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
        While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that, under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of petitioner's capacity to represent herself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit the imposition of disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. (Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)
        ||| (In re Maceda, A.M. No. P-12-3093, [March 26, 2014], 730 PHIL 401-413)
      - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY SC ISSUANCES
        [e.g., Judicial Affidavit Rule,
        Rules on Procedure for Environmental Cases,
        Child Witness Rule,
        Rules on Electronic Evidence,
        Rules on DNA Evidence]
    - - WHEN EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE:
        
        RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE
        
        NOT EXCLUDED
        
        Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. —
        Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.
        
        TO BE CONSIDERED, EVIDENCE MUST BE ADMITTED
        It is basic that any material presented as evidence will not be considered unless duly admitted by the court before which it is presented.
        
        TEST FOR ADMISSIBILITY/INADMISSIBILITY = RELEVANT, MATERIAL, OR COMPETENT
        This argument is beside the point. The test for the admissibility or inadmissibility of a certain document is whether or not it is relevant, material or competent.
        The public document is not only relevant, but is also material and competent to the issue of ownership between the parties litigants.
        RELEVANT = TENDING TO PROVE ANY MATTER -
        Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter probable in an action.
        MATERIAL = PROVES A FACT AS DETERMINED BY RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW & PLEADINGS -
        And evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while
        COMPETENT = NOT EXCLUDED -
        competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
        (Bautista v. Aparece)
        
        ADMISSIBILITY vs WEIGHT ACCORDED TO EVIDENCE
        Admissibility of evidence and weight accorded to evidence are two distinct affairs.
        Rule 128, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Evidence governs admissibility and provides that "[e]vidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules."
        When evidence has "such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence," 79 it is said to be relevant. When evidence is not excluded by law or by the Rules, it is said to be competent.
        (Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. National Power Corp., G.R. Nos. 181683 & 184568, [October 7, 2015], 770 PHIL 612-639)
        
        WEIGHT ACCORDED TO EVIDENCE IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED
        The weight accorded to evidence is properly considered only after evidence has been admitted. To this end, courts evaluate evidence in accordance with the rules stipulated by Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, 80 consistent with basic precepts of rationality and guided by judicially established standards.
        It is improper to even speak of evidentiary weight when the piece of evidence in question has not even been admitted.
        
        IDENTIFIED AND MARKED DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED
        Corollarily, the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. In Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 60
        
        IDENTIFICATION vs FORMAL OFFER
        We had the occasion to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit.
        We said that the first (IDENTIFICATION) is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while the second (FORMAL OFFER) is done only when the party rests its case and not before.
        
        WHEN FORMAL OFFER IS MADE:
        WHEN PARTY RESTS ITS CASE
        
        IF PARTY DOES NOT FORMALLY OFFER EVIDENCE, COURT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER IT
        A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all.
        In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same.
        (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 195876, [December 5, 2016], 801 PHIL 806-870)
      - RELEVANCY = INDUCE BELIEVE IN ITS
        EXISTENCE/NON-EXISTENCE
        Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
        
        COLLATERAL MATTERS:
        DEFINED
        Matters other than the fact in issue and which
        are offered as a basis for inference as to the
        existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
        [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed]
        
        EVIDENCE ON COLLATERAL MATTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED
        Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
        
        EXCEPT WHEN IT TENDS IN ANY REASONABLE DEGREE TO ESTABLISH THE PROBABILITY/IMPROBABILITY OF THE FACT
        IN ISSUE
        except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)
        
        IRRELEVANT COLLATERAL FACTS
        What the Rules prohibit is evidence of
        irrelevant collateral facts
        [2 Regalado 708, 2008 Ed.]
        
        WHETHER EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
        Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence."
        This simply means that relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and human experience. There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law.
        However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience.
        (People v. Galleno, G.R. No. 123546, [July 2, 1998], 353 PHIL 942-961)
        
        WITNESSES MUST STATE FACTS AND NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS OR GIVE OPINIONS
        As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved (Francisco, Pleadings and Trial Practice, Vol. I, 1989 ed., pp. 889-890).
        (People v. Galleno, G.R. No. 123546, [July 2, 1998], 353 PHIL 942-961)
        
        OPINIONS MAY BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, NATURE OF SUBJECT MATTER, ETC,
        However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment (Ibid., p. 886).
        
        EVIDENCE MUST BE CREDIBLE IN ITSELF, ATOP OF COMING FROM A CREDIBLE WITNESS
        Well settled is the rule that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself — such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.||| (People v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 158203, [March 31, 2005], 494 PHIL 680-697)
        
        AFFIDAVITS ARE CONSIDERED ALMOST ALWAYS INCOMPLETE
        Generally, an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is considered almost always incomplete and often inaccurate or lacking in details and is deemed inferior to the testimony given in open court.
        (People v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 158203, [March 31, 2005], 494 PHIL 680-697)
        
        SERIOUS AND INEXPLICABLE DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN AN AFFIDAVIT AND THE TESTIMONY CAST GRAVE DOUBT ON THE VERACITY OF THEIR ACCOUNT, WITH RESPECT TO A SERIOUS IMPUTATION
        Jurisprudence, however, forewarns that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies exist between a previously executed sworn statement of a witness and his testimonial declarations, with respect to a person's participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity of the witness' account.
        
        RELEVANCY IS DETERMINABLE BY THE RULES OF LOGIC AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE; RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE WITH RATIONAL PROBATIVE VALUE
        Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence."
        "Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the rules of logic and human experience…
        Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has ‘rational probative value’ to the issue in controversy."36
        
        Logic and human experience teach us that the documents relied upon by respondent do not constitute the best evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of the condominium units. To repeat, the best evidence would have been adduced by an ocular inspection of the units themselves (because what needed to be proven and was not proven was the actual physical existence of the condominium unit).
      - D. COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY; ADMISSIBILITY; TYPES OF EVIDENCE
        4
        
        1. COMPETENCE AND CREDIBILITY
        
        CREDIBLE SOURCE + CREDIBLE IN ITSELF
        The Court has previously held that evidence to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be credible in itself.
        (Serra v. Mumar, G.R. No. 193861, [March 14, 2012], 684 PHIL 363-376)
        
        NATURAL, REASONABLE, AND PROBABLE; CONFORMS TO KNOWLEDGE &
        COMMON EXPERIENCE
        The evidence must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe. No better test has yet been found to determine the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.
        
        INCONSISTENCES:
        INCONSISTENCIES IN MINOR DETAILS/ COLLATERAL MATTERS DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT WITNESS' DECLARATION
        It is also basic that inconsistencies bearing on minor details or collateral matters should not adversely affect the substance of the witness' declaration, veracity, or weight of testimony.
        (People v. Sabadlab y Bayquel, G.R. No. 175924, [March 14, 2012], 684 PHIL 269-283)
        People v. Sabadlab, 668 SCRA 237 (2012)
        
        PERFECT NARRATION OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES MAY BE FABIRICATED OR REHEARSED
        Jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were pre-fabricated and rehearsed.
        (People v. Camat, G.R. No. 188612, [July 30, 2012], 692 PHIL 55-89)
        
        INCONSISTENCIES FOR ACQUITTALS MUST REFER TO SIGNIFICANT FACTS VITAL TO GUILT OF ACCUSED.
        People v. Lazaro states that "[f]or a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged.
        (People v. Magundayao y Alejandro, G.R. No. 188132, [February 29, 2012], 683 PHIL 295-324)
        
        INCONSISTENCIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL
        An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused."
        
        WITNESSES ARE TO BE WEIGHED, NOT NUMBERED; ONE MAY SUFFICE
        in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict.
        (Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, [April 18, 2008], 575 PHIL 42-59)
        
        DEFINED:
        COMPETENT EVIDENCE ARE THOSE NOT EXCLUDED BY CONSTI/LAW/RULES
        Not excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the Rules [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
        DETERMINED BY EXCLUSIONARY RULES
        Determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence [2 Regalado 704, 2008 Ed.]
        EXCLUSIONARY RULES CANNOT RETROACT
        Exclusionary rules may affect due process. To the extent that they might prejudice substantive rights, therefore, they cannot be made to apply retroactively.
        
        CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
        Refers to probative value or convincing weight
        Weight involves the effect of evidence admitted, its tendency to convince and persuade. It is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.
        
        2. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY,
        CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY,
        CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY,
        DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        
        DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        Proof of facts from which, taken collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence
        
        DEFINED: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - INDIRECTLY PROVES A FACT THROUGH INFERENCE
        Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence that "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.
        Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free."
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE STRONGER THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE
        It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, the former may surpass the latter in weight and probative force.
        (People v. Matito y Torres, G.R. No. 144405, [February 24, 2004], 468 PHIL 14-33)
        People v. Matito 423 SCRA 617 (2004)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN STILL CONVICT A CRIMINAL OF A CRIME
        It is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted of the crime for which he is charged. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the community.
        (People v. Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, [August 13, 2012], 692 PHIL 469-487)
        
        1 more item...
        
        DIRECT EVIDENCE
        Proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption
        
        MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
        Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered, provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility therefor
        [2 Regalado 706, 2008 Ed.]
        
        EVIDENCE MAY STILL BE ADMISSIBLE FOR ONE PURPOSE EVEN IF INADMISSIBLE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSE
        When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible insofar 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. [Francisco 11, 1996 Ed.]
        
        CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
        Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already given shall be stricken out [2 Regalado 705, 2008 Ed.]
        
        Example: a copy of a writing may not be considered competent evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed. Conditional admissibility requires no bad faith on the part of the proponent.
        
        CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
        The right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted incompetent evdience adduced by the adverse party
        
        3. CUMULATIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
        
        CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS ONLY NECESSARY WHEN THERE ARE REASONS TO SUSPECT THE WITNESS FALSIFIED THE TRUTH OR THAT HIS OBSERVATIONS WERE INACCURATE
        Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations were inaccurate.
        (Mangangey v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147773-74, [February 18, 2008], 569 PHIL 383-403)
        
        4. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE;
        ALIBI;
        FRAME-UP;
        DELAY IN REPORTING
        
        POSITIVE & NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
        
        POSITIVE EVIDENCE
        Witness affirms that a certain state of facts did exist or that a certain event happened.
        
        STRONGER BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
        I saw that it did not happen.
        
        Kulang notes; check commentary not just cases
        
        NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
        Witness states he did not see or does not know of the occurrence of a fact
        
        DENIAL IS THE WEAKEST FORM OF DEFENSE
        It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.
        (People v. Mendoza y Butones, G.R. Nos. 152589 & 152758 (Resolution)
        
        DENIAL MUST BE BUTTRESSED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF NON-CULPABILITY
        Already beyond cavil is the evidentiary rule that mere denial does not overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion. Denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with no evidentiary value.
        (Tan v. Pacuribot, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-1982 & RTJ-06-1983, [December 14, 2007], 565 PHIL 1-58)
        
        1 more item...
        
        I did not see that it happened.
        
        ALIBI
        
        ALIBI = PLEA OF BEING ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
        Alibi, the plea of having been somewhere other than at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, is a plausible excuse for the accused.
        (People v. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, [June 5, 2002], 432 PHIL 625-643)
        
        ALIBI SHOULD BE REJECTED WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED IS SUFFICIENTLY AND POSITIVELY ESTBALISHED BY THE PROSECUTION
        ...Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. 31
        
        PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IS REQUIRED FOR ALIBI TO PROSPER
        For the appellant's defense of alibi to prosper, he should have proven that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
        
        2 more items...
        
        AN ALIBI MUST BE SO AIRTIGHT IT WOULD ADMIT OF NO EXCEPTION
        But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception.||| (People v. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, [June 5, 2002], 432 PHIL 625-643)
        
        FRAME-UP
        
        FRAME-UPS ARE NOT FAVORED FOR BEING CONVENIENTLY CONCOCTED & USUALLY ASSERTED BY CULPRITS
        Verily, defenses of frame-up and extortion are not looked upon with favor due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by culprits arrested for violations of Republic Act No. 9165.
        (People v. Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, [February 22, 2012], 682 PHIL 487-507)
        
        SIR: SPECIAL MENTION
        Based on our collective experience as judges, we know that drug pushing has been committed with so much casualness even between total strangers.||| (People v. Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, [February 22, 2012], 682 PHIL 487-507)
        
        DELAY IN REPORTING
        
        DELAY IN REPORTING DOES NOT RENDER TESTIMONIES FALSE OR INCREDIBLE
        Witnesses' delayed reporting of what they know about a crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible...
        (People v. Navarro, G.R. No. 129566, [October 7, 1998], 357 PHIL 1010-1035)
        
        RATIO: PEOPLE NATURALLY RETICENT & ABHORRENT IN BEING INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL CASE + FEAR OF REPRISAL
        for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.
        But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community.
        (People v. Navarro)
        
        DELAY SHOULD BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED
        
        RETRACTION
        
        RECANTATIONS ARE VERY UNRELIABLE
        The Court has held in a number of cases that a recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. 29
        
        RETRACTIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY NEGATE EARLIER DECLARATIONS
        A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.
        Where a witness who testified for the prosecution subsequently testifies for the defense by retracting his previous testimony, as in the present case, the test to decide which testimony to believe is a comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. 32
        (People v. Navarro, G.R. No. 129566, [October 7, 1998], 357 PHIL 1010-1035)
        
        RATIO:
        RETRACTIONS ARE EASILY OBTAINED THROUGH INTIMIDATION OR MONEY
        Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. 30
        
        SHINY WATCH
        A witness appearing before Court with a lot of new shiny accessories might make the judge think he was paid.
        
        TRIAL JUDGES' RESPECT
        
        TRIAL JUDGES' CONCLUSIONS ON CREDIBILITY ARE OF GREAT WEIGHT AND MAY EVEN BE FINAL TO THE APPELLATE COURT
        The Court accords the utmost respect to the findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge on account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and on account of his personal access to the various indicia available but not reflected in the record.
        Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court.
        (People v. Sabadlab y Bayquel, G.R. No. 175924, [March 14, 2012], 684 PHIL 269-283)
        
        TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT CANNOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL
        As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court, as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. 10
        
        SUBJECT TO REVIEW IF
        Such rule however is not absolute, but is subject to well-established exceptions, which are:
        
        MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN/ABSURD/IMPOSSIBLE
        When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
        
        GAD
        When there is a grave abuse of discretion;
        
        SPECULATIONS/SURMISES/CONJECTURES
        When the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
        
        CA'S MISAPPREHENTION OF FACTS
        When the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts;
        
        CONFLICT IN FINDINGS OF FACT
        When the findings of facts are conflicting;
        
        CA'S FINDINGS WENT BEYOND ISSUES + CONTRARY TO ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT & APPELLEE
        When the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and those findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
        
        CA AND TC'S FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY
        When the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court;
        
        NO CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
        When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
        
        OVERLOOKED FACTS + UNDISPUTED + WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION
        When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
        
        CA'S FINDINGS PREMISED ON ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE + CONTRADICTED BY RECORD
        When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
        
        (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, [February 11, 2008], 568 PHIL 188-205)
        
        PUBLIC CLAIM OF RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT
        That the New Peoples' Army allegedly publicly claimed responsibility for the killing of the victim is beside the point. It is not binding on the Court. It does not preclude the Court from determining the real killer in accordance with the rule of evidence and settled jurisprudence.
        (Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, [April 18, 2008], 575 PHIL 42-59)
        
        HOWEVER, IF THE JUDGE WHO HEARD & SAW WITNESSES TESTIFY IS NOT THE SAME JUDGE WHO PENNED THE DECISION,
        REVIEW MAY BE DONE
        For a better perspective on the calibration of the evidence on hand, it must first be stressed that the judge who had heard and seen the witnesses testify was not the same judge who penned the decision.
        Thus, not having heard the testimonies himself, the trial judge or the appellate court would not be in a better position than this Court to assess the credibility of witnesses on the basis of their demeanor.||| (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, [February 11, 2008], 568 PHIL 188-205)
        
        RATIO: FIRST-HAND IMPRESSIONS ARE KNOWN TO TRIAL JUDGES
        We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions he derives while the witnesses testify before him.
        The demeanor on the witness chair of persons sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a significant element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line between fact and fancy.
        Their forthright answers or hesitant pauses, their quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered looks or sincere gazes, their modest blushes or guilty blanches — all these can reveal if the witnesses are telling the truth or lying in their teeth.
      - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE RULED UPON IN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
        To emphasize, “a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory to a trial; it is not a trial on the merits.”
        Since “it cannot be expected that upon the filing of the information in court the prosecutor would have already presented all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction of the accused,” the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary investigation.
        [Maza v. Judge Turla, G.R. No. 187094 (2017)].
        
        PARTIES MUST INFORM THE COURTS OF THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING THEIR EVIDENCE
        Parties are required to inform the courts of the
        purpose of introducing their respective exhibits
        to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility
        in case an objection thereto is made.
        [Star Two v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454 (2011)]
        
        NOT FORMALLY OFFERED =
        NOT CONSIDERED (NOT ADMISSIBLE)
        The court shall consider no evidence which has
        not been formally offered. The purpose for
        which the evidence is offered must be
        specified. [Sec. 34, Rule 132]
        
        OFFER IS ORAL
        All evidence must be offered orally.
        [Sec. 35, Rule 132]
        
        TESTIMONIAL = OFFERED WHEN CALLED TO TESTIFY
        Offer of testimonial evidence—made at the time the witness is called to testify
        
        DOCUMENTARY & OBJECT = OFFERED AFTER PRESENTATION OF TESTIMONIAL EVID
        Offer of documentary and object evidence—made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence
        
        OBJECTION TO OFFER MUST BE ORAL + IMMEDIATELY AFTER OFFER
        Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made
        
        TESTIMONY = OBJECTED AS SOON AS WITNESS BEGINS TO TESTIFY
        Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify
        
        1 more item...
      - CONSTITUTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS UNDER BILL OF RIGHTS
        
        APPLIES TO STATE vs INDIVIDUAL
        The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents. The Bill of Rights only tempers governmental power and protects the individual against any aggression and unwarranted interference by any department of government and its agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be extended to the acts complained of in this case. The alleged "warrantless search" made by Roque, a co-employee of appellant at the treasurer's office, can hardly fall within the ambit of the constitutional proscription on unwarranted searches and seizures.
        (Tolentino v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5151 (Resolution), [October 19, 2004], 483 PHIL 546-560)
        
        EVIDENCE ACQUIRED IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS RESULTS IN INADMISSIBILITY
        
        SECTION 2.
        RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO BE SECURE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE IS INVIOLABLE
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
        PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED FOR SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
        and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
        
        SECTION 12.
        
        RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
        Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
        RIGHT TO COUNSEL
        If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
        
        CAN ONLY BE WAIVED IN WRITING AND IN PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
        
        NO FORCE/INTIMIDATION
        No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
        NO SECRET/SOLITARY/INCOMMMUNICADO DETENTION PLACES
        Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
        
        2 more items...
        
        SECTION 17.
        NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF
        No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
        
        2 more items...
        
        ANY PERSON UNDER ANY KIND OF "INVESTIGATION" IS ENTITLED TO THESE RIGHTS
        The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it inserted between the words "under" and investigation", as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person" goes to prove that they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine. 24 Neither are we impressed by petitioners' contention that the use of the word "confession" in the last sentence of said Section 20, Article 4 connotes the idea that it applies only to police investigation, for although the word "confession" is used, the protection covers not only "confessions" but also "admissions" made in violation of this section. They are inadmissible against the source of the confession or admission and against third person. 25||| (Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09, 71212-13, [August 30, 1985], 222 PHIL 588-680)
        
        SECTION 3.
        
        PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE
        The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
        
        PUBLIC SAFETY
        
        LAW PRESCRIBES IT
        
        1 more item...
        
        INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IF VIOLATED
        Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
        
        LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT
        
        FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
        According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible.
        Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the " fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act.
        The " fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
        (People v. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530, [December 4, 2000], 400 PHIL 703-727)
        
        USE vs DERIVATIVE USE
        SIR: If you have immunity from the use of a piece of evidence, then so should you be immune to the derivative use of such evidence.
        (Kastigar v. United States)
        
        DOES NOT APPLY TO
        INDIVIDUAL vs INDIVIDUAL
      - STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION
        
        Sec. 201, RA 8424:
        UNSTAMPED DOCUMENTS THAT MUST BE STAMPED ARE INADMISSIBLE
        Section 201. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. – An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.
        (Section 201, RA 8424)
        
        RA 1405, LAW ON
        SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS
        
        RA 4200, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE WIRETAPPING ACT, IN RE RA 9372
        
        RA 7438, SECTION 2(D)
        
        EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS NOT IN WRITING OR SIGNED & VALIDLY WAIVERED ARE INADMISSIBLE
        (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence,
        upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
        otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
        Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Section 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:
        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.
        
        EXCLUDES EXTENSION TELEPHONES
        An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
        
        Section 2. Any person who willfully 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 shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
        
        Section 3.
        Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the 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:
        
        Provided, 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:
        
        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;
        
        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
        
        that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Section 4. 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 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.
        
        Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
        
        LISTENING THROUGH AN EXTENSION LINE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WIRETAPPING
        The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
        (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        A PERSON RUNS THE RISK OF A THIRD PARTY LISTENING ON AN EXTENSION BECAUSE EXTENSIONS ARE COMMON
        An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place to place within a radius of a kilometer or more.
        A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at the other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a third party listening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another. As was held in the case of Rathbun v. United States (355, U.S. 107, 2 L Ed 2d 137-138)||| (Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        PRIVATE CRIMINAL CONVERSATIONS HEARD OVER CROSSED LINES ARE STILL ADMISSIBLE
        Because of technical problems caused by the sensitive nature of electronic equipment and the extra heavy loads which telephone cables are made to carry in certain areas, telephone users often encounter what are called "crossed lines". ||| (Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, [October 16, 1986], 229 PHIL 139-150)
        
        RATIO: INNOCENT CITIZENS MAY OVERHEAR A CRIME
        An unwary citizen who happens to pick up his telephone and who overhears the details of a crime might hesitate to inform police authorities if he knows that he could be accused under Rep. Act 4200 of using his own telephone to secretly overhear the private communications of the would be criminals. Surely the law was never intended for such mischievous results.
        
        PERSONS PRIVY TO COMMUNICATION CAN QUALIFY AS A VIOLATOR TOO
        Even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter will qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200.||| (Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, [September 28, 1995], 318 PHIL 701-713)
        
        EVEN NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
        ARE INCLUDED
        ...definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange|||
        (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833,
        [September 28, 1995], 318 PHIL 701-713)
        
        POLICY = TO ENCOURAGE DEPOSITING MONEY IN BANKING AND TO DISCOURAGE PRIVATE HOARDING
        Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.
        
        DEPOSITS IN BANKS ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND MAY NOT BE EXAMINED, INQUIRED, OR LOOKED INTO
        Section 2. 1 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office...
        
        WRITTEN PERMISSION
        EXCEPT upon written permission of the depositor, OR
        
        IN CASE OF IMPEACHMENT
        in cases of impeachment, OR
        
        IN CASE OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S BRIBERY/DERELICTION OF DUTY +
        UPON ORDER OF COURT
        upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, OR
        
        MONEY DEPOSITED/INVESTIGATED IS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION
        in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
        
        INVESTMENTS INCLUDED, NOT JUST DEPOSITS. LAW SAYS "WHATEVER NATURE"
        Generally, the law applies not only to money which is deposited but also to those which are invested. This further shows that the law was not intended to apply only to "deposits" in the strict sense of the word.
        (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, [November 30, 2006], 538 PHIL 684-785)
        
        UNLAWFUL TO DISCLOSE
        Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
        
        VIOLATION = INADMISSIBLE
        In sum, we hold that 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.||| (BSB Group, Inc. v. Go, G.R. No. 168644, [February 16, 2010], 626 PHIL 501-518)
        
        ??OVERTURNED??
        EJERCITO v. SB RULED THAT UNLAWFUL EXAMINATION WAS STILL ADMISSIBLE
        R.A. 1405, it bears noting, nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only states that "[a]ny violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court."|||
        (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, [November 30, 2006], 538 PHIL 684-785)
    - - JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE OF 3 KINDS
        ONLY
        
        CIVIL ACTION – which is of two kinds:
        a. ordinary civil action, and
        b. special civil action
        
        CRIMINAL ACTION
        
        SPECIAL PROCEEDING [Sec. 3, Rule 1]
        
        ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE NON-JUDICIAL
        All other proceedings are NON-JUDICIAL, hence, application of the rules of evidence in the ROC is not mandatory unless provided to be so by law or regulation [see Sec. 4, Rule 1]
      - ADMISSIBILITY IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, NOT AT INSTITUTION OF ACTION
        No Vested Right of Property in Rules of Evidence 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 trial, is receivable [Francisco 8, 1996 Ed., citing Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164 (1903)]
        
        RULES OF EVIDENCE MAY BE WAIVED
        According to Francisco [9, 1996 Ed., citing American cases], there are rules of evidence established merely for the protection of the parties.
        If, according to the well-established doctrine, the parties may waive such rules during the trial of a case, there is no reason why they cannot make the waiver in a contract (ex. a contract of insurance requiring the testimony of eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning the death of the insured person).
        
        RULE OF EVIDENCE BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY CANNOT BE WAIVED
        However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been established on grounds of public policy, the waiver is void (ex. waiver of the privilege against the disclosure of state secrets).
        (UP BOC 2020)
- - - - SHINY WATCH
        A witness appearing before Court with a lot of new shiny accessories might make the judge think he was paid.
- - - - DNA:
        MINIMUM VALUE OF PROBABILITY OF PATERNITY SHOULD BE 99.9%
        It is not enough to state that the child's DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity.
        For this reason, following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction, 53 trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of Paternity ("W") prior to a paternity inclusion.
        W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is required to compute for W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%.However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone. 54
        
        IF LESS THAN 99.9%, DNA TEST IS MERELY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
        DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%,the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence.
        ||| (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, [June 15, 2005], 499 PHIL 185-206)
        
        IF MORE THAN 99.9%, THERE IS
        REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY
        If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity. 55 This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.
        (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, [June 15, 2005], 499 PHIL 185-206)
      - PATERNITY DNA TEST:
        NON-MATCH = EXCLUSION
        MATCH = NON-EXCLUSION
        If the man's DNA types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the father.
        If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father. 52