Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
EVIDENCE: V. CONDUCT AND CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE - Coggle Diagram
EVIDENCE: V. CONDUCT AND CHARACTER AS EVIDENCE
A. Rule 130, Secs. 35-36; 54;
PREVIOUS CONDUCT
CHARACTER
UNACCEPTED OFFER TO PAY = TENDER OF MONEY, INSTRUMENT, PROPERTY
UNACCEPTED OFFER
a.
WRITTEN
b.
TO PAY/DELIVER:
-i.
MONEY
-ii.
INSTRUMENT
-iii.
SPECIFIC PERSONAL PROPERTY
WITHOUT VALID CAUSE
Section 36. Unaccepted offer. – An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (35)
CONSIGNATION
Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:
(1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment;
(2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due;
(3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
(4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost. (1176a)
Article 1256, Civil Code
INADMISSIBLE:
DEED DONE NOT DONE AT A POINT IN TIME
a.
TO PROVE ACT DONE/NOT DONE AT DIFF TIME
Section 35. Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time;
MAY PROVE:
SPECIFIC INTENT
KNOWLEDGE
IDENTITY
PLAN
SYSTEM
SCHEME
HABIT
CUSTOM
USAGE
SIMILAR
but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (34a)
TO PROVE HABIT, KEY CRITERIA ARE:
ADEQUACY OF SAMPLING
UNIFORMITY OF RESPONSE
Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion. In determining whether the examples are numerous enough, and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response.
MERE SIMILARITY OF CONTRACTS INSUFFICEINT AS HABIT
Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion.
GRANTED MODE OF PAYMENT TO 3 OTHER BUYERS DOES NOT EVINCE HABIT OF SELLER TO GRANT IT TO ALL
The bare fact that other lot buyers were allowed to pay the balance of the purchase price of lots purchased by them in 120 or 180 monthly installments does not constitute evidence that XEI also agreed to give Sps. the same mode and timeline of payment of the P278,448.00 -
Sps. failed to allege and prove that as a matter of business usage, habit or pattern of conduct, XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance of the purchase price in installments of 120 months of fixed amounts with pre-computed interests, and that XEI and Sps. had intended to adopt such terms of payment
RELEVANT IF ACTIONS BASED ON:
FRAUD AND DECEIT
SHEDDING LIGHT ON MISTAKE
• “Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because: o it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person, o it provides insight into such person's motive or intent, o it uncovers a scheme, design or plan, or o it reveals a mistake.”
CONDUCT RELEVANT IF ACTIONS ON:
FRAUD
DECEIT
MISTAKE
EVIDENCE OF PERSON'S CHARACTER/TRAIT INADMISSIBLE:
FOR PROVING ACTION
a.
IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH
b.
ON A PARTICULAR OCCASION
Section 54. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. – Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED:
EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER INADMISSIBLE, UNTIL IMPEACHED
(c) In Criminal and Civil Cases: Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.
CRIMINAL CASES:
ACCUSED MAY PROVE GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
i.
PERTINENT TO MORAL TRAIT IN CHARGE
Accused – May prove his/her good moral character, which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
PROSECUTION MAY ONLY REBUT & PROVE BAD MORAL
Prosecution – May not prove the bad moral character of the accused, except in rebuttal.
OFFENDED MAY PROVE CHARACTER IF MAKING OFFENSE MORE IM/PROBABLE
Offended Party –May be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. [Sec. 54, Rule 130]
CIVIL CASES:
PERTINENT TO ISSUE OF CHARACTER INVOLVED IN CASE
(b) In Civil Cases: Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case
MORAL CHARACTER PERTINENT IN:
SEX OFFENSES
HOMICIDE
SELF-DEFENSE
In the PH setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and homicide. o
HOMICIDE, ADMISSIBLE IF EVIDENCE OF:
DECEASED'S AGGRESSION
; OR
ACCUSED'S STATE OF MIND
In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two situations: ▪ (1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and ▪ (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused. o The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the aggressor.
SELF-DEFENSE
KNOWN VIOLENT CHARACTER OF DECEASED
; AND
GENERAL REPUTATION IN COMMUNITY
a.
NOT ISOLATED/SPECIFIC ACTS
▪ When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.
While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self defense, he may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking, and irascible disposition, yet the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not of isolated and specific acts.
MORAL CHARACTER NOT PERTINENT IN:
MURDER WITH
a.
TREACHERY
b.
PREMEDITATION
Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation.
PURPOSE: PROBABILITY
The purpose of presenting evidence of good moral character is to prove the improbability of his doing the act charged. The accused may prove his good moral character only if it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged [Herrera]
WITNESS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS
Rule 132 Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. – A witness must answer questions, although his or her answer may tend to establish a claim against him or her.
WITNESS HAS RIGHT TO BE:
However, it is the right of a witness:
PROTECTED FROM IMPROPER/INSULTING QUESTIONS:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
NOT DETAINED LONGER THAN JUSTICE REQUIRES
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
EXAMINED ONLY ON PERTINENT MATTERS
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
NOT GIVE ANSWER SUBJECTING HIM TO PENALTY FOR OFFENSE
a.
UNLESS LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
NOT GIVE ANSWER TENDING TO DEGRADE HIS REPUTATION
a.
UNLESS IT'S THE FACT
-i.
AT ISSUE
-ii.
FROM WHICH FACT AT ISSUE IS PRESUMED
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.
WITNESS MUST ANSWER TO FACT OF HIS/HER
PREVIOUS FINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE
But a witness must answer to the fact of his or her previous fi nal conviction for an off ense. (3a)
TESTIMONY OF
REPUTATION
OPINION
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specifi c instances of conduct.
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct. (51a; 14, Rule 132
IMPROPER
DETAINED
PERTINENT
PENALTY
REPUTATION
,
EVEN IF ESTABLISHING A CLAIM AGAINST HIM/HER
EVIDENCE OF PAST SEXUAL CONDUCT, OPINION THEREOF, REPUTATION INADMISSIBLE
Section 6. Rape Shield. - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted
; Section 6, RA 8505
EXCEPT IF:
MATERIAL & RELEVANT
unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
MORAL CHARACTER PERTINENT IN:
SEX OFFENSES
HOMICIDE
SELF-DEFENSE
SEX OFFENSES
(S-PORe)
PAST SEXUAL CONDUCT,
OPINION THEREOF,
REPUTATION
HOMICIDE:
(H-DA)
DECEASED'S AGGRESSION
; OR
ACCUSED'S STATE OF MIND
SELF-DEFENSE
(S-D-KGN)
DECEASED'S
a.
KNOWN VIOLENT CHARACTER
; AND
b.
GENERAL REPUTATION IN COMMUNITY
a.
NOT ISOLATED/SPECIFIC ACTS
MURDER
TREACHERY
PREMEDITATION
COLLATERAL FACTS ARE ADMISSIBLE IF:
RATIONAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN
a.
CONDITIONS GIVING RISE TO FACT OFFERED
AND
b.
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ISSUE OR FACT TO BE PROVED
• “Collateral facts may be received as evidence under exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational similarity or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved.”