General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

Below is a structured, meticulous discussion of Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence in the Philippines (as amended in 2019). This write-up provides an overview of the general provisions and principles governing the law of evidence—i.e., what evidence is, how it is classified, its purpose, and its proper application—under Philippine remedial law. Citations to relevant legal doctrines, jurisprudence, and rules are woven throughout for completeness. While comprehensive, always remember that actual practice may require consultation with the specific text of the Rules of Court, Supreme Court issuances, and jurisprudence to address nuanced or evolving questions.

I. Introduction to Evidence under Philippine Remedial Law

A. Importance of Evidence in Litigation

  1. Definition of Remedial Law: Remedial law concerns the rules that prescribe the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for the invasion of those rights. Evidence, which is found in Rules 128–134 of the Rules of Court (as amended in 2019), is a vital tool in enforcing substantive rights.

  2. Central Role of Evidence: In the Philippine judicial system, controversies are usually resolved based on the facts proven by the parties, and these facts are established through the rules on evidence. Mastery of the rules on evidence is therefore crucial to presenting a strong case and to effectively contesting the opposing party’s evidence.

II. Legal Framework of Evidence in the Philippines

A. Source of the Rules on Evidence

  1. Rules of Court: The principal source is the Rules of Court, promulgated by the Supreme Court under its constitutional rule-making power.
  2. Statutory Provisions: Certain statutory provisions also affect the rules on evidence (e.g., the Civil Code, the Family Code, the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the Rules on DNA Evidence, and various special laws).

B. Recent Amendments (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence)

  1. Purpose of Amendments: Streamline the rules; align with technological changes (e.g., electronic evidence); incorporate best practices while ensuring fairness and due process.
  2. Scope of Changes: Revisions to the provisions on hearsay, privileged communications, judicial notice, admissions, and other rules aimed at modernizing evidence law in the Philippines.

III. Rule 128: General Provisions

Rule 128 sets forth the foundation: what evidence is, its scope and application, and the basic principles that guide Philippine courts in admitting and excluding evidence.

A. Section 1. Evidence Defined

“Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

  1. Means of Proof

    • Refers to any matter provided by law or the rules by which facts may be proved.
    • Encompasses testimonial, documentary, real (object), and electronic evidence.

  2. Sanctioned by the Rules

    • Implies that not all possible methods of proving facts are acceptable. Only those permitted under the Rules of Court and relevant Supreme Court issuances (e.g., the Rules on Electronic Evidence) are allowed.

  3. Truth-Finding Function

    • Courts rely on evidence to arrive at the truth in adversarial proceedings.
    • The fundamental aim is to ensure justice by basing the court’s decision on proven facts.

B. Section 2. Scope (Where Rules on Evidence Apply)

  1. Applicability to All Judicial Proceedings

    • These rules generally govern all courts in the Philippines in all trials and hearings of both civil and criminal actions, as well as special proceedings.
    • They also apply in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies that, by law or jurisprudence, are bound by the Rules of Court on evidence (e.g., administrative agencies acting in a quasi-judicial capacity), unless specifically provided otherwise.

  2. Exceptions

    • The Rules of Court may be supplemented or modified by special statutes (e.g., Labor Code provisions on the National Labor Relations Commission, where rules of evidence are not strictly applied).
    • Special proceedings (e.g., election cases, family courts, agrarian disputes) may have specific procedural rules that modify or supplement the general rules on evidence.

C. Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence

Two crucial requisites of admissibility:

  1. Relevance (Evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue); and
  2. Competence (It must not be excluded by law or the Rules).

  1. Relevance

    • Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
    • The “fact in issue” is what the pleadings or charges place in controversy.

  2. Competence

    • Evidence must not be excluded by law or rule.
    • For instance, privileged communications (attorney-client, spousal, physician-patient, etc.) may be inadmissible due to rules on privilege.
    • Certain evidence may also be excluded by specific laws (e.g., confessions obtained in violation of custodial rights under the Constitution).

  3. Discretion of the Court

    • While the rule is that all relevant evidence is admissible, the trial court exercises discretion to exclude evidence that, though relevant, poses concerns under other rules (e.g., hearsay, best evidence rule, incompetent witness, or unduly prejudicial).

D. Section 4. Factors Affecting Admissibility (Implicit in the Rules)

Though not explicitly enumerated under a single section, the following principles and doctrines color how courts decide on admissibility under Rule 128:

  1. Judicial Notice (Rule 129)

    • Certain facts need not be proved because courts are mandated or authorized to take judicial notice of them. Judicially noticed facts bypass the usual requirements for evidence.
    • Examples: The existence and territorial extent of states, the laws of nature, public official acts of Congress, etc.

  2. Judicial Admissions

    • Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings or during trial are binding and do not need further proof.
    • Withdrawals of admissions are strictly regulated.

  3. Presumptions

    • Conclusive presumptions: Irrebuttable presumptions that the law or rules treat as absolute (e.g., certain aspects of estoppel).
    • Disputable presumptions: May be overcome by contrary evidence (e.g., presumption of innocence, presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty).

IV. Fundamental Principles Underlying Rule 128

A. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

  1. Burden of Proof

    • Pertains to which party must establish the allegations (the “duty of a party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense”).
    • In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    • In civil cases, the plaintiff generally has the burden to prove his cause of action by preponderance of evidence. The defendant who alleges an affirmative defense or counterclaim has the burden to prove it as well.

  2. Burden of Evidence (or Duty to Go Forward)

    • Shifts between parties depending on how the evidence or the trial proceeds.
    • If the party with the initial burden establishes a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the adverse party to controvert or rebut.

B. Hierarchy of Evidence

Although not a formal principle enshrined in a single provision, Philippine courts generally recognize that certain forms of evidence are more reliable than others:

  • Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct evidence establishes the fact in issue without need for inference, while circumstantial evidence requires inference.
  • Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence: Certain rules require the best evidence available (e.g., the best evidence rule for documents under Rule 130, Section 3).

C. Standards of Proof

  1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases)
    • The highest standard, requiring moral certainty of guilt.
  2. Preponderance of Evidence (Ordinary Civil Cases)
    • Based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy.
  3. Substantial Evidence (Administrative or Quasi-Judicial Proceedings)
    • Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
  4. Clear and Convincing Evidence (Some Special Proceedings)
    • Intermediate standard requiring a high level of certainty, though not as high as beyond reasonable doubt.

D. Constitutional Dimensions

  1. Due Process
    • Parties must be given the chance to present evidence.
  2. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    • Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights may be inadmissible (the Exclusionary Rule).
  3. Right to Counsel and Miranda Rights
    • Confessions without a valid waiver of constitutional rights are inadmissible.

V. Notable Doctrines and Jurisprudence Affecting General Provisions

  1. Best Evidence Rule

    • Although found in Rule 130, it is a cornerstone principle influencing whether documentary evidence is “competent.”
    • Original documents must be produced to prove their contents unless a recognized exception applies.

  2. Res Inter Alios Acta

    • Another rule found in Rule 130 but tied to the concept of relevance and competence: prohibits admission of acts, declarations, or omissions of one person to affect another’s rights, barring certain exceptions.

  3. Hearsay Rule

    • Under the general provisions, evidence that is hearsay is not competent unless it falls within exceptions enumerated in Rule 130. This principle underscores the “competence” requirement under Section 3 of Rule 128.

  4. Illegal Search Doctrine

    • In People v. Marti and subsequent rulings, evidence seized through unlawful search and seizure is generally inadmissible against the accused (exclusionary rule), reaffirming the constitutional dimension behind competence of evidence.

  5. Admissions and Confessions

    • The Supreme Court has consistently held that extrajudicial confessions must comply with constitutional standards (e.g., People v. Andan). Otherwise, they are not admissible.

VI. Practical Application and Common Pitfalls

  1. Offering of Evidence

    • Proper and timely offer of evidence is crucial. Evidence not offered during trial cannot be considered by the court (Rule 132, Sec. 34).

  2. Objections

    • Must be specific and timely, or they are deemed waived, except for grounds of inadmissibility that appear on the face of the document.

  3. Preservation of Error for Appeal

    • Failing to make the correct objection or to present specific legal grounds may forfeit the issue on appeal.

  4. Use of Judicial Notice and Admissions

    • Counsel should be alert to matters that can be established via judicial notice or admissions to simplify litigation and focus on truly contested facts.

  5. Electronic Evidence and Technology

    • The introduction of electronic evidence (e.g., emails, digital recordings) is governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Ensuring the authenticity and due execution of electronic documents is part of complying with the competence requirement.

VII. Interaction with Legal Ethics & Legal Forms

  1. Ethical Duty of Candor
    • Lawyers must ensure that evidence presented is not perjured or falsified. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers to employ only fair and honest means.
  2. Preparation of Affidavits, Judicial Affidavits, and Other Forms
    • A lawyer ethically must ensure that the client’s statements in any affidavit are truthful, accurate, and derived from personal knowledge rather than mere speculation or hearsay.
  3. Observing Privileges
    • Attorneys must protect privileged communications with the client; disclosing such communications without consent breaches ethical duties and the privilege rule.

VIII. Summary Points

  1. Definition: Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules to ascertain the truth of a matter in a judicial proceeding.
  2. General Test of Admissibility: Relevance and competence.
  3. Scope: Applies in all judicial proceedings, subject to exceptions (e.g., quasi-judicial or administrative contexts where the rules may be relaxed).
  4. Foundational Doctrines:
    • Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence
    • Standards of Proof (beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance, substantial evidence, etc.)
    • Constitutional safeguards (exclusionary rule for illegal search, violation of custodial rights, etc.)
  5. Common Issues:
    • Proper and timely offer of evidence
    • Objections (timeliness and specificity)
    • Privileged communications
    • Ethical practice in evidence gathering and presentation.

IX. Conclusion

Rule 128 lays the groundwork for the rules on evidence in Philippine courts, establishing the foundational concepts of what evidence is, how it is admitted, and under what conditions it may be excluded. Its guiding principles—relevance, competence, and constitutional safeguards—permeate all subsequent sections of the Rules on Evidence (Rules 129 to 134). The 2019 Amendments enhanced clarity and modernized evidentiary procedures, particularly in light of electronic evidence and technological advances. Nonetheless, the bedrock concepts in Rule 128 remain the starting point for all evidentiary inquiries: Is the evidence relevant, and is it competent?

Adherence to these principles, coupled with a strong grasp of other fundamental rules—like the hearsay rule, the best evidence rule, and privileges—will enable lawyers to effectively advocate for their clients while upholding ethical standards. In every case, mastery of Rule 128’s general provisions is the first step to navigating the more specific doctrines and technical rules that follow in the succeeding rules on evidence.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login