Character evidence | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

CHARACTER EVIDENCE UNDER THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(Rule 130 on Testimonial Evidence, specifically on Character Evidence)

I. OVERVIEW

Character evidence refers to proof presented in court to show the moral standing or traits of a person—whether of good or bad moral character—to establish likelihood or unlikelihood that the person committed (or did not commit) the alleged act or to affect the person’s credibility as a witness. Generally, character evidence is not admissible. The law presumes that a case should be decided on the basis of concrete facts relevant to the act in question, not on inferences drawn from a person’s overall character or past behavior.

In the Philippines, the basic rule on character evidence is embodied in Section 52 (formerly Section 54) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (as amended). This rule lays down when character evidence may be introduced in criminal cases, civil cases, and for purposes of witness credibility.

II. GENERAL RULE

Character evidence is not generally admissible.

Rationale: The courts prefer adjudication based on what happened in each specific case, rather than on speculation that a person’s good or bad character made it more or less likely that he or she committed the act. Further, there is a danger of prejudice, confusion of issues, and undue influence on the trier of fact when a person’s character is put on trial instead of the relevant facts surrounding the incident.

III. EXCEPTIONS

The law, however, recognizes several exceptions where character evidence becomes relevant and admissible. These are outlined below.

A. Character Evidence in Criminal Cases

  1. Accused Proving Good Moral Character

    • When Allowed: The accused may introduce evidence of his or her good moral character if it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
    • Purpose: This is to show that the accused has a moral disposition inconsistent with the commission of the crime. For instance, if the charge involves a crime of dishonesty (like theft or estafa), the accused may present evidence of honesty and integrity to demonstrate improbability of the offense.

  2. Prosecution Proving Bad Moral Character

    • General Rule: The prosecution cannot initially present evidence of the accused’s bad moral character to prove the likelihood of guilt.
    • Exceptions:
      1. To rebut the accused’s evidence of good moral character: Once the accused puts his or her character in issue by alleging good moral character, the prosecution may rebut it with evidence of bad moral character.
      2. When the bad moral character is relevant to the offense charged: If the crime involves a specific trait (e.g., crimes involving moral turpitude, such as swindling or rape), the prosecution may show a trait that is directly related to that offense.

  3. Character of the Offended Party (Victim)

    • When Allowed: The law allows proof of the offended party’s character if it might tend to establish, in any reasonable degree, the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
    • Illustrations:
      • In rape cases, if consent is raised as a defense, some courts have allowed limited evidence about the complainant’s moral character or sexual conduct when it is material to consent (though subject to the stringent limitations of the Rape Shield Rule).
      • In homicide or physical injuries cases, proof that the victim was the aggressor or had a violent disposition can sometimes be relevant to claims of self-defense.

B. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

  • General Rule: Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when the character of a party is itself in issue.
  • Examples:
    • In defamation or libel suits where the defendant’s statements refer to the plaintiff’s reputation, the plaintiff’s character or reputation may be at issue because the nature of the case revolves around whether the defamatory statements are true or false.
    • In cases involving custody of a child, the moral fitness of a parent can become a key consideration, thus character evidence directly bears upon the resolution of the dispute.

C. Character Evidence to Impeach or Support a Witness’s Credibility

  1. Bad Moral Character of a Witness

    • When Allowed: Evidence of a witness’s bad moral character is admissible to impeach that witness’s credibility. This generally refers to the witness’s reputation or trait for truthfulness or honesty (or the lack thereof).
    • Limitation: The attack on credibility must relate to the witness’s veracity. Courts generally do not admit evidence of unrelated bad acts or traits that have nothing to do with truth-telling.

  2. Good Moral Character of a Witness

    • When Allowed: Evidence of the good moral character of a witness is admissible only after the witness’s character has first been impeached. This is a form of rehabilitation to counteract claims that the witness is untruthful or has a bad reputation for truth-telling.

IV. FORMS OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Under Philippine jurisprudence, character may be shown by:

  1. Testimony as to Reputation

    • Witnesses who have personal knowledge of the subject’s reputation in the community may testify regarding that reputation. Reputation here means the estimation in which the individual is held by the public in the place where he or she resides or has resided.

  2. Testimony as to Specific Acts (in limited circumstances)

    • While the older rule focused on reputation evidence, more recent decisions recognize that specific acts might be admissible if the particular trait of character is directly in issue (e.g., a series of prior acts of dishonesty when the defense raised the accused’s honesty).
    • Nevertheless, courts remain cautious. Proof by specific acts is often restricted due to the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion, unless those acts directly relate to an element of the crime, or are otherwise admissible under a recognized exception (e.g., the doctrine of “similar acts” for motive, intent, identity, etc., under Rule 130 on “res inter alios acta” exceptions).

V. NOTABLE PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENCE

  1. Propensity or Predisposition Rule

    • The reason that bad character evidence is initially excluded is to prevent the fact-finder from assuming that the accused “is the type of person” to commit the crime, thereby prejudicing the accused. Guilt must be based on evidence of the act itself, not on inferences from one’s general disposition.

  2. Rebuttal by Prosecution

    • Once the accused “opens the door” by claiming good moral character, the prosecution is allowed to present contrary evidence. This is to prevent the accused from presenting a one-sided view of character.
    • Example: People v. Francisco (an illustrative case where the accused offered testimony of honesty and peacefulness, prompting the prosecution to introduce prior acts demonstrating the accused’s aggression or dishonesty).

  3. Offended Party’s Character

    • In crimes like rape, sexual assault, or seduction, some courts have allowed limited inquiry into the complainant’s moral character if relevant to consent or to circumstances that bear on the credibility of the accusation.
    • However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against broad attacks on the victim’s character, especially in rape cases, to avoid re-victimization. The Rape Shield provisions under special laws (e.g., R.A. No. 8353) also limit the admissibility of the victim’s past sexual behavior except under very stringent requirements.

  4. Character as an “Ultimate Issue”

    • In civil cases, People v. Caliso exemplifies that moral character can be “in issue” where the very nature of the right or claim depends on the party’s moral standing—e.g., defamation suits, child custody, testamentary capacity (where claims of undue influence or mental deficiency are tied to the testator’s disposition).

  5. Impeachment of Witnesses

    • People v. Libag (among many others) confirms that a witness can be impeached by showing prior inconsistent statements or by attacking his reputation for truthfulness. But the evidence presented must be closely tied to honesty or veracity, not merely personal vices or unrelated immoral conduct.

VI. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

  1. For Defense Counsel

    • When representing an accused in a criminal case, carefully assess if introducing the accused’s good character is truly advantageous. It “opens the door” for the prosecution to bring in otherwise inadmissible bad character evidence.
    • Ensure that any character witness can convincingly testify to the accused’s specific moral traits relevant to the offense charged (e.g., honesty in theft cases, peacefulness in homicide cases).

  2. For Prosecutors

    • Refrain from presenting bad character evidence unless the defense has placed character in issue or the offense is closely linked to a moral trait (e.g., fraud, dishonesty).
    • If the defense does raise the accused’s good moral character, be prepared with rebuttal witnesses or records showing contradictory traits or prior actions undermining that “good moral character.”

  3. For Litigants in Civil Cases

    • Determine if the party’s character is actually an issue (e.g., defamation, child custody). If so, gather credible reputation witnesses or documentary evidence.
    • If character is tangential, do not risk confusion of issues by bringing in character testimony unnecessarily.

  4. For Impeachment Purposes

    • When attacking a witness’s credibility, focus on the trait of truthfulness and, if possible, rely on prior inconsistent statements or previous convictions involving dishonesty. Overly broad or irrelevant assaults on a witness’s overall moral character can backfire.

VII. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

  1. Default Rule: Character evidence is inadmissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion.
  2. Criminal Cases:
    • Accused can prove good moral character relevant to the offense.
    • Prosecution can prove bad moral character only in rebuttal or when relevant to the offense.
    • Character of the offended party can be introduced if it helps determine probability or improbability of the crime.
  3. Civil Cases:
    • Character evidence is admissible only when character is in issue (e.g., defamation, child custody).
  4. Witness Credibility:
    • Evidence of a witness’s bad character for truthfulness is admissible to impeach credibility.
    • Evidence of good character is admissible only to rehabilitate after an attack on credibility.
  5. Policy: Prevent decisions based on prejudice or moral condemnation rather than on the specific facts of the case.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Character evidence occupies a narrow but important space in Philippine judicial proceedings. While the general policy is to exclude it to avoid undue prejudice, there are clear-cut exceptions where character evidence may be pivotal—particularly in criminal cases where the accused elects to prove good moral character, in civil disputes where character is itself an issue, and in the impeachment or rehabilitation of witnesses. Mastery of these exceptions and the precise manner to introduce (or oppose) character evidence is vital for effective advocacy and the fair administration of justice.

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