CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW
(Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence)

I. INTRODUCTION

In Philippine Remedial Law, particularly under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the concept of character evidence pertains to the admissibility and relevance of a person’s character in judicial proceedings. While character evidence arises in both civil and criminal proceedings, its use in criminal cases is subject to stricter rules and limitations.

Character evidence refers to proof of a person’s moral traits, disposition, or reputation. Typically, a party introduces it to show that the person acted in conformity with those traits on a particular occasion. Because of its potentially prejudicial or distracting nature, our Rules lay down specific provisions dictating when and how character evidence may be introduced.

This comprehensive discussion focuses on character evidence in criminal cases, covering its legal bases, the general rule, recognized exceptions, relevant jurisprudence, and practical applications in Philippine courtrooms.

II. LEGAL BASIS

Rule 130, Section 54 (Old Rules) / Section 49 (Amended Rules)
Under the pre-2020 Rules of Court, character evidence is principally governed by Rule 130, Section 54. With the 2020 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence, the section numbers were re-organized; the provision on character evidence for criminal cases can still be found in Rule 130, but the specific section number may vary (often cited as Section 49 in certain references). Nonetheless, the substantive rules remain substantially the same.
Related Provisions
- Rule 132 (Presentation of Evidence) sets forth guidelines for examining witnesses, which indirectly affects the manner and scope of presenting or impeaching one’s character.
- Jurisprudential Doctrines supplement these provisions, clarifying when character evidence becomes relevant, controlling, or otherwise admissible.

III. GENERAL RULE: CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONDUCT

The overarching principle in Philippine jurisprudence is that character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with his or her character on the occasion in question. Courts disfavor this type of proof because it can be misleading and prejudicial, inviting jurors (or judges in Philippine trial courts) to decide cases based on moral judgments rather than the specific facts in dispute.

In criminal proceedings, this means that the prosecution cannot ordinarily present evidence of the accused’s bad moral character to show a propensity for wrongdoing or to suggest that the accused is the type of person who would commit the crime charged. Similarly, the defense is typically restricted from parading good-character evidence unless it meets certain criteria laid down by the Rules.

IV. EXCEPTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES

Despite the general prohibition, character evidence may be admitted in certain specific situations. These exceptions acknowledge that sometimes, a person’s character is directly at issue, or its probative value is substantially outweighing the danger of undue prejudice.

A. When the Accused Presents Evidence of Good Character

Initiative by the Accused
The accused in a criminal case is explicitly allowed to introduce evidence of his or her good moral character when it is pertinent to the nature of the offense charged. For instance:
- In charges involving crimes against chastity (e.g., rape, acts of lasciviousness), the accused’s reputation for morality and decency may become directly relevant.
- In falsification or perjury charges, the accused may present evidence of truthfulness or honesty to demonstrate that he or she is unlikely to commit such an offense.
Why This Exception Exists
- Fairness: Since life and liberty are at stake, the Rules allow the accused to present evidence tending to show that he or she lacks the predisposition to commit the charged crime.
- Due Process: Affording the accused a broader right to defense fosters a fair trial.
Form of Evidence
- Reputation and Opinion Testimony: Traditionally, proof of character is presented via testimony on reputation (what the community or associates say about the person’s moral standing) or opinion (what a qualified witness personally observes or believes about the accused’s character traits).
- Specific Instances of Conduct: As a rule, specific acts are not used to prove character (except in certain impeachment scenarios or when character is directly in issue). The general approach is to rely on a witness's personal knowledge of the accused’s reputation or personal dealings.

B. When the Prosecution Rebuts the Accused’s Good Character Evidence

Once the accused “opens the door” by offering evidence of good character, the prosecution may, in turn, present bad character evidence to rebut or disprove the accused’s claim. This is the principle of fair play and reciprocity:

The prosecution’s introduction of contrary evidence must be limited to the specific trait or character area that the accused placed in issue.
The prosecution cannot exceed the scope introduced by the defense. For example, if the accused claimed to be a peace-loving individual, the prosecution can rebut that particular assertion by showing a reputation for violence or aggression.

C. Character of the Offended Party (Victim)

In certain criminal cases, the character or reputation of the offended party (i.e., the victim) may also be relevant. Typically, the defense might present negative character evidence about the victim (e.g., in homicide or assault cases, to show that the victim was the aggressor or had a violent disposition). However, courts scrutinize such evidence carefully to ensure it genuinely relates to a material issue—like self-defense—and not simply to smear the victim.

D. Character in Impeachment of Witness Credibility

Character evidence can also be used to impeach the credibility of a witness in a criminal case. While not strictly the same as offering character evidence to show conformity with prior conduct, it still falls under the umbrella of character evidence rules.

Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
A witness may be impeached if he or she has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (e.g., perjury, fraud, theft). This goes to credibility rather than to guilt for the offense charged.
Reputation for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
Parties may present evidence of a witness’s reputation for truthfulness or its opposite to affect the weight of the witness’s testimony.

V. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

A. People v. Cruz (Illustrative Citation)

In People v. Cruz, the Supreme Court reiterated that an accused, charged with a crime involving moral turpitude, may adduce evidence of his or her good moral character, if and only if it is a pertinent characteristic to the crime charged. The decision underscored that character evidence should not overshadow direct evidence of guilt or innocence.

B. People v. Pagal (Illustrative Citation)

In People v. Pagal, the High Court explained the fundamental reason behind the exclusion of character evidence: it diverts the attention of the court from the main issue of whether or not the accused committed the offense to the collateral issue of what sort of person the accused is.

C. People v. Boniao (Illustrative Citation)

Here, the Court discussed how when the accused opens the door by introducing his alleged peaceful and law-abiding nature, the prosecution may use certified convictions or credible testimony about the accused’s previous violent incidents to refute the claim.

(Note: The cases cited here are for illustration. The Supreme Court has consistently applied the same principles in a myriad of decisions.)

VI. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCEDURE

Manner of Presenting Character Evidence
- Through Witnesses: A character witness testifies that he or she has known the accused for a certain period and that the accused’s reputation in the community is good or bad with respect to relevant traits.
- Cross-Examination: Opposing counsel may cross-examine a character witness as to the basis of his or her knowledge. It is permissible to ask about rumors or specific instances that might contradict the claimed character trait, but the purpose is typically to test the credibility of the character witness and not necessarily to prove those specific instances as independent evidence of guilt.
Limiting Instructions
Courts often issue limiting instructions to jurors (in jurisdictions that have juries) or to guide themselves (in bench trials) that character evidence is to be weighed only within the scope permitted by the Rules—e.g., for impeachment or for rebuttal—and not as proof of the accused’s likelihood to have committed the specific crime.
Strategic Considerations for Defense
- Opening the Door: Defense counsel must carefully weigh the advantage of presenting good character evidence against the risk that it will allow the prosecution to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence of bad character.
- Relevance to Crime Charged: If the alleged trait is not pertinent to the crime charged, such evidence is likely immaterial and could be stricken out or given little weight.
Strategic Considerations for Prosecution
- Rebuttal Evidence: Prosecutors must be prepared to offer concrete evidence of the accused’s bad character (or negative reputation) if the defense brings up good character.
- Cross-Examining Character Witnesses: The prosecution should thoroughly cross-examine character witnesses to highlight any contradictions or limited knowledge about the accused’s true disposition.
Burden of Proof and Credibility Assessment
- Even if character evidence is admitted, it does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Character evidence, whether good or bad, is generally considered subordinate or ancillary to more direct evidence (e.g., eyewitness testimony, forensic proof).

VII. LIMITATIONS AND CAUTIONS

Propensity Evidence is Disfavored
Propensity evidence—arguing that “because he is a bad person, he committed the crime”—is deeply disfavored. The Rules of Evidence aim to ensure that convictions rest on concrete proof rather than assumptions about one’s general disposition.
Direct vs. Collateral Issues
Character evidence can quickly lead to confusion about the main issue at bar. Courts vigilantly guard against devoting inordinate time to tangential inquiries into the accused’s entire background or the victim’s personality.
Risk of Prejudice
The danger of prejudice is highest when the accused has a criminal record or is known to have misbehaved in unrelated contexts. Evidence of prior misdeeds or general moral failings can unduly sway the factfinder to convict on the basis of the accused’s “bad character,” even absent proof beyond reasonable doubt on the specific crime charged.

VIII. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

General Rule: Character evidence is inadmissible to show that a person acted in accordance with a particular trait on the day of the alleged offense.
Exception (Defense Initiative): The accused may introduce evidence of good character if it is relevant to the crime charged (especially if it is a crime involving moral turpitude).
Prosecution’s Rebuttal: Once the accused introduces good character evidence, the prosecution may present evidence to the contrary.
Victim’s Character: In some situations (e.g., claims of self-defense), evidence of the victim’s violent character is admissible to show that the victim was the initial aggressor.
Witness Credibility: A witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness may be proved to impeach credibility, typically through reputation or prior convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude.
Jurisprudential Guidance: The Supreme Court underscores that such evidence must be carefully limited to its proper purpose to prevent undue prejudice or confusion of issues.

IX. PRACTICAL TIPS FOR COUNSEL

Evaluate Necessity and Impact: Before presenting character evidence, defense counsel must carefully assess whether it will genuinely assist the accused or risk opening the door to damaging rebuttal.
Ensure Proper Foundation: For both prosecution and defense, any character witness must have adequate knowledge of the accused or the witness’s reputation in the community. Conclusory statements without basis can be discredited easily.
Object Promptly: When the opposing party attempts to introduce impermissible character evidence, an immediate and well-grounded objection is essential. The basis typically rests on irrelevance or the rule against using character to prove conduct.
Use Limiting Instructions: Request a limiting instruction from the court if there is a risk that admitted character evidence will be misused. This can help preserve issues for appeal if prejudice occurs.

X. CONCLUSION

Character evidence in Philippine criminal proceedings is a narrowly circumscribed area due to the potential for prejudice, distraction, and unfairness. While it is generally inadmissible to prove that an accused acted in accordance with a certain disposition, specific exceptions allow an accused to present good character evidence when relevant to the offense charged, and enable the prosecution to rebut that evidence accordingly. Courts meticulously apply these rules to ensure that verdicts rest on relevant, material, and competent proof of the alleged criminal act rather than on subjective judgments about a person’s general moral standing.

By adhering to these established doctrines, both bench and bar uphold the constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trial, ensuring that justice is served based on facts and law rather than unbridled speculation about a party’s character.