In criminal and civil cases | Character evidence | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES (PHILIPPINE SETTING, RULE 130)

Below is a meticulous and straightforward exposition of the rules, principles, and jurisprudential underpinnings governing character evidence in Philippine law, focusing on criminal and civil cases under the Rules of Court (particularly the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, which amended portions of Rule 130).

I. OVERVIEW OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE

  1. Definition

    • Character evidence is any testimony or document offered to prove that a person acted in conformity with a character or trait on a particular occasion. It typically refers to moral traits (e.g., honesty, peacefulness, violence, chastity, etc.) rather than specific acts (though specific acts may be used to establish character under certain exceptions).

  2. General Rule

    • Character evidence is generally inadmissible. Evidence showing that a person has a certain character or character trait is ordinarily excluded because:
      1. It is considered weak proof of conduct on a particular occasion.
      2. It may unfairly prejudice the tribunal against or in favor of a party.
      3. It often distracts from the direct issues in the case.

  3. Key Provisions

    • The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence codify the treatment of character evidence primarily under Rule 130, Section 53 (formerly found in Sections 54, 55, 56 of the old rules, with reorganized numbering). These provisions outline when character evidence may be admissible in criminal, civil, and witness credibility contexts.

II. CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES

Under Rule 130, Section 53(a) (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence), the law distinguishes between the character of the accused and that of the offended party (or victim). The guiding principles are:

  1. Character of the Accused

    • Accused may prove good moral character (GMC):
      • The accused is permitted to introduce evidence of his or her good moral character when it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
      • Example: In a prosecution for theft (a crime involving dishonesty), evidence that the accused is reputed in the community as honest or trustworthy may be admitted.
    • Prosecution cannot prove bad character, except:
      1. On rebuttal – if the accused first opens the issue of his or her good moral character, the prosecution may present rebuttal evidence on the accused’s bad character.
      2. When independently relevant – if the accused’s bad character or trait is an element or has a direct relation to the crime charged (e.g., to show motive, intent, identity, modus operandi) and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
      • Illustrations:
        • Accused’s prior violent acts to show a pattern or scheme in a murder case, but only if it strongly tends to prove identity or specific intent, or it forms part of the res gestae.
        • Reputation for sexual perversion in certain sexual offenses when it directly bears on the offense charged.
      • Caveat: Courts remain cautious because risk of unfair prejudice is high.

  2. Character of the Offended Party (Victim)

    • Under Rule 130, Section 53(a)(3), the good or bad moral character of the offended party (victim) may be shown if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
    • Examples:
      • In a rape case, an accused may attempt to show the complainant’s character for promiscuity if relevant to the defense of consensual sex (though the courts are highly protective of sexual assault victims and apply the Rape Shield Rule in many instances, limiting inquiry into the victim’s past sexual behavior unless highly relevant).
      • In homicide or physical injuries, the violent or quarrelsome character of the victim might be relevant to a self-defense claim, if it helps show that the victim was the aggressor.

  3. Use and Limitations

    • The evidence must be strictly “pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.” This means if the offense pertains to dishonesty, only character traits associated with honesty or dishonesty can be introduced. For violent crimes, evidence of non-violence or peacefulness can be introduced to bolster the accused’s claim that he or she is unlikely to have committed a violent act.
    • The prosecution generally cannot initiate evidence of the accused’s bad character because of the strong prejudice it might engender. The law safeguards the presumption of innocence.

  4. Jurisprudential Notes

    • People v. Manzano and similar cases: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that while an accused’s evidence of good character is relevant, it is not conclusive proof of innocence. Courts still rely heavily on direct and circumstantial evidence of the crime charged.
    • People v. Odiao: Prosecution can introduce accused’s previous wrongful conduct (e.g., prior convictions) only if relevant to prove some material point other than bad character (e.g., identity or modus operandi), and subject to the balancing test of probative value vs. prejudicial effect.

III. CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES

1. General Prohibition

  • Under Rule 130, Section 53(b), evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is not admissible unless it is pertinent to an issue of character involved in the case.
  • Unlike criminal cases (where an accused can voluntarily open the issue of his or her moral character to help prove innocence), civil proceedings generally focus on the cause of action—contractual rights, property rights, obligations, etc. Character is usually deemed irrelevant.

2. “Character in Issue” Exception

  • When is character “in issue”?
    • Character becomes “in issue” when a party’s character itself is a material fact and must be established for the court to resolve the case. Typical examples:
      1. Defamation cases (libel or slander) – A plaintiff’s reputation for dishonesty or immorality may be relevant where the defendant claims truth as a defense. Conversely, the plaintiff may prove good reputation if defamation is alleged.
      2. Child custody or adoption proceedings – The fitness of a parent or prospective custodian may be directly in question, making moral character or general reputation relevant.
      3. Disbarment or administrative disciplinary actions – Where a professional’s moral fitness to continue in the profession is central to the action.
  • In these instances, both good and bad character evidence may be introduced, subject to the usual procedural requirements (e.g., form of evidence, authenticity, relevancy, etc.).

3. Specific Acts vs. Reputation or Opinion

  • Although the Revised Rules on Evidence still emphasize reputation as the primary vehicle to prove character, Philippine jurisprudence has allowed references to specific acts when character is directly in issue. The 2019 amendments to the Rules have also shown openness to broader forms of proof (akin to the approach under some foreign jurisdictions).
  • However, the general approach remains that a party should primarily introduce evidence of reputation in the community, rather than an exhaustive litany of prior acts, unless the latter are independently relevant and permissible under the rules on examination of witnesses.

IV. CHARACTER EVIDENCE REGARDING WITNESSES

Although the user’s query focuses on criminal and civil parties, it is worth noting how character evidence also applies to witnesses:

  1. Rule 130, Section 53(c) and Rule 132, Sections 11–12 govern impeachment and support of a witness’s credibility based on truthfulness or untruthfulness.
  2. Good or bad moral character of a witness is generally not admissible to prove the truthfulness of his or her testimony unless the opposing party has impeached that witness’s credibility.
    • Once attacked, the witness’s proponent may present evidence of the witness’s reputation for truthfulness.
    • Conversely, the impeaching party may present evidence of a witness’s reputation for dishonesty or prior convictions involving moral turpitude to cast doubt on the witness’s credibility.

V. EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATIONS AND PRACTICE POINTERS

  1. Form of Evidence

    • Reputation Testimony: Typically, a party calls a reputation witness (e.g., a neighbor, colleague, or community leader) who testifies about the person’s general reputation in the relevant community.
    • Opinion Testimony: Under modern interpretation (and by analogy with foreign rules), a witness with adequate knowledge of the person may be allowed to give an opinion regarding that person’s character, though Philippine courts still favor reputation evidence.
    • Specific Acts: Should be approached with caution and admitted only if the acts are independently relevant or if the party’s character is squarely in issue.

  2. Objections and Judicial Control

    • Because of the prejudicial danger of character evidence, counsel should be ready to object if the opposing party attempts to introduce bad character evidence in a criminal case before the accused has opened the door, or if the evidence is irrelevant in a civil case not involving character issues.
    • The judge has discretion under the Rules of Court to exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue delay (see Rule 128, Section 6 on “Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time”).

  3. Practical Strategy

    • For the Defense (in Criminal Cases):
      • Carefully evaluate whether introducing good moral character evidence will truly help the case. Opening the door may allow the prosecution to rebut with damaging character evidence.
      • Introduce good moral character witnesses with caution and clarity, ensuring they testify to relevant moral traits.
    • For the Prosecution (in Criminal Cases):
      • Be cautious in attempting to present the accused’s bad character. It is only allowed if the accused has introduced evidence of good character first, or if the bad character is independently relevant to prove a material fact in the crime.
      • Attempting to introduce prejudicial character evidence prematurely can lead to exclusion and may prejudice the jury or judge against the prosecution’s case.
    • In Civil Litigation:
      • Only use character evidence if the cause of action or defense explicitly makes character a key factor (e.g., defamation, custody battles).
      • In other civil contexts (contracts, property disputes), character evidence rarely carries weight and is usually inadmissible.

VI. RELEVANT CASES AND LEGAL REFERENCES

  1. People v. Manzano (G.R. No. 157992) – Affirming that good moral character evidence does not guarantee acquittal but may be considered.
  2. People v. Odiao – Illustrating that “similar acts” or “character” evidence must be independently relevant.
  3. People v. Escleto – Reiterating that while the accused may present good moral character evidence, the same is only corroborative and not a conclusive defense.
  4. Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar – Comprehensive commentary on the interplay of character evidence with other rules on relevancy and prejudice.
  5. Francisco, Revised Rules on Evidence – Authoritative textbook discussing the historical and doctrinal development of the rule against propensity evidence.

VII. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

  1. Criminal Cases

    • Accused: May prove good moral character if it relates to the offense.
    • Prosecution: May not prove bad moral character of the accused unless the accused opens the door or it is relevant to prove motive, identity, intent, etc.
    • Victim/Offended Party: Character may be shown if it bears on the probability or improbability of the crime.

  2. Civil Cases

    • Moral character is inadmissible unless it is directly in issue (e.g., defamation, custody, professional fitness).

  3. Witnesses

    • Good or bad moral character relevant only to credibility and generally limited to traits of truthfulness or untruthfulness; must comply with impeachment and rehabilitation rules.

  4. Exceptions and Balancing

    • Even when arguably relevant, courts conduct a balancing test: whether character evidence’s probative value is outweighed by its potential to cause undue prejudice, confuse the issues, or waste time.

  5. Practical Application

    • Counsel should carefully assess the strategic value of introducing character evidence.
    • Objections should be raised to improper character evidence to safeguard the client’s rights.

FINAL THOUGHT

Character evidence occupies a narrow but potentially influential niche in both criminal and civil litigation. While the presumption under Philippine law is to exclude it (for fear of unfair prejudice and distraction from the main issues), there are well-defined exceptions where character evidence becomes a legitimate and at times decisive aspect of proof. Practitioners must wield it judiciously, always mindful of the interplay between relevance, prejudice, and due process.

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