Character evidence

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.

Civil cases | Character evidence | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of character evidence in civil cases under Philippine law, specifically under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (as amended). This focuses on how character evidence is generally treated in civil proceedings, when it is admissible, and the pertinent rules and jurisprudential principles surrounding it.

1. Overview of Character Evidence in Philippine Law

  1. Definition of Character Evidence

    • Character evidence refers to testimony or documentary evidence tending to show a person’s reputation or disposition in terms of traits such as honesty, peacefulness, or morality.
    • It is used to establish or prove a party’s or witness’s propensity to act in a certain way consistent with their character or reputation.

  2. General Rule of Admissibility

    • As a general principle in both civil and criminal cases, character evidence is not admissible if it is offered solely to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character on a particular occasion.

  3. Sources in the Rules of Court

    • Historically, the relevant provisions were found in Rule 130, Section 51 of the (old) Rules of Court.
    • Following the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence, the treatment remains substantially similar, and is generally articulated under the sections on “Character Evidence” of Rule 130. The key principles remain:
      1. In criminal cases, the accused may prove good moral character if it is relevant to the offense charged, and the prosecution may rebut.
      2. In civil cases, evidence of character is generally inadmissible except when character is necessarily in issue or relevant to the claims and defenses raised.

2. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

A. General Rule: Inadmissibility

  • “Character is not in issue”: In most civil suits, the moral character of a party is not the crux of the controversy. For instance, in a typical breach of contract or collection of sum of money case, the personal character of either party (whether they are honest, kind, or temperamental) has no bearing on determining whether an obligation was breached or a debt is owed.
  • Prohibition on use for proving conduct: The general rule bars using character evidence to prove that because a party or individual has a certain character trait (e.g., dishonesty), they must have acted in conformity with that trait (e.g., they must have committed fraud).

B. Exception: When Character is “In Issue”

Although the default position is inadmissibility, character evidence may be admitted in a civil case if a party’s character is directly and necessarily in issue or relevant to the resolution of the dispute. Common examples include:

  1. Defamation (Libel or Slander) Cases

    • If the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s defamatory statements harmed his or her reputation or good name, the plaintiff’s character or reputation may be central to the case.
    • Conversely, the defendant may present evidence showing the plaintiff’s pre-existing bad reputation to mitigate or negate damages.

  2. Civil Cases Involving Moral Damages

    • When a claim for moral damages is predicated on alleged besmirched reputation, humiliation, or moral shock, a person’s reputation in the community may become a critical factual issue.

  3. Child Custody or Guardianship Cases

    • In disputes over custody or guardianship, courts often look into the character of the parents or guardians to ascertain the best interest of the child.
    • Here, evidence of good or bad moral character is material, as it directly impacts parental fitness.

  4. Psychological Incapacity in Nullity of Marriage

    • In proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, aspects of the parties’ characters, habitual traits, or mental and emotional make-up may be placed squarely at issue.

  5. Insanity or Other Mental Condition

    • When a party’s mental or emotional condition (which may include character traits if relevant) is the subject of a civil suit (e.g., determination of capacity to contract or to manage property), evidence of character-like tendencies can become relevant.

C. Scope and Manner of Proof

  1. Reputation or Opinion Evidence

    • Character can be proved by testimony of reputation in the community (persons familiar with the party’s standing, reputation, or conduct in the community) or by opinion testimony from a witness who has had sufficient contact and familiarity with the person.

  2. Specific Instances of Conduct

    • Under Philippine practice, specific acts may be introduced if they are relevant to prove a character trait in issue. However, the court often exercises discretion to avoid confusing the jury (or judge in bench trials) and to prevent undue prejudice or time-consuming collateral inquiries.
    • In civil cases, if a party’s entire moral standing is claimed to be directly in issue (e.g., defamation involving allegations of dishonesty), specific instances of the party’s conduct relevant to honesty or dishonesty may be presented, subject to the rules on relevancy and subject to the trial judge’s discretion.

  3. Limitations and Court’s Discretion

    • Courts strictly limit the introduction of character evidence to prevent “trial by character” or attempts to smear a party or witness. Even if character is arguably relevant, the court may exclude it under the Rule on Relevancy and Materiality (Rule 128, Sections 4-6) and the balancing test under Rule 132 (for mode of presentation) if it is deemed unduly prejudicial, confusing, or cumulative.

3. Distinction from Criminal Cases

  • In criminal cases, an accused can voluntarily offer evidence of good moral character to show that it is improbable for him or her to have committed the crime charged. If the accused does so, the prosecution may rebut the evidence.
  • In civil cases, the necessity for proving moral character is narrowly confined to situations where the character trait itself is part of the substantive claim or defense. Unless character is squarely in issue, it remains inadmissible.

4. Jurisprudential Guidelines

Philippine case law consistently stresses the limited scope of character evidence in civil matters. Some key guidelines:

  1. Character Evidence is Collateral

    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that except when character is an essential element or truly in issue, courts avoid delving into personal character so as not to overcomplicate the proceedings with tangential issues.

  2. Defamation Cases

    • In actions for libel or slander, courts look into the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory imputation. If it involves an attack on a person’s integrity, evidence of the person’s actual reputation may be allowed to mitigate damages if it is proven that the plaintiff already had a tarnished reputation.

  3. Custody Disputes

    • Courts often allow thorough inquiry into a parent or custodian’s personal traits, moral integrity, history of violence or substance abuse, or other character factors, because the best interest of the child is paramount.

  4. Quantum and Weight

    • The persuasive weight of character evidence in civil proceedings depends on its relevance to an essential issue and the credibility of the witnesses testifying. Mere rumor or unsubstantial attacks on a party’s character are not favored by the courts.

5. Practical Tips and Considerations for Lawyers

  1. Assess Whether Character is Truly at Issue

    • Before offering character evidence, determine if the claim or defense necessarily puts the party’s character in controversy (e.g., defamation, moral damages, child custody).

  2. Choose the Right Form of Character Evidence

    • Decide whether to present reputation testimony (usually from neighbors, community leaders, or coworkers) or specific instances of conduct that demonstrate a character trait.
    • Use opinion testimony sparingly and ensure the witness is properly qualified to give such an opinion.

  3. Beware of Opening the Door

    • If a party voluntarily places their character in issue, the opposing party may rebut. Be careful not to inadvertently open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence.

  4. Observe Ethical Constraints

    • Under legal ethics, counsel must avoid introducing character evidence solely to harass, embarrass, or degrade a party or witness. Any evidence presented must be in good faith and material to the case at bar.

  5. Balance Prejudice vs. Probative Value

    • Even if technically admissible, character evidence can be excluded if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. Always weigh whether the court might view the evidence as unduly prejudicial, leading to potential exclusion.

6. Conclusion

In civil cases, the general rule under Philippine remedial law is that character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion. The exception arises when a party’s character or reputation is inherently in issue—such as in defamation, child custody, or any proceeding where moral character itself is a vital component of the substantive controversy. Even when permissible, courts exercise strict oversight to ensure relevance, avoid prejudice, and prevent unnecessary detours into a person’s moral or behavioral history. Lawyers must strategically determine whether character evidence genuinely advances the client’s position or risks overshadowing the main issues in the case.

Key Takeaway:

  • Civil Cases: Character evidence is inadmissible unless the party’s character is directly in issue or otherwise essential to resolving the dispute (e.g., defamation, custody, moral damages).
  • Always check: (a) the necessity/relevance of the character trait, (b) the type of character evidence to be offered, and (c) the risk of prejudice versus probative value.

This framework ensures the proper, ethical, and effective use of character evidence in Philippine civil proceedings under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

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

Criminal cases | Character evidence | Testimonial Evidence (RULE 130) | EVIDENCE

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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:

  1. The prosecution’s introduction of contrary evidence must be limited to the specific trait or character area that the accused placed in issue.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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

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