C. Admissibility

REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE; EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS, AND RULES OF COURT

The Evidence MUST Be:

• Relevant – Must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence
• Competent – Not excluded by the Rules on Evidence, the law or the Constitution

These two elements correspond to the Two Axioms of Admissibility:

• Axiom of Relevancy That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible.
• Axiom of Competency - All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids their admission. (Riano, p. 21, citing I Wigmore, §§9-10, 289-295).

If in doubt as to admissibility of the testimony given in the court, the court should favor admissibility. Otherwise, if the trial court judge erred in ruling and excluded the same, the appeals court would be precluded from reversing the ruling and taking such testimony.

As a matter of general practice, it is deemed best to resolve doubts in favor of the admission of the contested evidence, without prejudice to such action as the court may deem fit to take in deciding the case on the merits.

This practice has added importance as regards the evidence for the prosecution in criminal cases, for, once the accused has been acquitted, there is no means to secure a review by appeal, no matter how erroneous the action of the lower court may have been. (People v. Abalos, G.R. L-29039, 1969)

Admissibility Distinguished from Weight of Evidence

The admissibility of the evidence depends on its relevance and competency, while the weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade. (Tating v. Marcella, G.R. No. 15508, 2007)

While evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception.(People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, 2000) Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3) or is competent. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the Court. (People v. Turco, G.R. No. 137757, 2000)

While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the contract, i.e., what each party has given in the execution of the contract.

There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by the Rules for its admissibility. Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself. (Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Jose G. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016)

E. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

Admissibility (REE, Rule 11, Section 1 and 2)

Affidavits as public documents

[W]hile affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own language in writing the affiant's statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants.

For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. (Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701, 2012)

SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS

Unsworn statements made by the declarant out of court and which are favorable to his interests. But if the declarant takes the stand to testify and be crossexamined, then it is not self-serving.

Example: Accused tells neighbor that: “Nakapatay yung barkada namin pero wala akong kinalaman.”

Later on, accused cannot have his neighbor testify in court and say that Accused went to him and said that he had nothing to do with the killing. Accused’s statement to the neighbor is self-serving because it was given out of court and it served his interest.

Accused may, however, take the stand and explain why he has nothing to do with the killing.

General Rule: Self-serving declarations are not admissible.

Requisites:

• There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any member of a family;
• The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy; and
• The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person concerned must be a member of the family of said person either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption.