VIII. Evidence

Some Exclusionary Rules:

• 1987 Constitution, Article III
• Section 2 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
• Section 3 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
• Section 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
• Section 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• Section 201, Tax Reform Act of 1997 - A document required by law to be stamped shall not be admitted or used in evidence until the requisite stamps are affixed thereto.
• R.A. 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, Sec. 2 - All deposits of whatever nature are absolutely confidential and may not be examined, inquired, looked into except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or in cases where the money is the subject matter of litigation.
• R.A. 4200, Wire-Tapping Act, Sec. 4 - Any communication or spoken word or the existence, contents, substance or any information contained therein secured in violation of the Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
• R.A. 11479, Anti-Terrorism Act, Sec. 23 – Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall be inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
• R.A. 9745, Anti-Torture Act, Sec. 8 - Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture.
• A.M. 02-6-02-SC, Confidentiality Rule in Adoption Cases, Sec. 18 - All hearings in adoption cases, after compliance with the jurisdictional requirements shall be confidential and shall not be open to the public. All records, books and papers relating to the adoption cases in the files of the court, the Department, or any other agency or institution participating in the adoption proceedings shall be kept strictly confidential.
• R.A. 9285, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, Sec. 9 - Information obtained through mediation proceedings shall be subject to the following principles and guidelines:
• Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.
• A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent any other person from disclosing a mediation communication.
• Confidential Information shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, However, evidence or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation.
• In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or previously involved in a mediation may not be compelled to disclose confidential information obtained during mediation: (1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator or mediators; (3) the counsel for the parties; (4) the nonparty participants; (5) any persons hired or engaged in connection with the mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other person who obtains or possesses confidential information by reason of his/her profession.
• The protections of this Act shall continue to apply even if a mediator is found to have failed to act impartially.
• A mediator may not be called to testify to provide information gathered in mediation. A mediator who is wrongfully subpoenaed shall be reimbursed the full cost of his attorney's fees and related expenses.
• R.A. 8505, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 - In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case. (Section 6)

The Exclusionary Rule – Commonly used for evidence excluded by the Constitution. It is applied to cases where the challenged evidence is quite clearly direct or primary in its relationship to the prior arrest or search. (Herrera, Remedial Law Vol V, 37) What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. (Gutang v. People, G.R. No. 135406, 2000)

The extrajudicial confession to the “bantay bayan” which was taken without counsel is inadmissible in evidence as the “bantay bayan” may be deemed to be a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution. Any inquiry the “bantay bayan” makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. (People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 2010)

The phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard. (Ganaan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, 1986)

Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes” expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200. (Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA, G.R. No. 110662, 1994)

Personal information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication over privileged information that they lawfully control or process. Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence gathered on privileged information is inadmissible. (Sec. 15, Data Privacy Act of 2012) Written offer of evidence which includes the statement of the accused containing his handwritten admission obtained during company investigation proceedings are not covered by the exclusionary rule. The admission of the accused is not excluded due to the violation of his rights during custodial investigation as the admission was not obtained during custodial investigation. The investigation by the company is not considered as custodial investigation because at that time, the employee is not a “suspect” under investigation by the police.

An employee during a company investigation is still required to be accorded due process. The law requires that in the making of statements under the investigation for his defense, the employee must be given the opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, colleagues and friends. The employee may also refuse to submit any statement at the investigation. But if he rejects to do so, his statements are still not obtained in violation of his “Miranda Rights” (to silence, to counsel and to be informed) and therefore, his statements are not excluded evidence in a subsequent criminal action brought against him. (People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989, where employee’s statement obtained during company investigation were found as not excluded under the Constitution)

The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

• There exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party;
• The existence of the joint interest must first be made to appear by evidence other than the act or declaration itself;
• The act or declaration was made while the interest was subsisting; and
• The act relates to the subject matter of the joint interest (Rule 130, Sec. 30)

Admission by privies

PRIVIES: denotes not only the idea of succession in right of heirship or testamentary legacy but also succession by virtue of acts inter vivos as by assignment, subrogation or purchase – in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the place of the predecessor in interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is a privy of the execution debtor. (Alpuerto v. Pastor, G.R. No. L-12794, 1918)

General Rule: In order for an admission of a former owner of property to be admissible against his successor in title, it must relate to the property and it have been made at the time when the title was still held by the declarant. (Rule 130, Sec. 32)

Exception: The declaration made subsequent to the transfer of the property shall be admissible:

• Where the declaration was made in the presence of the transferee and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where he ought to speak. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
• Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee. (Rule 130, Sec. 31)

The act of a predecessor is not binding on the successor if the acts/declarations made by the predecessor acknowledging ownership or offering to purchase the property from a third party were made before the predecessor held title to the land. (City of Manila v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1284, 1905)

Rule on Compromise Negotiations:

Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations admissible

Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Rule, 130 Sec. 42)

By family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree is meant such declarations and statements as have come down from generation to generation from deceased relatives in such a way that even though it cannot be said or determined which of the deceased relatives originally made them, yet it appears that such declarations and statements were made as family history, ante litem motam, by a deceased person connected by blood, marriage or adoption with the person whose pedigree is to be established.