Comprehensive Notes on Rule 128: General Provisions of Evidence

Judicial Definition and Sanctioning of Evidence

Section 1 of Rule 128 defines evidence as the means sanctioned by the rules of court for the purpose of ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact within a judicial proceeding. The phrase "sanctioned by these rules" implies a specific methodology or process that must be strictly followed. It establishes a limitation and a procedural framework for the introduction of evidence. For the rules of evidence to apply strictly, the proceeding must be a judicial one. These rules do not apply with the same rigor to non-judicial proceedings. Evidence is the necessary tool used to discover the truth of alleged facts, and parties must comply with the procedural requirements set forth under the rules to present it.

There is a distinct conceptual difference between proof and evidence. Evidence refers to the individual means or the process of presenting items (documents, objects, or testimony) in accordance with the rules. Proof is the result or the outcome of all the evidence gathered and presented; it is the conviction or persuasion that arises in the mind of the court from the evidence provided. Furthermore, the concept involves two specific terms: Factum Probandum and Factum Probans. Factum Probandum refers to the ultimate facts or the proposition to be established, while Factum Probans refers to the evidentiary facts or the materials used to establish that proposition.

Admissibility, Relevancy, and Competence

Under Section 3, evidence is considered admissible when it satisfies two primary requirements: it must be relevant to the issue and it must be competent. Relevancy, as defined in Section 4, means that the evidence must have a direct relation to the fact in issue such that it induces a belief in its existence or non-existence. Relevancy concerns the logic and connection between the evidence and the issue. Competence, which is considered the more critical element of admissibility, means that the evidence is not excluded by the Constitution, by law, or by the Rules of Court. No matter how relevant a piece of evidence might be, if it is not competent (e.g., if it was obtained through an illegal search or seizure), it must be excluded.

Section 4 also addresses collateral matters. Generally, evidence on collateral matters is prohibited. However, an exception is made when the collateral matter tends, in any reasonable degree, to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. Specifically, the transcript mentions corroborative evidence, which supports other evidence already presented but may not be conclusive on its own. It is distinct from cumulative evidence, which refers to additional evidence of the same kind directed toward proving the same point.

Scope and Uniformity of the Rules of Evidence

Section 2 states that the rules of evidence shall be uniform in all courts and in all trials and hearings, whether in the Regional Trial Court ($RTC$) or the Municipal Trial Court ($MTC$). This ensures that there are not separate sets of evidence rules for different judicial bodies. However, this uniformity is subject to the clause "except as otherwise provided by law or these rules." For instance, specific rules govern election protests or cases under summary procedure.

In cases governed by summary procedure, such as certain civil cases, the presentation of evidence is modified. Instead of traditional cross-examination, the court may require the submission of position papers. This demonstrates that while the general rules apply, special laws can create exceptions to the standard judicial proceedings to favor expediency or specific jurisdictional requirements.

Comparative Quantum of Proof and Circumstantial Evidence

There are significant differences in how evidence rules apply to criminal cases versus civil cases. The most prominent difference is the quantum of proof required. In criminal cases, the standard is "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt." In civil cases, the standard is the "Preponderance of Evidence." For administrative or quasi-judicial cases (referred to as SQL in the session), the standard is "Substantial Evidence."

In terms of pleadings, a criminal defendant may enter a general denial (during arraignment) without the need to explain the basis for that denial. In contrast, civil cases require a specific denial; a general denial in a civil case may be treated as an admission. Furthermore, if an accused pleads guilty and subsequently withdraws that plea, the withdrawn plea is inadmissible as evidence against them. In civil cases, judicial admissions generally bind the party and cannot be withdrawn unless it is shown they were made through a "palpable mistake" or if it can be proven (through the Transcript of Stenographic Notes or $TSN$) that no such admission was actually made.

The application of the "Equiponderance Rule" also differs. This rule applies when the evidence of both parties is equally balanced. In a criminal case, this leads to the acquittal of the accused. In a civil case, if the evidence is equally balanced, the party who carries the burden of proof (the plaintiff) loses the case because they failed to discharge their burden.

Regarding circumstantial evidence, a single circumstance may be sufficient in a civil case. However, in criminal cases, a conviction can never be based on a single circumstance. There must be at least two ($2$) or more circumstances to result in a conviction in a criminal proceeding.

Privileged Communications and Evidentiary Privileges

Privileged communication, specifically the physician-patient privilege, prevents a physician or psychotherapist from testifying about a patient's diagnosis without the patient's consent. This privilege is strictly applied in civil cases but does not generally apply to criminal cases. The reasoning is that an accused should not be allowed to hide behind evidentiary rules to defeat the purpose of a criminal prosecution.

There is also a distinction between different types of privileges. Evidentiary privilege allows a privilege holder (such as an aggrieved spouse, a penitent, a patient, or a public officer) to withhold competent evidence or prevent others from revealing it. Executive privilege applies to members of the executive branch, protecting them from being forced to disclose confidential communications if such disclosure would harm government operations. Finally, the public officer privilege may extend even after the officer is no longer connected with the government.

Questions & Discussion

The session included an administrative check and a recitation involving student Number $13$, Melendres. The student had previously invoked immunity for participating in the Magnus Conventus and the inter-law school basketball event. The student successfully recited Sections $1$, $2$, $3$, and $4$ of Rule $128$. During the exchange, the attorney clarified the definition of evidence and the meaning of "sanctioned by the rules." The discussion also touched upon the difference between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans. The attorney issued a reminder for the students to read the case of People vs. (G.R. Number $186228$, dated March $15$, $2010$) concerning the topic of admissibility of evidence for the next session. The session concluded with instructions for students in Tagum City to attend a face-to-face class and submit their index cards.