Admissibility of Evidence (2) Flashcards
(66 cards)
In order for evidence to serve its purpose of ascertaining truth respecting a matter of fact in judicial proceedings, it has to pass through two (2) exacting tests:
test of admissibility
test of weight & sufficiency
The two (2) tests of admissibility correspond to Wigmore’s two (2) axioms of admissibility:
axiom of relevancy
axiom of competency
The testimony of an eyewitness who is shown to be insane for being relevant
explain it’s admissibility
explain it’s sufficiency?
[admissibility]
not excluded by the constitution, rules of court, or the law so it is admissible
[weight]
- may not be given weight for being unreliable due to diminished perception, memory, and communication.
when is evidence admissible?
relevant and is not excluded by the Consti, law, RoC
how to determine RELEVANCY of any material?
logic
human experience
common sense
While Robert Heesen (“Heesen”) was deer hunting, his rifle accidentally fired, hitting Jessee Lopez (“Lopez”). Lopez contended that the cause of the sudden discharge of the rifle was Heesen’s negligence and the defective design of the safety mechanism of the rifle as it would easily move from safety to fire position. Lopez thus filed a case for damages against Heesen and the storeowner who sold the rifle to Heesen
By way of defense, the storeowner presented an expert witness on gun- making to testify on the good reputation of two manufacturers: (1) manufacturer of the rifle, and (2) manufacturer of the safety mechanism– that during their entire business existence, they never received any complaint of accidental firing involving any of their manufactured rifles using the same safety mechanism
Whether evidence of reputation of the manufacturers of the rifle and the gun safety device is relevant.
Yes
Lopez v. Heesen (1961)
reputation of the manufacturers is relevant to the issue of whether the safety device of the rifle involved is really defective. Their good reputation throws light upon the issue of whether their products are indeed defective as alleged by Lopez. The absence of any other similar complaint of accidental firing involving any of their manufactured rifles with the same safety mechanism is relevant as it tends to establish the improbability of Mr. Lopez’s accusation of defective product workmanship.
Anything that throws light upon an issue should be admitted by the court as relevant evidence
(“Bull”) was arrested for robbery. He was identified by the sales personnel of the jewelry store
During Bull’s arrest, the police were able to recover from his possession some dollar bills and coins which were presented as evidence during the trial for robbery
are the dollar bills & coins recovered from the possession of Bull at the time of the arrest relevant?
No
State of Missouri v. Bull
Case illustrates evidence excluded on the ground of irrelevancy
The Supreme Court excluded the dollar bills and coins recovered from Bull’s possession. It ruled that the evidence is irrelevant to prove the issue of whether Bull committed the robbery. It was not established that the dollar bills and coins recovered from the possession of Bull were the very same items taken from the vault of the jewelry store during the robbery.
Components of Relevancy
> what is probativeness?
It refers to the tendency of the evidence to establish the probability/improbability of a fact in issue.
Components of Relevancy
> what is materiality?
which means legal relevancy, in that evidence must be offered to prove a matter which is an issue in the case.
Conversely, if an evidence is offered to prove a particular matter which is not in issue in the case, the evidence is immaterial
(a) materiality determined by pleadings
In a civil action for collection of sum of money based on a promissory note as an actionable document, the defendant failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
Can the defendant during trial introduce evidence of forgery? What is the ground, if any?
No, any evidence presented to prove forgery may be objected & court may exclude it on the ground that it is immaterial
It is immaterial because forgery is no longer an issue in the case because of an implied admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8.
Materiality is determined by?
substantive law
rules on pleadings
pre-trial order
admission of the parties
complaint/information (in crim cases)
(b) materiality determined by the information
In a criminal prosecution for Murder where the Information alleges the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
what was presented during trial is evidence of evident premeditation not otherwise alleged in the Information
is it admissible? if so, on what ground is it admissible/inadmissible?
No, it is inadmissible on the ground for being immaterial
Why is it a fundamental rule in Crim Pro that prosecution cannot prove matters not alleged in the information?
violate the accused’s right to be informed of the nature & cause of the accusation against them
(c) materiality determined by substantive law
evidence of “Prior Demand” is material in a what civil action but immaterial in what?
when is evidence “competent”
when it is not excluded by the Consti, law, RoC
Relevant Principles on Competency of Evidence >
what is the Exclusionary Rule
3 types of exclusionary rules
1.
2.
3.
Relevant Principles on Competency of Evidence >
what is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
After a recent robbery, Waldo was arrested by the police without warrant and subjected to custodial investigation without assistance of counsel, where he confessed to having participated in the robbery and disclosed the whereabouts of the stolen money and jewelry which he concealed inside a steel vault in his room. Based on Waldo’s uncounseled confession, the police proceeded to Waldo’s house and searched his room where the bag full of money and pieces of jewelry was found. Waldo’s uncounseled extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because of the exclusionary rule
Is the bag of money and pieces of jewelry admissible?
It is the poisonous tree. The bag containing money and pieces of jewelry is also inadmissible because the knowledge of its whereabouts and existence was obtained due to the uncounseled extra-judicial confession. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree
The exclusionary rules under the Constitution are found in:
Article III
- 2
- 3
- 12
- 17
EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS OR RULES
4200 - anti-wiretapping act
11479 - anti-terrorism
9995 -
8505 -
7160 -
8424 -
10173 -
AM No. 21-06-08-SC -
IOW, any evidence obtained in violation to the exclusionary rules of these special laws SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE
Exclusionary Rules under Special Laws or Rules > 4200
(a) tapping any wire or cable, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record any private communication or spoken word without the consent of all the parties to such communication or spoken word;
(b) using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder;
Is the secret overhearing of a telephone conversation using a telephone extension line violate RA 4200?
No, because it does not fall under the
First mode there being no tapping of a wire/cable since a telephone extension is part of the telephone mechanism [and] is put in place for a legitimate purpose.
second mode
- applying ejusdem generis (same kind) a telephone extension line is NOT the same as a dictaphone, dictagraph, detectaphone, walkie-talkie, or tape recorder
Atty. Pintor and his client, Manuel Montebon, were discussing the settlement terms for a direct assault complaint they filed against Leonardo Laconico. Upon Laconico’s request, his counsel, Atty. Gaanan, secretly listened to a private telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico through a telephone extension without Pintor’s consent. During the call, Pintor allegedly demanded P8,000 for withdrawing the complaint.
Based on this, Laconico filed a complaint for robbery/extortion against Pintor, attaching an affidavit by Gaanan stating what he overheard. Pintor later charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No. 4200).
Is Atty. Gaanan liable under RA No. 4200 for listening to the telephone conversation using a telephone extension without the consent of Atty. Pintor?
No, he is not liable
Gaanan v. IAC
[SC]
- An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone…
- The telephone extension in this case was not INSTALLED for that purpose (tapping). It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
- Instruments of “same or similar nature” refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. (unlike a telephone, it’s purpose is to be heard and transmit)
Two radio reporters, Stanley Jalbuena (“Jalbuena”) and Enrique Lingan (“Lingan”) went to the police station to report an incident that transpired inside an entertainment bar. The policemen on duty, including Felipe Navarro (“Navarro”) were having drinks in front of the police station.
Instead of assisting the radio reporters in having the incident recorded in the police
blotter, Navarro engaged in a heated argument with Lingan where Navarro hit Lingan’s left eyebrow with the handle of his firearm and punched Lingan in his forehead resulting in Lingan’s death.
Unknown to Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on tape the verbal exchanges between Navarro and Lingan.
One of the pieces of evidence formally offered by the prosecution during the trial was the tape recording made by Jalbuena of the verbal exchanges between Navarro and the deceased Lingan.
Whether the tape recording is inadmissible in evidence
It is admissible
Navarro v. CA
Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was NOT PRIVATE, its tape recording is not prohibited
