Factum probans vs. factum probandum | General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS
(Under Philippine Rules on Evidence, specifically Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, and relevant jurisprudence and principles in Remedial Law)

---

I. INTRODUCTION

In the Philippine legal system, particularly under the Rules of Court, evidence is the means of ascertaining the truth regarding matters of fact in a judicial proceeding. A precise understanding of “factum probandum” and “factum probans” is crucial to effectively present, analyze, and rule on evidence. These two terms form the conceptual basis of what lawyers and judges refer to when distinguishing between the ultimate fact or proposition to be proven and the evidentiary facts used to prove that ultimate fact.

---

II. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

1. Factum Probandum (Ultimate Fact or Proposition To Be Proved)

   • Definition: The factum probandum is the principal fact in issue, the ultimate fact, or the proposition that a party seeks to establish in the litigation. This is the core matter that the party must prove to prevail, such as the fact of liability, the fact of negligence, or the fact of ownership.
   • Example: In a civil suit for collection of sum of money, the factum probandum is that the defendant owes the plaintiff a certain amount and has not paid the obligation.

2. Factum Probans (Evidentiary Fact)

   • Definition: The factum probans consists of the supporting facts or pieces of evidence—documentary, testimonial, or object—employed to prove the factum probandum. These are the subordinate facts from which, directly or indirectly, the factum probandum may be inferred.
   • Example: In the same civil suit for collection of sum of money, the factum probans could be a duly executed promissory note, receipts, or testimonial evidence from a witness who saw the defendant borrow money from the plaintiff.

---

III. LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISTINCTION

1. Pleading of Ultimate Facts (Factum Probandum) vs. Evidentiary Facts (Factum Probans)

   • Under Philippine procedural rules, specifically the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is required in the complaint (or answer) to state ultimate facts, not evidentiary matters. Ultimate facts are those that directly constitute the party’s cause of action or defense.
   • Evidentiary facts (factum probans) generally need not be stated in the pleadings; they are presented during the trial to prove or disprove the ultimate facts alleged. Alleging evidentiary facts in the pleadings is considered surplusage and may even be disfavored.

2. Relevance and Materiality

   • Under Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court (on “Admissibility of Evidence”), evidence is admissible only if it is “relevant to the fact in issue” and not excluded by law or the Rules.
   • The fact in issue refers essentially to the factum probandum (the ultimate fact to be proven). A piece of evidence (factum probans) must have a direct relation to the factum probandum to be deemed relevant.

3. Method and Order of Proof

   • During trial, counsel will systematically present the factum probans—such as witness testimonies, documents, and exhibits—aimed at establishing the factum probandum.
   • The court, in evaluating admissibility, asks: “Does this piece of evidence have any tendency to make the factum probandum more or less probable?” If yes, it is relevant and typically admitted, subject to other rules (e.g., hearsay, best evidence rule, etc.).

4. Avoiding Confusion

   • Mixing up the two can lead to confusion in both drafting pleadings and presenting evidence. An overly detailed complaint or answer weighed down with evidentiary facts can be subjected to a motion to strike out superfluous matters. Conversely, omitting key ultimate facts in a pleading can lead to dismissal of the complaint or the weakening of the defense.

---

IV. EXAMPLES AND APPLICATION

1. Civil Litigation

   • Factum Probandum: The defendant was negligent in operating his motor vehicle and caused damage to the plaintiff.
   • Factum Probans: The eyewitness account, traffic CCTV footage, police accident report, medical records of the plaintiff, and expert testimony on the cause of the accident—these are all the evidentiary facts used to prove the defendant’s negligence.

2. Criminal Prosecution

   • Factum Probandum: The accused committed the crime of theft by taking personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, without the owner’s consent.
   • Factum Probans: Testimonies of witnesses who saw the accused take the item, the recovered stolen item, and any relevant documentary evidence (e.g., a receipt proving ownership)—all these are used to establish each element of theft.

3. Family Law Cases (e.g., Nullity of Marriage)

   • Factum Probandum: Psychological incapacity (under Article 36 of the Family Code), or a ground like repeated physical violence.
   • Factum Probans: Psychiatrist/psychologist’s evaluation, the testimonies of family members, documentary proof of repeated injuries or violent incidents, diaries, electronic messages, etc.

---

V. RELEVANCE TO REMEDIAL LAW AND LEGAL ETHICS

1. Remedial Law Focus

   • In Remedial Law, the manner and sequence of presenting a party’s case revolve around establishing ultimate facts through evidentiary support. Lawyers must be adept at connecting each factum probans to the ultimate proposition in issue, ensuring that every piece of evidence is material and relevant under the Rules.

2. Ethical Considerations in Evidence Presentation

   • Candor to the Court: Lawyers are ethically obligated (under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the newly introduced Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) to present evidence that is truthful and relevant. Presenting spurious or fabricated evidence to support the factum probandum is sanctionable.
   • Fairness to Opposing Party: Attorneys must avoid harassing tactics or introducing immaterial evidence purely for delay or confusion. The distinction between factum probandum and factum probans ensures that only relevant evidentiary facts are presented in court.

3. Drafting of Legal Forms

   • Skilled lawyers ensure that pleadings focus on ultimate facts—the factum probandum—while the supporting documents or testimonies (factum probans) are organized in the annexes or presented during trial. This streamlines litigation and avoids unnecessary complexity in the initial stages.

---

VI. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDANCE

Although Philippine jurisprudence may not always use the Latin terms “factum probandum” and “factum probans” explicitly, Supreme Court decisions consistently apply the principles behind them. Key rulings emphasize that:

1. Ultimate Facts Must Be Alleged:

   • Courts have ruled that a complaint or information must set forth the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action or the accused’s alleged offense. Failure to do so may result in dismissal or quashal.

2. Evidence Must Be Relevant to the Facts in Issue:

   • Numerous cases stress that evidence should be excluded if it does not serve to prove or disprove a fact in issue. The repeated principle is that the rules of relevancy serve to filter out factum probans that does not relate to or cannot prove the factum probandum.

3. Proper Presentation of Evidence:

   • Courts have also underscored that while allegations in pleadings must stick to ultimate facts, the parties must bring out evidentiary facts (factum probans) during trial to avoid surprise and to comply with due process.

---

VII. PRACTICAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

1. Drafting Pleadings

   • State only the ultimate facts. Reserve the evidentiary details for trial or for the attached affidavits and documentary annexes in the required judicial affidavits or pre-trial briefs.
   • Ensure each ultimate fact is concise but complete enough to inform the court and the opposing party of the precise issues.

2. Preparing Evidence for Trial

   • Identify each ultimate fact (factum probandum) you need to prove, then systematically map out the testimonial, documentary, or object evidence (factum probans) that will establish it.
   • Cross-reference each piece of evidence to a specific element of the cause of action or defense. This method guarantees clarity and coherence during presentation.

3. Objections

   • File timely objections to evidence that is immaterial or irrelevant (i.e., evidence not tied to any factum probandum).
   • Emphasize that introducing extraneous factum probans wastes judicial resources and confuses the trier of fact.

4. During Trial

   • When examining witnesses, link the witness’s testimony clearly to the proposition you are trying to prove.
   • Summaries, charts, and demonstrative evidence may help the court see the logical chain connecting the factum probans to the factum probandum.

---

VIII. CONCLUSION

Understanding factum probandum and factum probans is indispensable for any litigator or judge in the Philippine legal system. The distinction serves as a guiding principle from the commencement of a case (pleading stage) through trial and final judgment. By ensuring that pleadings concentrate on ultimate facts (factum probandum) and that evidentiary facts (factum probans) are introduced only to prove those ultimate facts, the legal process becomes more focused, efficient, and just.

In sum:

• Factum probandum = The ultimate fact or principal proposition that needs to be established (e.g., negligence, breach of contract, guilt of the accused).
• Factum probans = The pieces of evidence that prove or disprove the factum probandum (e.g., witness testimonies, documents, objects, expert opinions).

Mastering this distinction aligns with the fundamental objectives of Remedial Law: to make the rules work toward the speedy and efficient administration of justice. It also aligns with the ethical responsibility of lawyers to present only relevant, truthful evidence in the pursuit of their client’s cause.

Proof vs. evidence | General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

Proof vs. Evidence under Philippine Remedial Law
(Focusing on Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, with references to general principles, legal ethics, and practical implications.)

---

1. Conceptual Framework

A. Definition of Evidence

Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is explicitly defined as:

“the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

In simpler terms, evidence refers to any method or medium—testimonies of witnesses, documents, objects, electronic data, and so forth—by which a court is informed about facts in dispute or facts relevant to a judicial proceeding. It includes all matters presented to the senses of the judge (and the parties), consistent with the rules, to establish or disprove an alleged fact.

B. Definition of Proof

The same section of Rule 128 likewise provides:

“Proof is the result or effect of evidence.”

If evidence is the “means,” proof is the conclusion or persuasion achieved once evidence is properly introduced, weighed, and appreciated by the court. Proof is essentially the effect that evidence produces in establishing or disproving a fact in issue. When the trier of fact (the judge or jury, in jurisdictions where juries are allowed) is convinced of a fact’s existence or nonexistence, that conviction or establishment is called “proof.”

---

2. Distinction Between Proof and Evidence

1. Means vs. End

   • Evidence = the instruments or means used to show or demonstrate facts (e.g., documents, objects, witness testimonies).
   • Proof = the result, consequence, or effect brought about by the evidence (i.e., the demonstrated truth or persuasion in the mind of the judge).

2. Process vs. Outcome

   • Evidence undergoes judicial scrutiny: it is presented, marked, identified, and tested (through cross-examination, authentication, etc.).
   • Proof emerges from the assessment of the totality of evidence. Once the court has evaluated the evidence based on relevancy, admissibility, and weight, the fact or proposition is deemed “proved” (or “not proved”).

3. Terminological Nuances

   • Though laypersons often use “evidence” and “proof” interchangeably, in strict legal terminology, one (evidence) is the channel or medium, while the other (proof) is the effect or the persuaded belief that a fact is true or false.

4. Impact on Litigation

   • Lawyers gather, prepare, and present evidence (testimonial, documentary, object, digital) following the rules of court (especially those in Rules 128 to 134).
   • The litigation objective is to achieve proof (convince the court that certain facts or claims are substantiated or refuted).

---

3. Practical Significance in Philippine Court Proceedings

A. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence

• Burden of Proof refers to which party is obligated to convince the court regarding the truth of a disputed fact or the validity of a claim/defense.
• Burden of Evidence refers to the duty to produce evidence at a particular time to make a prima facie case or to refute the opposing party’s prima facie case.

Because “proof” is the final persuasion, the burden of proof focuses on which party must ultimately persuade the court—using evidence—of the correctness of their factual assertions or legal positions.

B. Quantum or Standard of Proof

• Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases): The highest standard; requires that moral certainty be established to convict the accused.
• Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases): The evidence of one side outweighs or is more convincing than the other’s.
• Substantial Evidence (Administrative Cases): Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

All of these revolve around how much proof is needed, which in turn is determined by evaluating the evidence in light of the relevant quantum or standard.

C. Admissibility vs. Weight of Evidence

• Admissibility: Concerns whether evidence is allowed into the record (governed by rules on relevancy, materiality, competence, etc.).
• Weight: The degree of persuasion or credence given to admitted evidence by the court.

By themselves, raw pieces of evidence do not automatically constitute proof; the court must first admit them if they comply with the rules (admissibility), then evaluate them (weight) to see whether they produce “proof” of the fact in issue.

---

4. Legal Ethics and the Lawyer’s Role in Presenting Evidence

1. Candor and Good Faith

   • Lawyers are ethically obliged to present evidence fairly and truthfully. They must not fabricate, falsify, or suppress evidence.
   • The Code of Professional Responsibility (soon replaced by the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) requires attorneys to maintain respect for truth and the judicial process.

2. Avoidance of Misleading the Court

   • It is unethical (and can be sanctionable) to present evidence known to be false or to conceal known disqualifications, defects, or improprieties in evidence.

3. Duty of Competence and Diligence

   • A lawyer must diligently ensure the evidence they present is properly authenticated, relevant, and competently introduced in accordance with the Rules of Court.
   • Part of ethical lawyering involves advising clients about the realistic prospects of proving a claim or defense and not pursuing hopeless or spurious claims.

4. Maintenance of Integrity in Obtaining Evidence

   • The process of gathering evidence must respect legal limits (e.g., no illegal searches, no subornation of perjury, no tampering or intimidation of witnesses).

---

5. Illustrative Example

• Scenario: In a civil case for damages based on breach of contract, Party A introduces a written contract (documentary evidence) and testimony of witnesses.

  • The contract and testimonies are “evidence.”
  • Once the court admits them and weighs their sufficiency, these may collectively form “proof” that the contract existed, that it was breached, and that Party A incurred damages.

• Result: The judge, in deciding the case, states that the “plaintiff has provided sufficient proof that the defendant breached the contract.” That pronouncement means the evidence reached the required quantum of proof (preponderance of evidence in civil cases), thereby entitling Party A to relief.

---

6. Key Takeaways

1. Evidence is the toolkit—testimonies, documents, objects, etc.—used in court to establish or disprove facts.
2. Proof is the conclusive persuasion or result that follows from properly presented and evaluated evidence.
3. The distinction (means vs. effect) is more than academic; it underlies procedural rules such as:
   • Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
   • Standards/quantum of proof required in different types of cases.
   • Admissibility, materiality, and relevancy analyses in court.
4. Ethical imperatives demand honesty, integrity, and competence in how lawyers gather, present, and argue on the basis of evidence to achieve or defeat proof.
5. In actual court practice, the careful presentation and challenge of evidence—and the corresponding finding of proof—determine the outcome of cases.

---

7. Conclusion

Proof and Evidence are central yet conceptually distinct terms in Philippine Remedial Law. While evidence comprises the various means—sanctioned by the Rules—that parties use to show or disprove alleged facts, proof is the final effect or end-result: the court’s conviction regarding the truth or falsity of those facts. Mastery of this distinction is vital not only for precise legal argumentation but also for ensuring compliance with ethical obligations and for effectively navigating standards of proof. By understanding how evidence is admitted, weighed, and ultimately transformed into proof, lawyers and litigants can skillfully and ethically advocate their positions before Philippine courts.Proof vs. Evidence under Philippine Remedial Law
(Focusing on Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, with references to general principles, legal ethics, and practical implications.)

---

1. Conceptual Framework

A. Definition of Evidence

Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is explicitly defined as:

“the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

In simpler terms, evidence refers to any method or medium—testimonies of witnesses, documents, objects, electronic data, and so forth—by which a court is informed about facts in dispute or facts relevant to a judicial proceeding. It includes all matters presented to the senses of the judge (and the parties), consistent with the rules, to establish or disprove an alleged fact.

B. Definition of Proof

The same section of Rule 128 likewise provides:

“Proof is the result or effect of evidence.”

If evidence is the “means,” proof is the conclusion or persuasion achieved once evidence is properly introduced, weighed, and appreciated by the court. Proof is essentially the effect that evidence produces in establishing or disproving a fact in issue. When the trier of fact (the judge or jury, in jurisdictions where juries are allowed) is convinced of a fact’s existence or nonexistence, that conviction or establishment is called “proof.”

---

2. Distinction Between Proof and Evidence

1. Means vs. End

   • Evidence = the instruments or means used to show or demonstrate facts (e.g., documents, objects, witness testimonies).
   • Proof = the result, consequence, or effect brought about by the evidence (i.e., the demonstrated truth or persuasion in the mind of the judge).

2. Process vs. Outcome

   • Evidence undergoes judicial scrutiny: it is presented, marked, identified, and tested (through cross-examination, authentication, etc.).
   • Proof emerges from the assessment of the totality of evidence. Once the court has evaluated the evidence based on relevancy, admissibility, and weight, the fact or proposition is deemed “proved” (or “not proved”).

3. Terminological Nuances

   • Though laypersons often use “evidence” and “proof” interchangeably, in strict legal terminology, one (evidence) is the channel or medium, while the other (proof) is the effect or the persuaded belief that a fact is true or false.

4. Impact on Litigation

   • Lawyers gather, prepare, and present evidence (testimonial, documentary, object, digital) following the rules of court (especially those in Rules 128 to 134).
   • The litigation objective is to achieve proof (convince the court that certain facts or claims are substantiated or refuted).

---

3. Practical Significance in Philippine Court Proceedings

A. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence

• Burden of Proof refers to which party is obligated to convince the court regarding the truth of a disputed fact or the validity of a claim/defense.
• Burden of Evidence refers to the duty to produce evidence at a particular time to make a prima facie case or to refute the opposing party’s prima facie case.

Because “proof” is the final persuasion, the burden of proof focuses on which party must ultimately persuade the court—using evidence—of the correctness of their factual assertions or legal positions.

B. Quantum or Standard of Proof

• Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases): The highest standard; requires that moral certainty be established to convict the accused.
• Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases): The evidence of one side outweighs or is more convincing than the other’s.
• Substantial Evidence (Administrative Cases): Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

All of these revolve around how much proof is needed, which in turn is determined by evaluating the evidence in light of the relevant quantum or standard.

C. Admissibility vs. Weight of Evidence

• Admissibility: Concerns whether evidence is allowed into the record (governed by rules on relevancy, materiality, competence, etc.).
• Weight: The degree of persuasion or credence given to admitted evidence by the court.

By themselves, raw pieces of evidence do not automatically constitute proof; the court must first admit them if they comply with the rules (admissibility), then evaluate them (weight) to see whether they produce “proof” of the fact in issue.

---

4. Legal Ethics and the Lawyer’s Role in Presenting Evidence

1. Candor and Good Faith

   • Lawyers are ethically obliged to present evidence fairly and truthfully. They must not fabricate, falsify, or suppress evidence.
   • The Code of Professional Responsibility (soon replaced by the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) requires attorneys to maintain respect for truth and the judicial process.

2. Avoidance of Misleading the Court

   • It is unethical (and can be sanctionable) to present evidence known to be false or to conceal known disqualifications, defects, or improprieties in evidence.

3. Duty of Competence and Diligence

   • A lawyer must diligently ensure the evidence they present is properly authenticated, relevant, and competently introduced in accordance with the Rules of Court.
   • Part of ethical lawyering involves advising clients about the realistic prospects of proving a claim or defense and not pursuing hopeless or spurious claims.

4. Maintenance of Integrity in Obtaining Evidence

   • The process of gathering evidence must respect legal limits (e.g., no illegal searches, no subornation of perjury, no tampering or intimidation of witnesses).

---

5. Illustrative Example

• Scenario: In a civil case for damages based on breach of contract, Party A introduces a written contract (documentary evidence) and testimony of witnesses.

  • The contract and testimonies are “evidence.”
  • Once the court admits them and weighs their sufficiency, these may collectively form “proof” that the contract existed, that it was breached, and that Party A incurred damages.

• Result: The judge, in deciding the case, states that the “plaintiff has provided sufficient proof that the defendant breached the contract.” That pronouncement means the evidence reached the required quantum of proof (preponderance of evidence in civil cases), thereby entitling Party A to relief.

---

6. Key Takeaways

1. Evidence is the toolkit—testimonies, documents, objects, etc.—used in court to establish or disprove facts.
2. Proof is the conclusive persuasion or result that follows from properly presented and evaluated evidence.
3. The distinction (means vs. effect) is more than academic; it underlies procedural rules such as:
   • Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
   • Standards/quantum of proof required in different types of cases.
   • Admissibility, materiality, and relevancy analyses in court.
4. Ethical imperatives demand honesty, integrity, and competence in how lawyers gather, present, and argue on the basis of evidence to achieve or defeat proof.
5. In actual court practice, the careful presentation and challenge of evidence—and the corresponding finding of proof—determine the outcome of cases.

---

7. Conclusion

Proof and Evidence are central yet conceptually distinct terms in Philippine Remedial Law. While evidence comprises the various means—sanctioned by the Rules—that parties use to show or disprove alleged facts, proof is the final effect or end-result: the court’s conviction regarding the truth or falsity of those facts. Mastery of this distinction is vital not only for precise legal argumentation but also for ensuring compliance with ethical obligations and for effectively navigating standards of proof. By understanding how evidence is admitted, weighed, and ultimately transformed into proof, lawyers and litigants can skillfully and ethically advocate their positions before Philippine courts.

Scope of the Rules on Evidence | General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the scope of the Rules on Evidence under Rule 128 of the Philippine Rules of Court, as amended by the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence. This write-up focuses on the general provisions and principles governing the applicability of the rules, in line with your stated topic: REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL ETHICS & LEGAL FORMS > EVIDENCE > A. General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) > 2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence.

---

I. Introduction

Evidence law in the Philippines is primarily governed by the Rules of Court, particularly Rules 128 to 134, collectively referred to as the Revised Rules on Evidence (with 2019 amendments). Rule 128 lays the general groundwork—defining what evidence is, how it is presented, and the extent of its applicability.

The scope provisions clarify when, where, and to what proceedings the Rules on Evidence apply. Although these rules are generally observed in both civil and criminal cases, certain exceptions or modifications can apply, especially if special laws, court issuances, or procedural rules expressly provide otherwise.

---

II. Textual Basis and Structure of Rule 128

A. Section 1 of Rule 128 – Evidence Defined

While Section 1 primarily provides the definition of evidence (“Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”), it also underscores that the tools and methods recognized by law (and these Rules) must be used to prove a fact in dispute. This definition is central to understanding the scope because it explains the nature of the “means” or “modes of proof” that are governed by the Rules of Evidence.

B. Section 2 of Rule 128 – Scope

Section 2 states that the rules of evidence “shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.” This is the critical scope provision. However, the same section also provides that the rules may be supplemented, superseded, or excepted by:

1. Special Laws or Regulations – Certain laws enact their own set of rules of procedure and evidence (e.g., the Labor Code and its implementing rules, special rules for Family Courts, and so forth).
2. Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court can issue rules that modify or provide exceptions to the general rules on evidence (e.g., the Rule on Summary Procedure, the Rule on Small Claims Cases, rules in environmental cases, etc.).
3. Local or Administrative Rules – In administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, the Rules of Court on evidence may apply in a suppletory manner, or those bodies may adopt more relaxed or different evidentiary guidelines by virtue of their enabling laws or internal rules.

Hence, the scope provision clarifies that the Revised Rules on Evidence apply to all judicial proceedings in Philippine courts but remain subject to specific exceptions enacted by laws or by specialized rules.

---

III. Applicability in Various Proceedings

A. Civil Cases

In civil cases, the Rules of Court apply in full, including the Revised Rules on Evidence. The adversarial system focuses on the presentation of evidence by both parties, tested through direct and cross-examination. Parties must follow these rules strictly unless certain summary proceedings or special rules (e.g., small claims, summary procedure) apply, which may simplify or abbreviate evidentiary requirements.

B. Criminal Cases

The Rules of Evidence also apply in criminal proceedings, subject to constitutional safeguards (e.g., presumption of innocence, right to confront witnesses). Notably:

• The quantum of proof (beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases) influences how evidence is weighed but does not alter the general evidentiary rules on admissibility.
• Specific provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure may modify how evidence is offered and admitted in certain phases (e.g., Rule 119 on trial, etc.).

C. Special Proceedings and Special Cases

“Special proceedings” (e.g., settlement of estate, adoption, guardianship, habeas corpus) generally use the Revised Rules on Evidence unless a special rule or law dictates otherwise. Similarly, special courts like Family Courts or certain special rules for environmental protection may adopt specialized procedures but still typically rely on the fundamental principles found in Rules 128 to 134, unless expressly excluded.

D. Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings

While the Rules of Evidence do not strictly bind administrative agencies or quasi-judicial bodies, Section 2 of Rule 128 indicates that where these bodies adopt or apply the rules (either mandatorily or suppletorily), they do so to ensure fair play. Often, the principle is that technical rules of evidence may be relaxed in administrative bodies, but rules on due process and substantial evidence must be observed.

E. Exceptions Due to Special Rules or Laws

When a special law or Supreme Court rule provides a distinct set of evidentiary rules, that special law or rule controls. For instance:

• Small Claims Cases: The Revised Rules on Small Claims Procedure allow a more informal and streamlined approach to the presentation of evidence, often disallowing extensive oral testimony.
• Environmental Cases: The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases may impose unique evidentiary rules regarding environmental protection, scientific evidence, burden of proof, and so forth.
• Family Court Proceedings: The Family Courts Act (R.A. No. 8369) and its implementing rules may modify or supplement the standard evidence rules in cases involving minors or family matters (e.g., the use of protection orders, confidentiality, etc.).

---

IV. Guiding Principles Underlying the Scope of the Rules on Evidence

1. Uniform Application: The Rules of Court (including the rules on evidence) are intended to be applied uniformly in all courts of law, ensuring consistency and predictability.
2. Flexibility and Exceptions: While the rules are uniform, they are not absolute. Courts are vested with the discretion to relax or vary the application when warranted by special laws, specific proceedings, or to serve the interests of justice.
3. Supplementary Nature: In the absence of specific provisions in special laws or procedural rules, the Revised Rules on Evidence apply suppletorily.
4. Promotion of Truth and Justice: The overarching purpose of evidence law is the ascertainment of truth to resolve judicial controversies fairly. This principle justifies both the general application of the rules and the occasional need for exceptions.

---

V. Notable Jurisprudence Related to the Scope

1. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan

   • The Supreme Court reiterated that strict application of the rules of evidence in criminal cases can be moderated by constitutional provisions ensuring fairness, including the rights of the accused.

2. Heirs of Ypon v. Gaas

   • Stressed that while the Rules of Court apply in civil proceedings, the court can suspend strict compliance with the rules in meritorious cases to serve substantial justice, particularly where a rigid application would lead to inequitable results.

3. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations

   • A classic case underscoring that administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence but must still observe fundamental due process.

4. Family Courts Cases

   • Numerous decisions highlight that while Family Courts follow the Rules on Evidence, the sensitive nature of cases involving minors or family matters sometimes necessitates in camera proceedings or specialized protective measures (e.g., People v. Spouses Lim, regarding child witnesses).

---

VI. Practical Implications and Reminders

1. Always Check Special Rules
   Before relying on the general rules on evidence, confirm if there is a special rule or law that modifies or overrides them.
2. Offer of Evidence
   Even though the scope is broad, litigants must remember that all evidence must be formally offered (Rule 132, Section 34). The scope dictates to whom and when the rules apply, but how evidence is introduced in court is also integral.
3. Proceeding Type Matters
   Identify if the proceeding is civil, criminal, special, or administrative. This directly affects the formality and strictness of evidentiary rules.
4. Court Discretion
   Courts may relax or strictly apply the rules based on the circumstances, provided fundamental rights and due process are observed.
5. 2019 Amendments
   The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence introduced updates on the rules concerning electronic evidence, judicial affidavits, and more. However, these changes do not alter the scope provisions of Rule 128 in any drastic manner; they primarily refine definitions, introduce modern approaches (e.g., electronic documents, digital evidence), and clarify existing practices.

---

VII. Conclusion

The scope of the Rules on Evidence under Rule 128 is both broad and foundational:

• Broad, because it covers “all courts and all trials and hearings” in the judicial system of the Philippines, subject to due process and the uniform standards that govern the admissibility of evidence.
• Foundational, because it provides the anchor for how evidence is defined and used, influencing subsequent rules on presentation, admissibility, and weight.

However, practitioners must always be vigilant about special laws, Supreme Court rules, and particular procedural settings that may modify or supplement the general rules. The ultimate objective remains the truthful and fair adjudication of disputes under a regime that respects the rights of litigants, ensures fair play, and upholds the ends of justice.

---

Disclaimer: This discussion is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific applications or unique factual situations, it is recommended to consult with legal counsel or review the relevant laws, jurisprudence, and the latest Supreme Court issuances.Below is a comprehensive discussion of the scope of the Rules on Evidence under Rule 128 of the Philippine Rules of Court, as amended by the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence. This write-up focuses on the general provisions and principles governing the applicability of the rules, in line with your stated topic: REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL ETHICS & LEGAL FORMS > EVIDENCE > A. General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) > 2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence.

---

I. Introduction

Evidence law in the Philippines is primarily governed by the Rules of Court, particularly Rules 128 to 134, collectively referred to as the Revised Rules on Evidence (with 2019 amendments). Rule 128 lays the general groundwork—defining what evidence is, how it is presented, and the extent of its applicability.

The scope provisions clarify when, where, and to what proceedings the Rules on Evidence apply. Although these rules are generally observed in both civil and criminal cases, certain exceptions or modifications can apply, especially if special laws, court issuances, or procedural rules expressly provide otherwise.

---

II. Textual Basis and Structure of Rule 128

A. Section 1 of Rule 128 – Evidence Defined

While Section 1 primarily provides the definition of evidence (“Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”), it also underscores that the tools and methods recognized by law (and these Rules) must be used to prove a fact in dispute. This definition is central to understanding the scope because it explains the nature of the “means” or “modes of proof” that are governed by the Rules of Evidence.

B. Section 2 of Rule 128 – Scope

Section 2 states that the rules of evidence “shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings.” This is the critical scope provision. However, the same section also provides that the rules may be supplemented, superseded, or excepted by:

1. Special Laws or Regulations – Certain laws enact their own set of rules of procedure and evidence (e.g., the Labor Code and its implementing rules, special rules for Family Courts, and so forth).
2. Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court can issue rules that modify or provide exceptions to the general rules on evidence (e.g., the Rule on Summary Procedure, the Rule on Small Claims Cases, rules in environmental cases, etc.).
3. Local or Administrative Rules – In administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, the Rules of Court on evidence may apply in a suppletory manner, or those bodies may adopt more relaxed or different evidentiary guidelines by virtue of their enabling laws or internal rules.

Hence, the scope provision clarifies that the Revised Rules on Evidence apply to all judicial proceedings in Philippine courts but remain subject to specific exceptions enacted by laws or by specialized rules.

---

III. Applicability in Various Proceedings

A. Civil Cases

In civil cases, the Rules of Court apply in full, including the Revised Rules on Evidence. The adversarial system focuses on the presentation of evidence by both parties, tested through direct and cross-examination. Parties must follow these rules strictly unless certain summary proceedings or special rules (e.g., small claims, summary procedure) apply, which may simplify or abbreviate evidentiary requirements.

B. Criminal Cases

The Rules of Evidence also apply in criminal proceedings, subject to constitutional safeguards (e.g., presumption of innocence, right to confront witnesses). Notably:

• The quantum of proof (beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases) influences how evidence is weighed but does not alter the general evidentiary rules on admissibility.
• Specific provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure may modify how evidence is offered and admitted in certain phases (e.g., Rule 119 on trial, etc.).

C. Special Proceedings and Special Cases

“Special proceedings” (e.g., settlement of estate, adoption, guardianship, habeas corpus) generally use the Revised Rules on Evidence unless a special rule or law dictates otherwise. Similarly, special courts like Family Courts or certain special rules for environmental protection may adopt specialized procedures but still typically rely on the fundamental principles found in Rules 128 to 134, unless expressly excluded.

D. Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings

While the Rules of Evidence do not strictly bind administrative agencies or quasi-judicial bodies, Section 2 of Rule 128 indicates that where these bodies adopt or apply the rules (either mandatorily or suppletorily), they do so to ensure fair play. Often, the principle is that technical rules of evidence may be relaxed in administrative bodies, but rules on due process and substantial evidence must be observed.

E. Exceptions Due to Special Rules or Laws

When a special law or Supreme Court rule provides a distinct set of evidentiary rules, that special law or rule controls. For instance:

• Small Claims Cases: The Revised Rules on Small Claims Procedure allow a more informal and streamlined approach to the presentation of evidence, often disallowing extensive oral testimony.
• Environmental Cases: The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases may impose unique evidentiary rules regarding environmental protection, scientific evidence, burden of proof, and so forth.
• Family Court Proceedings: The Family Courts Act (R.A. No. 8369) and its implementing rules may modify or supplement the standard evidence rules in cases involving minors or family matters (e.g., the use of protection orders, confidentiality, etc.).

---

IV. Guiding Principles Underlying the Scope of the Rules on Evidence

1. Uniform Application: The Rules of Court (including the rules on evidence) are intended to be applied uniformly in all courts of law, ensuring consistency and predictability.
2. Flexibility and Exceptions: While the rules are uniform, they are not absolute. Courts are vested with the discretion to relax or vary the application when warranted by special laws, specific proceedings, or to serve the interests of justice.
3. Supplementary Nature: In the absence of specific provisions in special laws or procedural rules, the Revised Rules on Evidence apply suppletorily.
4. Promotion of Truth and Justice: The overarching purpose of evidence law is the ascertainment of truth to resolve judicial controversies fairly. This principle justifies both the general application of the rules and the occasional need for exceptions.

---

V. Notable Jurisprudence Related to the Scope

1. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan

   • The Supreme Court reiterated that strict application of the rules of evidence in criminal cases can be moderated by constitutional provisions ensuring fairness, including the rights of the accused.

2. Heirs of Ypon v. Gaas

   • Stressed that while the Rules of Court apply in civil proceedings, the court can suspend strict compliance with the rules in meritorious cases to serve substantial justice, particularly where a rigid application would lead to inequitable results.

3. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations

   • A classic case underscoring that administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence but must still observe fundamental due process.

4. Family Courts Cases

   • Numerous decisions highlight that while Family Courts follow the Rules on Evidence, the sensitive nature of cases involving minors or family matters sometimes necessitates in camera proceedings or specialized protective measures (e.g., People v. Spouses Lim, regarding child witnesses).

---

VI. Practical Implications and Reminders

1. Always Check Special Rules
   Before relying on the general rules on evidence, confirm if there is a special rule or law that modifies or overrides them.
2. Offer of Evidence
   Even though the scope is broad, litigants must remember that all evidence must be formally offered (Rule 132, Section 34). The scope dictates to whom and when the rules apply, but how evidence is introduced in court is also integral.
3. Proceeding Type Matters
   Identify if the proceeding is civil, criminal, special, or administrative. This directly affects the formality and strictness of evidentiary rules.
4. Court Discretion
   Courts may relax or strictly apply the rules based on the circumstances, provided fundamental rights and due process are observed.
5. 2019 Amendments
   The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence introduced updates on the rules concerning electronic evidence, judicial affidavits, and more. However, these changes do not alter the scope provisions of Rule 128 in any drastic manner; they primarily refine definitions, introduce modern approaches (e.g., electronic documents, digital evidence), and clarify existing practices.

---

VII. Conclusion

The scope of the Rules on Evidence under Rule 128 is both broad and foundational:

• Broad, because it covers “all courts and all trials and hearings” in the judicial system of the Philippines, subject to due process and the uniform standards that govern the admissibility of evidence.
• Foundational, because it provides the anchor for how evidence is defined and used, influencing subsequent rules on presentation, admissibility, and weight.

However, practitioners must always be vigilant about special laws, Supreme Court rules, and particular procedural settings that may modify or supplement the general rules. The ultimate objective remains the truthful and fair adjudication of disputes under a regime that respects the rights of litigants, ensures fair play, and upholds the ends of justice.

---

Disclaimer: This discussion is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific applications or unique factual situations, it is recommended to consult with legal counsel or review the relevant laws, jurisprudence, and the latest Supreme Court issuances.

Definition of evidence | General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

Below is a comprehensive, straight-to-the-point discussion on the definition of evidence under Rule 128 of the Philippine Rules of Court, incorporating relevant principles, jurisprudence, and commentary to give you a meticulous understanding of this foundational concept in Philippine remedial law.

---

I. Definition of Evidence Under Rule 128

A. Text of the Rule

• Rule 128, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (as amended) provides the standard definition of evidence in the Philippines:

  “Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

This succinct statement highlights three critical elements:

1. Means – refers to any mode or method accepted by law to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.
2. Sanctioned by these Rules – underscores that only evidence allowed by the Rules of Court (and other applicable laws/statutes) may be used in court.
3. Ascertain the truth – emphasizes that the ultimate purpose of evidence is to guide the court in discovering the truth of disputed factual issues.

---

II. Rationale and Purpose

1. Quest for Truth
   Courts rely on evidence to determine the truth or falsity of the factual allegations raised in pleadings. It is the judicial mechanism that ensures litigation is decided based on facts established by proper and reliable means.

2. Due Process
   The rules on evidence form part of procedural due process. By carefully defining the manner of presenting and evaluating evidence, the legal system seeks to protect the rights of parties and ensure fairness.

3. Efficiency in Litigation
   Clear rules on what constitutes evidence and how it must be presented promote efficiency in trials, saving time and resources by limiting admissibility to relevant and competent proof.

---

III. Nature and Scope of Evidence

1. Nature

   • Evidence is not proof itself; rather, it is the means to establish proof. Proof is the result or effect of evidence in persuading the mind of the court as to the existence of a fact.
   • Evidence must be legally permissible; that is, it must comply with the Rules of Court, existing laws, and jurisprudence.

2. Scope

   • Rule 128, Section 2 provides that the Rules of Evidence govern in all courts and trials/hearings in the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by law or by special rules (e.g., special evidentiary rules in specialized proceedings like family law, environmental cases, election cases, or administrative proceedings).

---

IV. Basic Principles Arising from the Definition

1. Relevance and Admissibility

   • Rule 128, Section 3 provides that evidence is admissible only if it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the law or the Rules.
   • Relevance means the evidence must have a direct or indirect bearing on the issue in dispute.
   • Materiality focuses on whether the fact sought to be proved is significant to the resolution of the case.
   • Competence pertains to whether the evidence is acceptable under the Rules (i.e., it is not excluded by any rule, such as the rule against hearsay or privileged communication).

2. Burden of Proof and Quantum of Evidence

   • In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (or party asserting a claim), typically needing a preponderance of evidence (i.e., superior weight of evidence as opposed to mere number of witnesses).
   • In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

3. Presumption of Regularity and Other Presumptions

   • Philippine law and jurisprudence recognize certain presumptions (like the presumption of innocence in criminal cases or the presumption of regular performance of official duties). Such presumptions affect the burden and manner of presenting evidence but are still subject to rebuttal by competent and credible countervailing evidence.

---

V. Classification of Evidence

Although Rule 128 focuses on the broad definition of evidence, understanding the types of evidence helps clarify how “the means” of ascertaining truth are categorized. Under Philippine law and jurisprudence, evidence is commonly classified as follows:

1. Testimonial Evidence

   • Statements made by a witness under oath in court (or through depositions and other allowable modes of testimony).
   • Must comply with rules on competency (the witness must be competent to testify) and on credibility (the witness must have personal knowledge, and the testimony must be believable).

2. Documentary Evidence

   • Written or recorded evidence offered to prove the contents therein.
   • Governed by specific rules like the Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Section 3) and the Parol Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Section 10).
   • Includes electronically stored information (ESI), which is increasingly recognized and governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, as amended).

3. Object (Real) Evidence

   • Material or physical items presented in court for inspection (e.g., a weapon used in the commission of a crime, physical documents, articles of clothing).
   • Demonstrative evidence like photographs, videos, maps, or physical objects that clarify factual matters at issue.

4. Circumstantial Evidence

   • Indirect evidence that infers the existence or non-existence of a fact in dispute based on related or surrounding circumstances.
   • Philippine jurisprudence allows conviction in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence provided it meets the required number of circumstances and such circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.

---

VI. Evidentiary Concepts Stemming from the Definition

1. Proof vs. Evidence

   • Evidence is the means; proof is the result. A certain quantum of evidence becomes convincing or “proof” in the mind of the judge or jury, leading to a finding of fact.

2. Direct vs. Indirect Evidence

   • Direct Evidence: Proves a fact in issue without the need for inference (e.g., an eyewitness account of the crime).
   • Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence: Requires inference or presumption to conclude a fact in issue.

3. Primary vs. Secondary Evidence

   • Primary (Best) Evidence: The original document or object itself.
   • Secondary Evidence: Substitutes for the original (e.g., photocopy, testimony about the contents of a lost document) and is allowed only under specific conditions enumerated in the Rules (e.g., upon proof that the original has been lost or destroyed without bad faith).

4. Real vs. Demonstrative vs. Testimonial Evidence

   • Real (object) evidence is the actual physical thing involved in the transaction.
   • Demonstrative evidence is a representation—such as charts, maps, models—to illustrate or clarify facts or testimony.
   • Testimonial evidence, as discussed, is given orally under oath.

---

VII. Role of the Courts and Lawyers in Presenting Evidence

1. Duty of the Court

   • The court acts as the trier of facts, assessing the admissibility of the proffered evidence, determining its relevance, and ultimately weighing its probative value.
   • Judges must ensure that evidence conforms to the rules and that parties are given a fair chance to present their cases.

2. Duty of Lawyers

   • Lawyers must properly identify, gather, and present evidence that supports their client’s claims or defenses.
   • They have to ensure compliance with the procedural and ethical rules concerning evidence—e.g., they cannot present fabricated or false evidence.
   • They must make timely objections to inadmissible or improper evidence offered by the opposing party.

---

VIII. Legal and Ethical Considerations

1. Professional Responsibility

   • Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to represent their client zealously within the bounds of law, which includes ensuring that the evidence presented is legally obtained, relevant, and not perjured.

2. Exclusionary Rules

   • Lawyers should be aware of constitutional exclusions (e.g., those arising from illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Bill of Rights).
   • Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is generally inadmissible (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine).

3. Candor Toward the Tribunal

   • The lawyer must refrain from knowingly offering false evidence and is duty-bound to correct any false statement of material fact that the lawyer previously presented if the lawyer discovers the falsity.

---

IX. Practical Insights

1. Relevance is King

   • Even if evidence is the “best” possible proof in form (e.g., an authenticated original document), it is useless if irrelevant. Always connect each piece of evidence to the ultimate facts in issue.

2. Proper Preservation and Foundation

   • Lawyers must ensure that evidence is properly preserved (e.g., chain of custody in criminal cases).
   • Before a piece of evidence can be admitted, the proponent must lay the proper foundation to show its authenticity, relevance, and competence.

3. Timely Objections

   • Failure to object to an inadmissible piece of evidence can be tantamount to waiver, and the evidence may be considered by the court. Vigilance in making contemporaneous objections is essential.

4. Weight vs. Admissibility

   • Admissibility is a threshold question: “Can it be accepted by the court under the Rules?”
   • Weight (Probative Value) is the court’s assessment of how convincing or persuasive the evidence is once admitted.

---

X. Conclusion

The definition of evidence under Rule 128—that it is the means sanctioned by the Rules to ascertain truth—lays the foundation for all other evidentiary rules and principles in Philippine jurisprudence. It reminds us that:

1. Evidence must conform to procedural rules;
2. It must be relevant, material, and competent;
3. Its primary function is to bring the court closer to the factual truth of the dispute; and
4. Lawyers and judges share the responsibility of ensuring that only proper, credible, and lawful evidence influences the outcome of judicial proceedings.

When properly understood and applied, Rule 128’s definition of evidence ensures that justice is grounded on facts proven by legitimate means, guaranteeing fairness, due process, and the rule of law in Philippine courts.

---

Key Takeaway:

**“Evidence” is not merely what a party claims or presents; it must meet the strictures of relevancy, materiality, and competence under the Rules of Court. Understanding its definition and guiding principles is crucial to effectively advocate, defend, and uphold the administration of justice in the Philippines.**Below is a comprehensive, straight-to-the-point discussion on the definition of evidence under Rule 128 of the Philippine Rules of Court, incorporating relevant principles, jurisprudence, and commentary to give you a meticulous understanding of this foundational concept in Philippine remedial law.

---

I. Definition of Evidence Under Rule 128

A. Text of the Rule

• Rule 128, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (as amended) provides the standard definition of evidence in the Philippines:

  “Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

This succinct statement highlights three critical elements:

1. Means – refers to any mode or method accepted by law to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.
2. Sanctioned by these Rules – underscores that only evidence allowed by the Rules of Court (and other applicable laws/statutes) may be used in court.
3. Ascertain the truth – emphasizes that the ultimate purpose of evidence is to guide the court in discovering the truth of disputed factual issues.

---

II. Rationale and Purpose

1. Quest for Truth
   Courts rely on evidence to determine the truth or falsity of the factual allegations raised in pleadings. It is the judicial mechanism that ensures litigation is decided based on facts established by proper and reliable means.

2. Due Process
   The rules on evidence form part of procedural due process. By carefully defining the manner of presenting and evaluating evidence, the legal system seeks to protect the rights of parties and ensure fairness.

3. Efficiency in Litigation
   Clear rules on what constitutes evidence and how it must be presented promote efficiency in trials, saving time and resources by limiting admissibility to relevant and competent proof.

---

III. Nature and Scope of Evidence

1. Nature

   • Evidence is not proof itself; rather, it is the means to establish proof. Proof is the result or effect of evidence in persuading the mind of the court as to the existence of a fact.
   • Evidence must be legally permissible; that is, it must comply with the Rules of Court, existing laws, and jurisprudence.

2. Scope

   • Rule 128, Section 2 provides that the Rules of Evidence govern in all courts and trials/hearings in the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by law or by special rules (e.g., special evidentiary rules in specialized proceedings like family law, environmental cases, election cases, or administrative proceedings).

---

IV. Basic Principles Arising from the Definition

1. Relevance and Admissibility

   • Rule 128, Section 3 provides that evidence is admissible only if it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the law or the Rules.
   • Relevance means the evidence must have a direct or indirect bearing on the issue in dispute.
   • Materiality focuses on whether the fact sought to be proved is significant to the resolution of the case.
   • Competence pertains to whether the evidence is acceptable under the Rules (i.e., it is not excluded by any rule, such as the rule against hearsay or privileged communication).

2. Burden of Proof and Quantum of Evidence

   • In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (or party asserting a claim), typically needing a preponderance of evidence (i.e., superior weight of evidence as opposed to mere number of witnesses).
   • In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

3. Presumption of Regularity and Other Presumptions

   • Philippine law and jurisprudence recognize certain presumptions (like the presumption of innocence in criminal cases or the presumption of regular performance of official duties). Such presumptions affect the burden and manner of presenting evidence but are still subject to rebuttal by competent and credible countervailing evidence.

---

V. Classification of Evidence

Although Rule 128 focuses on the broad definition of evidence, understanding the types of evidence helps clarify how “the means” of ascertaining truth are categorized. Under Philippine law and jurisprudence, evidence is commonly classified as follows:

1. Testimonial Evidence

   • Statements made by a witness under oath in court (or through depositions and other allowable modes of testimony).
   • Must comply with rules on competency (the witness must be competent to testify) and on credibility (the witness must have personal knowledge, and the testimony must be believable).

2. Documentary Evidence

   • Written or recorded evidence offered to prove the contents therein.
   • Governed by specific rules like the Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Section 3) and the Parol Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Section 10).
   • Includes electronically stored information (ESI), which is increasingly recognized and governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, as amended).

3. Object (Real) Evidence

   • Material or physical items presented in court for inspection (e.g., a weapon used in the commission of a crime, physical documents, articles of clothing).
   • Demonstrative evidence like photographs, videos, maps, or physical objects that clarify factual matters at issue.

4. Circumstantial Evidence

   • Indirect evidence that infers the existence or non-existence of a fact in dispute based on related or surrounding circumstances.
   • Philippine jurisprudence allows conviction in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence provided it meets the required number of circumstances and such circumstances form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.

---

VI. Evidentiary Concepts Stemming from the Definition

1. Proof vs. Evidence

   • Evidence is the means; proof is the result. A certain quantum of evidence becomes convincing or “proof” in the mind of the judge or jury, leading to a finding of fact.

2. Direct vs. Indirect Evidence

   • Direct Evidence: Proves a fact in issue without the need for inference (e.g., an eyewitness account of the crime).
   • Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence: Requires inference or presumption to conclude a fact in issue.

3. Primary vs. Secondary Evidence

   • Primary (Best) Evidence: The original document or object itself.
   • Secondary Evidence: Substitutes for the original (e.g., photocopy, testimony about the contents of a lost document) and is allowed only under specific conditions enumerated in the Rules (e.g., upon proof that the original has been lost or destroyed without bad faith).

4. Real vs. Demonstrative vs. Testimonial Evidence

   • Real (object) evidence is the actual physical thing involved in the transaction.
   • Demonstrative evidence is a representation—such as charts, maps, models—to illustrate or clarify facts or testimony.
   • Testimonial evidence, as discussed, is given orally under oath.

---

VII. Role of the Courts and Lawyers in Presenting Evidence

1. Duty of the Court

   • The court acts as the trier of facts, assessing the admissibility of the proffered evidence, determining its relevance, and ultimately weighing its probative value.
   • Judges must ensure that evidence conforms to the rules and that parties are given a fair chance to present their cases.

2. Duty of Lawyers

   • Lawyers must properly identify, gather, and present evidence that supports their client’s claims or defenses.
   • They have to ensure compliance with the procedural and ethical rules concerning evidence—e.g., they cannot present fabricated or false evidence.
   • They must make timely objections to inadmissible or improper evidence offered by the opposing party.

---

VIII. Legal and Ethical Considerations

1. Professional Responsibility

   • Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to represent their client zealously within the bounds of law, which includes ensuring that the evidence presented is legally obtained, relevant, and not perjured.

2. Exclusionary Rules

   • Lawyers should be aware of constitutional exclusions (e.g., those arising from illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Bill of Rights).
   • Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights is generally inadmissible (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine).

3. Candor Toward the Tribunal

   • The lawyer must refrain from knowingly offering false evidence and is duty-bound to correct any false statement of material fact that the lawyer previously presented if the lawyer discovers the falsity.

---

IX. Practical Insights

1. Relevance is King

   • Even if evidence is the “best” possible proof in form (e.g., an authenticated original document), it is useless if irrelevant. Always connect each piece of evidence to the ultimate facts in issue.

2. Proper Preservation and Foundation

   • Lawyers must ensure that evidence is properly preserved (e.g., chain of custody in criminal cases).
   • Before a piece of evidence can be admitted, the proponent must lay the proper foundation to show its authenticity, relevance, and competence.

3. Timely Objections

   • Failure to object to an inadmissible piece of evidence can be tantamount to waiver, and the evidence may be considered by the court. Vigilance in making contemporaneous objections is essential.

4. Weight vs. Admissibility

   • Admissibility is a threshold question: “Can it be accepted by the court under the Rules?”
   • Weight (Probative Value) is the court’s assessment of how convincing or persuasive the evidence is once admitted.

---

X. Conclusion

The definition of evidence under Rule 128—that it is the means sanctioned by the Rules to ascertain truth—lays the foundation for all other evidentiary rules and principles in Philippine jurisprudence. It reminds us that:

1. Evidence must conform to procedural rules;
2. It must be relevant, material, and competent;
3. Its primary function is to bring the court closer to the factual truth of the dispute; and
4. Lawyers and judges share the responsibility of ensuring that only proper, credible, and lawful evidence influences the outcome of judicial proceedings.

When properly understood and applied, Rule 128’s definition of evidence ensures that justice is grounded on facts proven by legitimate means, guaranteeing fairness, due process, and the rule of law in Philippine courts.

---

Key Takeaway:

“Evidence” is not merely what a party claims or presents; it must meet the strictures of relevancy, materiality, and competence under the Rules of Court. Understanding its definition and guiding principles is crucial to effectively advocate, defend, and uphold the administration of justice in the Philippines.

General Provisions and Principles (RULE 128) | EVIDENCE

Below is a structured, meticulous discussion of Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence in the Philippines (as amended in 2019). This write-up provides an overview of the general provisions and principles governing the law of evidence—i.e., what evidence is, how it is classified, its purpose, and its proper application—under Philippine remedial law. Citations to relevant legal doctrines, jurisprudence, and rules are woven throughout for completeness. While comprehensive, always remember that actual practice may require consultation with the specific text of the Rules of Court, Supreme Court issuances, and jurisprudence to address nuanced or evolving questions.

---

I. Introduction to Evidence under Philippine Remedial Law

A. Importance of Evidence in Litigation

1. Definition of Remedial Law: Remedial law concerns the rules that prescribe the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for the invasion of those rights. Evidence, which is found in Rules 128–134 of the Rules of Court (as amended in 2019), is a vital tool in enforcing substantive rights.

2. Central Role of Evidence: In the Philippine judicial system, controversies are usually resolved based on the facts proven by the parties, and these facts are established through the rules on evidence. Mastery of the rules on evidence is therefore crucial to presenting a strong case and to effectively contesting the opposing party’s evidence.

---

II. Legal Framework of Evidence in the Philippines

A. Source of the Rules on Evidence

1. Rules of Court: The principal source is the Rules of Court, promulgated by the Supreme Court under its constitutional rule-making power.
2. Statutory Provisions: Certain statutory provisions also affect the rules on evidence (e.g., the Civil Code, the Family Code, the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the Rules on DNA Evidence, and various special laws).

B. Recent Amendments (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence)

1. Purpose of Amendments: Streamline the rules; align with technological changes (e.g., electronic evidence); incorporate best practices while ensuring fairness and due process.
2. Scope of Changes: Revisions to the provisions on hearsay, privileged communications, judicial notice, admissions, and other rules aimed at modernizing evidence law in the Philippines.

---

III. Rule 128: General Provisions

Rule 128 sets forth the foundation: what evidence is, its scope and application, and the basic principles that guide Philippine courts in admitting and excluding evidence.

A. Section 1. Evidence Defined

“Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

1. Means of Proof

   • Refers to any matter provided by law or the rules by which facts may be proved.
   • Encompasses testimonial, documentary, real (object), and electronic evidence.

2. Sanctioned by the Rules

   • Implies that not all possible methods of proving facts are acceptable. Only those permitted under the Rules of Court and relevant Supreme Court issuances (e.g., the Rules on Electronic Evidence) are allowed.

3. Truth-Finding Function

   • Courts rely on evidence to arrive at the truth in adversarial proceedings.
   • The fundamental aim is to ensure justice by basing the court’s decision on proven facts.

B. Section 2. Scope (Where Rules on Evidence Apply)

1. Applicability to All Judicial Proceedings

   • These rules generally govern all courts in the Philippines in all trials and hearings of both civil and criminal actions, as well as special proceedings.
   • They also apply in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies that, by law or jurisprudence, are bound by the Rules of Court on evidence (e.g., administrative agencies acting in a quasi-judicial capacity), unless specifically provided otherwise.

2. Exceptions

   • The Rules of Court may be supplemented or modified by special statutes (e.g., Labor Code provisions on the National Labor Relations Commission, where rules of evidence are not strictly applied).
   • Special proceedings (e.g., election cases, family courts, agrarian disputes) may have specific procedural rules that modify or supplement the general rules on evidence.

C. Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence

Two crucial requisites of admissibility:

1. Relevance (Evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue); and
2. Competence (It must not be excluded by law or the Rules).

1. Relevance

   • Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue or to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.
   • The “fact in issue” is what the pleadings or charges place in controversy.

2. Competence

   • Evidence must not be excluded by law or rule.
   • For instance, privileged communications (attorney-client, spousal, physician-patient, etc.) may be inadmissible due to rules on privilege.
   • Certain evidence may also be excluded by specific laws (e.g., confessions obtained in violation of custodial rights under the Constitution).

3. Discretion of the Court

   • While the rule is that all relevant evidence is admissible, the trial court exercises discretion to exclude evidence that, though relevant, poses concerns under other rules (e.g., hearsay, best evidence rule, incompetent witness, or unduly prejudicial).

D. Section 4. Factors Affecting Admissibility (Implicit in the Rules)

Though not explicitly enumerated under a single section, the following principles and doctrines color how courts decide on admissibility under Rule 128:

1. Judicial Notice (Rule 129)

   • Certain facts need not be proved because courts are mandated or authorized to take judicial notice of them. Judicially noticed facts bypass the usual requirements for evidence.
   • Examples: The existence and territorial extent of states, the laws of nature, public official acts of Congress, etc.

2. Judicial Admissions

   • Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings or during trial are binding and do not need further proof.
   • Withdrawals of admissions are strictly regulated.

3. Presumptions

   • Conclusive presumptions: Irrebuttable presumptions that the law or rules treat as absolute (e.g., certain aspects of estoppel).
   • Disputable presumptions: May be overcome by contrary evidence (e.g., presumption of innocence, presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty).

---

IV. Fundamental Principles Underlying Rule 128

A. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

1. Burden of Proof

   • Pertains to which party must establish the allegations (the “duty of a party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense”).
   • In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
   • In civil cases, the plaintiff generally has the burden to prove his cause of action by preponderance of evidence. The defendant who alleges an affirmative defense or counterclaim has the burden to prove it as well.

2. Burden of Evidence (or Duty to Go Forward)

   • Shifts between parties depending on how the evidence or the trial proceeds.
   • If the party with the initial burden establishes a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the adverse party to controvert or rebut.

B. Hierarchy of Evidence

Although not a formal principle enshrined in a single provision, Philippine courts generally recognize that certain forms of evidence are more reliable than others:

• Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct evidence establishes the fact in issue without need for inference, while circumstantial evidence requires inference.
• Primary (Best) vs. Secondary Evidence: Certain rules require the best evidence available (e.g., the best evidence rule for documents under Rule 130, Section 3).

C. Standards of Proof

1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases)
   • The highest standard, requiring moral certainty of guilt.
2. Preponderance of Evidence (Ordinary Civil Cases)
   • Based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy.
3. Substantial Evidence (Administrative or Quasi-Judicial Proceedings)
   • Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
4. Clear and Convincing Evidence (Some Special Proceedings)
   • Intermediate standard requiring a high level of certainty, though not as high as beyond reasonable doubt.

D. Constitutional Dimensions

1. Due Process
   • Parties must be given the chance to present evidence.
2. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
   • Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights may be inadmissible (the Exclusionary Rule).
3. Right to Counsel and Miranda Rights
   • Confessions without a valid waiver of constitutional rights are inadmissible.

---

V. Notable Doctrines and Jurisprudence Affecting General Provisions

1. Best Evidence Rule

   • Although found in Rule 130, it is a cornerstone principle influencing whether documentary evidence is “competent.”
   • Original documents must be produced to prove their contents unless a recognized exception applies.

2. Res Inter Alios Acta

   • Another rule found in Rule 130 but tied to the concept of relevance and competence: prohibits admission of acts, declarations, or omissions of one person to affect another’s rights, barring certain exceptions.

3. Hearsay Rule

   • Under the general provisions, evidence that is hearsay is not competent unless it falls within exceptions enumerated in Rule 130. This principle underscores the “competence” requirement under Section 3 of Rule 128.

4. Illegal Search Doctrine

   • In People v. Marti and subsequent rulings, evidence seized through unlawful search and seizure is generally inadmissible against the accused (exclusionary rule), reaffirming the constitutional dimension behind competence of evidence.

5. Admissions and Confessions

   • The Supreme Court has consistently held that extrajudicial confessions must comply with constitutional standards (e.g., People v. Andan). Otherwise, they are not admissible.

---

VI. Practical Application and Common Pitfalls

1. Offering of Evidence

   • Proper and timely offer of evidence is crucial. Evidence not offered during trial cannot be considered by the court (Rule 132, Sec. 34).

2. Objections

   • Must be specific and timely, or they are deemed waived, except for grounds of inadmissibility that appear on the face of the document.

3. Preservation of Error for Appeal

   • Failing to make the correct objection or to present specific legal grounds may forfeit the issue on appeal.

4. Use of Judicial Notice and Admissions

   • Counsel should be alert to matters that can be established via judicial notice or admissions to simplify litigation and focus on truly contested facts.

5. Electronic Evidence and Technology

   • The introduction of electronic evidence (e.g., emails, digital recordings) is governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Ensuring the authenticity and due execution of electronic documents is part of complying with the competence requirement.

---

VII. Interaction with Legal Ethics & Legal Forms

1. Ethical Duty of Candor
   • Lawyers must ensure that evidence presented is not perjured or falsified. The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers to employ only fair and honest means.
2. Preparation of Affidavits, Judicial Affidavits, and Other Forms
   • A lawyer ethically must ensure that the client’s statements in any affidavit are truthful, accurate, and derived from personal knowledge rather than mere speculation or hearsay.
3. Observing Privileges
   • Attorneys must protect privileged communications with the client; disclosing such communications without consent breaches ethical duties and the privilege rule.

---

VIII. Summary Points

1. Definition: Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules to ascertain the truth of a matter in a judicial proceeding.
2. General Test of Admissibility: Relevance and competence.
3. Scope: Applies in all judicial proceedings, subject to exceptions (e.g., quasi-judicial or administrative contexts where the rules may be relaxed).
4. Foundational Doctrines:
   • Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence
   • Standards of Proof (beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance, substantial evidence, etc.)
   • Constitutional safeguards (exclusionary rule for illegal search, violation of custodial rights, etc.)
5. Common Issues:
   • Proper and timely offer of evidence
   • Objections (timeliness and specificity)
   • Privileged communications
   • Ethical practice in evidence gathering and presentation.

---

IX. Conclusion

Rule 128 lays the groundwork for the rules on evidence in Philippine courts, establishing the foundational concepts of what evidence is, how it is admitted, and under what conditions it may be excluded. Its guiding principles—relevance, competence, and constitutional safeguards—permeate all subsequent sections of the Rules on Evidence (Rules 129 to 134). The 2019 Amendments enhanced clarity and modernized evidentiary procedures, particularly in light of electronic evidence and technological advances. Nonetheless, the bedrock concepts in Rule 128 remain the starting point for all evidentiary inquiries: Is the evidence relevant, and is it competent?

Adherence to these principles, coupled with a strong grasp of other fundamental rules—like the hearsay rule, the best evidence rule, and privileges—will enable lawyers to effectively advocate for their clients while upholding ethical standards. In every case, mastery of Rule 128’s general provisions is the first step to navigating the more specific doctrines and technical rules that follow in the succeeding rules on evidence.