CLJ4 - Hand Out No. 3
CLJ4 - Hand Out No. 3
CLJ4 - Hand Out No. 3
The same standard likewise obtains in the case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.
5. Rule on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which should be preserved.
Failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure on the chain
of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, will not render an arrest
illegal or the items seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence.
Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared
to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of:
a. Treason;
b. Espinonage;
c. Provoking war;
d. Disloyalty in case of war;
e. Piracy;
f. Mutiny in high seas;
g. Rebellion;
h. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion;
i. Inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting sedition;
j. Kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code; and
k. Violations of Commonwealth Act no. 616, punishing espionage and other
offenses against national security.
a. Written application;
b. Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and witnesses he
may produce and a showing: (1) That there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes enumerated has been committed or is
being committed or is about to be committed; (2) That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition and inciting
to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a
rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case maybe have actually been or are
being committed; (3) That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or
to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (4)
That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.
a. Upon ex-parte written application of a police or of law enforcement official who has
been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Sec. 53 of
this act to file such ex parte application, and
b. Upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce to establish:
That there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such
evidence.
8. Sec. 4 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides for the rules on the relevancy of evidence
and collateral matters. It states that:
12. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in
everything." At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about
one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
13. In our jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in
fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that
the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon
the corroborative evidence and probabilities and improbabilities of the case.
14. Defense of Alibi Weakest Defense: Alibi is the weakest of all defense, for it is easy to
fabricate and difficult to prove; It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused
by the witnesses. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing
evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was
committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime when it was committed.
17. Courts do not generally look with favour on any retraction or recanted testimony, for it could
have been secured by considerations other than to tell the truth and would make solemn
trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses. A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration, but like any other
testimony the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution.
18. The defense of frame up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavour, for
it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. In order to prosper, the defense of frame-up
must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.
19. Sec. 1, Rule 11 of the Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) provides for the
rule on the admissibility of audio, photographic, video, and ephemeral evidence.
20. Requirements for the admissibility of audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence.
a. Shown, presented, or displayed to the Court; and
b. It shall be identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
24. In Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of
evidence to enable Amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the
State’s direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair and proper
rule in Amparo cases “To consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality”
and “to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be
admissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is inconsistent with the
admissible evidence adduced.” Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it
is inadmissible under the rules as long as it satisfies “ the most basic test of reason.”