003 Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130) | Rules on Evidence | by Dean Riano

The script discusses the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings, focusing on the relevance and competence of evidence. It explains that evidence is admissible if it is relevant and competent, as per Wigmore's principles. The concept of admissibility is further explored through a hypothetical scenario involving a violent door opening and the appearance of drug agents, emphasizing the exclusionary rule that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admissible. The case of People vs. Almeda is also mentioned, highlighting the importance of a lawful arrest and search for evidence to be considered competent.

This paragraph delves into the necessity of warrants for arrests, using the case of People vs. Meningo as an example. It highlights the Supreme Court's decision to acquit the defendant due to the evidence being obtained through an unlawful arrest without a warrant. The discussion underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures, such as obtaining a warrant, to ensure that evidence is admissible in court. The concept of 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is introduced to illustrate how evidence obtained illegally can taint the entire legal process.

The script continues to explore the principles of evidence admissibility, focusing on the distinction between relevance and competence. It emphasizes that while relevance is a matter of logic and common sense, competence is a matter of law and rules. The discussion includes examples from criminal procedure rules, particularly Rules 113 and 126, which deal with the admissibility of evidence. The importance of understanding these rules in the context of evidence is stressed, especially in determining whether evidence should be excluded under the exclusionary rules.

This paragraph discusses the three main classifications of evidence: object, documentary, and testimonial. It explains that these classifications are crucial for understanding how evidence is presented and authenticated in court. The script clarifies that documentary evidence requires a witness to authenticate it, while object evidence can sometimes stand alone. The importance of knowing the purpose for which evidence is offered is highlighted, as it determines whether it is treated as object or documentary evidence.

The script focuses on the process of authenticating object evidence, using a 45 caliber pistol as an example. It explains that object evidence cannot be admitted without being identified, explained, and authenticated by a witness. The process of handling and preserving evidence to prevent contamination is also discussed, emphasizing the need for a clear chain of custody to maintain the integrity of the evidence.

This paragraph addresses the presentation of electronic evidence, such as photographs, audio recordings, and video recordings. It outlines the steps required to offer electronic evidence, including identification, explanation, and authentication by the person who made the recording or by someone who can testify to its accuracy. The script also touches on the admissibility of ephemeral communications like text messages and telephone conversations, which are not typically recorded.

The script discusses the admissibility of DNA evidence, explaining that it is considered an object of evidence. It highlights the Supreme Court's decision in the case of People vs. Valero, where DNA evidence was used for the first time in a criminal case. The discussion includes the requirements for presenting DNA evidence, such as explaining the process of collection, handling, analysis, and the qualifications of the analysts. The paragraph also touches on post-conviction DNA examinations and their potential impact on final judgments.

This paragraph focuses on the chain of custody in drug cases, as outlined in the Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002. It explains the specific links required in the chain of custody, from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, forensic laboratory, prosecutor, and finally to the court. The script emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the evidence and the need for all parties involved to be present during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.

The script discusses the best evidence rule, which requires the presentation of the original document when possible. It clarifies that the rule is misunderstood and does not mean the most superior evidence but rather the most accurate when compared to secondary evidence. The discussion includes examples of how the rule is applied in court, emphasizing the need to justify the presentation of secondary evidence when the original is not available.

This paragraph delves into the conditions under which secondary evidence can be presented. It explains that secondary evidence is admissible when the original is lost, destroyed, unavailable, or in the custody of the adverse party. The script outlines the process of laying the basis for presenting secondary evidence, which involves justifying why the original cannot be presented and adhering to the hierarchy of secondary evidence as outlined in Rule 130.

The script discusses the parole evidence rule, which applies to documents containing agreements. It explains that the rule is about the document and the agreement not being in consonance with each other. The discussion includes examples of when the rule can be applied and the importance of putting the matter in issue before presenting parole evidence.

This paragraph addresses the qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses. It explains that a witness must be a natural person capable of perceiving and communicating their perception. The script also discusses the difference between competency and credibility, emphasizing that while a witness may be competent, their credibility can be affected by their relationship to the parties involved in the case.

The script discusses the marital disqualification rule, which prevents spouses from testifying against each other in certain cases. It explains that the rule is based on the sanctity of marriage and the protection of confidential communications between spouses. The paragraph also touches on attorney-client privilege and the conditions under which such privileged communications can be disclosed.

This paragraph explores the admissibility of extrajudicial and judicial confessions. It explains that extrajudicial confessions made outside the court are generally admissible against the person who made them but not against others unless the conspiracy is still ongoing. The script also discusses the elements required for a confession to be admissible and the importance of proving the existence of a conspiracy.

The script discusses the inadmissibility of evidence of similar acts under Section 34 of the Rules of Court. It explains that evidence of a person's previous acts is not admissible to prove that they committed a similar act at another time. The discussion includes examples of how such evidence can be misleading and the logical fallacy of assuming that past behavior necessarily predicts future actions.

This paragraph addresses the hearsay evidence rule, which generally excludes statements made out of court from being used as evidence. The script explains that hearsay evidence is inadmissible due to the lack of opportunity for effective cross-examination. However, it also outlines several exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as statements against interest, which are considered reliable and therefore admissible.

The script discusses the admissibility of expert and lay opinions in testimony. It explains that while experts can provide opinions on certain matters, ordinary witnesses can also offer opinions on matters within their personal knowledge. The paragraph highlights the importance of understanding the difference between an expert's opinion and the personal knowledge of a witness.

This paragraph addresses the general inadmissibility of character evidence under Section 51 of the Rules of Court. It explains that evidence of a person's good or bad moral character is typically irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, except in specific circumstances such as rebuttal. The script also discusses the exceptions to this rule, including cases where the character of the accused or the offended party is relevant to the issue of the case.