KAILAN MO BA MASASABI NA IKAW AY INAARESTO?
Ang pag-aresto ay ang pagkuha sa isang tao ng mga otoridad at ilagay sa kustodiya nila para panagutin sa mga krimeng kanyang maaring nagawa. Take note ninyo ng salitang “maari nagawa”, ibig sabihin, hindi pa napapatunayan ng husgado na may nagawa ka nga. Pero ikaw ay nilalagay sa kustodiya (under custody) ng batas dahil baka tumakbo ka raw at takasan ang iyong pananagutan.
Kung gusto mo pansamatalang lumaya habang nililitis ang kaso mo, ay pwede kang mag-apply ng bail o piyansa. Dahil kung tutuusin ay inosente ka pa rin hanggat ‘di pa napapatunayan na ikaw ay may sala (innocent until proven guilty).
At bawat isa sa atin, mayaman o mahirap, ay hindi pwedeng arestuhin ng basta-basta ng walang warrant of arrest. ‘Yan ay gina-garantiyahan mismo ng Saligang Batas (Constitution). At eto rin ang unang-unang hahanapin mo kapag pinipilit kang damputin ng mga otoridad ng walang dahilan. Kung hindi nadala ang mismong warrant of arrest ay dapat ipakita sa ‘yo matapos kang arestuhinas soon as practicable.
TANGING HUKOM
Ang warrant of arrest ay dapat nakasulat at pirmado ng hukom…at hukom lang. Hindi nagpapalabas ng warrant of arrest ang pulis, piskal, abogado, baranggay chairman, boy scout, cub scout at sino pang Ponsyo Pilato diyan. Kapag may pinakita sa iyongwarrant of arrest at pirmado ng isang “major” o “kernel” kuno, ay sirain mo sa harap nila at ibato mo pabalik. Pero kung may dala silang baril, e ngumiti ka na lang at tumawag ng abugado
PROSESO
Bukod sa hukom lang ang nagpapalabas ng warrant of arrest, ay hindi ito basta-basta ini-issue. Mandamiento ng ating Saligang Batas na dapat may probabale cause na personal mismong inalam ng hukom, matapos niyang usisain ang nagrereklamo o testigo na nanumpa ayon sa batas (determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses).
At bago umabot sa lamesa ng hukom ang kaso mo ay dadaan muna yan sa Public Prosecutor’s Office o kilala sa tawag na fiscal. Tama, dapat kahit papaano ay nakatanggap ka muna ng subpoena sa fiscal bago isampa sa hukuman at magpalabas ng warrant of arrest ang hukom.
Kaya kung wala kang naa-alalang kaso sa fiscal at may warrant of arrest ka daw, mag-taka ka na, baka hulidap yan at peperahan ka lang.
PROBABLE CAUSE
Eto ang pinaka-importanteng dahilan para mag-issue ng warrant of arrest ang hukom. Kung walang probable cause ay walangwarant of arrest at maaring ma-dismiss na ng lubusan ang kaso mo.
Masasabing may probable cause, kung batay sa pangyayari, maniniwala ang isang resonable at maingat na tao na maaring nagawa mo nga ang krimen (lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the crime was commited by the person to be arrested).
Ibig sabihin lang nun, common sense. Oo, sintido kumon lang, hindi mo na kailangang maging hukom. Kung pagtatagpi-tagpiin ang mga nangyari, maniniwala ka na maaring nagawa nga niya ang krimen.
Pero hindi ibig sabihin na kung may probable cause ay guilty ka na agad. Syempre, magkakaroon pa ng paglilitis at mas lalalim ang kwento at maaring lumabas ang mga katotohanan. Nasa preliminary stage pa lang kasi ng pag-determine ng probable cause kaya marami pang pwede mangyari sa paglilitis at hindi malayong ma-acquit ang akusado kinalaunan.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
Meron ding mga kasong hindi na kailangan ng warrant of arrest. At sa mga kasong ito, ang pribadong taong tulad mo ay pwedeng makisaw-saw at makihuli na rin. Tinatawag natin yang citizen’s arrest.
(1) Kung ang taong aarestuhin ay naka-gawa o may ginagawa nang krimen sa harap mo (has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense).
Syempre, kung may ginagawa nang kabulastugan sa harap mo yung tao, pupunta ka pa ba sa fiscal para magsampa ng kaso?
Nais ko pong linawin na kung nagpa-plano pa lang ang isang tao gumawa ng krimen ay hindi siya paparusahan ng batas (conspiracy to commit crime is not punishable). Pwera na lang kung pinag-iisipan nila ay ang mga krimeng treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat (kudeta), sedition o arson.
Kasi nasa utak niya pa lang yun at hindi pa ginagawa ang elemento ng krimen. Kaya kahit mukhang holdaper ang katabi mo sa dyip ay hindi mo pa siya pwedeng arestuhin, hanggat hindi siya nagdedeklara ng holdap o bumubunut ng patalim o baril at itinutok sa iyo o ibang pasahero. Malay mo talagang ganun lang ang mukha niya kasi ayaw maligo at hindi naman pala holdaper.
(2) Kung may nangyaring krimen at base sa pangyayari ay may probable cause ka na ang taong aarestuhin mo ay ang gumawa ng krimen.
Ang pinagkaiba dito sa nauna ay hindi mo personal na nakita ang krimen o hindi nangyari sa harap mo. Pero base sa pangyayari ay naniniwala ka na ang taong aarestuhin mo ay ang gumawa ng krimen.
Halimbawa, may nakita kang bruskong lalake na tumatakbo papalapit sa ‘yo at may hawak na pambabaeng hand bag (kulay pink) at may babaeng sumisigaw ng “Snatcher! Snatcher!”
Ano iisipin mo?
(a) Yung lalake ay nag-jojoging lang at mahilig siya sa kulay pink na handbag? o
(b) Isa siyang snatcher at dapat mong arestuhin bilang mabuting mamamayan?
Sabi ko sa inyo, common sense lang ang probable cause.
(3) Ang taong aarestuhin ay nakatakas na preso.
Sentensiyado na yan. Wala nang warrant of arrest na kailangan. Napatunayan na ng korte na gumawa siya ng krimen.
BREAK INTO BUILDING OR ENCLOSURE
Ang taong mag-aaresto ay may karapatang pumasok sa gusali kung naniniwala siya na ang aarestuhin ay nasa loob at ayaw siyang papasukin matapos magpakilala at magpakita ng warrant of arrest.
KARAPATAN NG NAARESTO
Karapatan naman ng naaresto na bisitahin at maka-usap ang kanyang abugado sa anumang oras, araw o gabi.
CONCLUSION
Inuulit ko, walang karapatan ang sinoman ang umaresto sa inyo ng walang warrant of arrest, pwera na lang sa mga exceptional cases na nabanggit ko.
SEARCH WARRANT
“A man’s home is his castle. Not even the king would dare desecrate it.”
Kahit nakatira ka sa barong-barong at sabihin na nating isa ka lang iskwater, hindi pwede tumapak sa maputik mong sahig ang sinuman, pati ang presidente ng Pilipinas na walang pahintulot. Ito ang garantiya ng ating Saligang Batas.
Karapatan ng bawat tao ang seguridad ng kanyang sarili, tahanan, papeles, at ibang bagay laban sa hindi makatarungang paghahalughog at pagkumpiska na walang search warrant.
Para ipahiwatig ang kahalagahan ng ating karapatan laban sa unreasonable searches and seizures, idineklara ng ating Saligang Batas na anumang bagay na makukuha sa ganitong paraan ay hindi magagamit na ebidensiya sa ano mang kaso at sa anumang uri ng paglilitis.
Ito ang tinatawag na “fruit of the poisonous tree“.
Tumpak, kahit isang toneladang ecstacy ang makita ng mga pulis sa bahay mo, habang ikaw ay nakahiga sa kama ng mga dahon ng marijuana, kung wala silang search warrant, ay hindi ito magagamit bilang ebidensiya at tiyak laya ka.
Hindi ito ginawa upang protektahan ang mga kriminal, kundi para mag-ingat ang mga pulis at sumunod sa tamang proseso kung ayaw nilang masunog ang kanilang operasyon. Bukod pa yan sa kasong Violation of Domicile (Art.128 RPC) na kakaharapin ng mga pulis.
PROSESO NG PAG-ISYU NG SEARCH WARRANT
Ang proseso sa pagkuha ng search warrant ay halos katulad din ng proseso sa pagkuha ng warrant of arrest.
Una, ang search warrant ay iniisyu lang ng hukom, period. Walang kapangyarihan ang sinumang kernel, major, heneral na magpalabas ng search warrant.
Pangalawa, dapat may probable cause sa isang konektadong krimen ang pag-isyu ng search warrant na personal na denitermina ng hukom matapos niyang suriin ang testigo na nanumpa sa kanyang harapan.
Pangatlo, ang nasabing testigo ay dapat higit pa sa inyong tsismosang kapitbahay na puro sabi-sabi lang ang nalalaman. Nararapat na meron siyang personal knowledge at kayang ilarawan ang partikular na bagay na kukunin at saang lugar matatagpuan.
Kapag nakumbinse ang hukom na may probable cause ay maaring mag-isyu siya ng search warrant ayon sa tamang form.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED
Hindi porke may search warrant na inisyu ang hukom ay walang patumanggang kukunin ng mga pulis ang kanilang magustuhan. Eto lang ang mga bagay na maaring kumpiskahin.
(1) Bagay na kasama sa krimen (subject of the offense)
(2) Nakaw na bagay o bagay na bunga ng isang krimen ( fruit of the offense)
(3) Bagay na ginamit o gagamitin sa isang krimen (use or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense)
Kaya hindi pwedeng kunin ng pulis ang iyong iphone, laptop at rolex, kung ang nakalagay lang sa search warrant ay patungkol sa mga baril. Basta’t hindi ito kasama sa krimen, off-limits.
IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES
Eto ang pinaka-importanteng bagay na dapat niyong malaman. Hindi pwedeng maghalughog ang mga pulis na may search warrantsa inyong tahanan ng hindi ginagawa sa inyong harapan o sa harapan ng myembro ng inyong pamilya. Yan ay kung ayaw mo lang mawala ang bago mong Canon 7D dslr.
Kung walang tao sa bahay ay dapat gawin ang paghahanap sa harapan ng dalawang testigo na nasa tamang edad at pag-iisip na nakatira malapit sa inyo.
Tulad ng paalala sa atin ng BIR, humingi lagi ng resibo. Resibo kung saan nakasulat ang detalye ng bagay na kinuha ng mga pulis. Baka kasi magulat ka na lang at biglang may sumulpot ng 10 gramo ng shabu sa paglilitis ng hindi mo alam.
TIME OF MAKING SEARCH
Ang search warrant ay pinapatupad dapat sa araw at hindi parang isang magnanakaw na sasalakay ang mga pulis sa gitna ng malalim na gabi (unholy hour). Pwera na lang kung ang salaysay ng testigo na ang bagay na hinahanap ay nasa tao at nasa sa lugar at may direksiyon siyang maaring mahanap ito sa araw o gabi lamang.
VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANT
Ang search warrant ay may buhay lamang ng 10 araw, kaya tignang mabuti ang petsang nakasulat. Di’ tulad ng warrant of arrestna nakalutang lang sa ere hangga’t hindi nahuhuli ang akusado, ang search warrant ay napapanis.
MOTION TO QUASH
Kung ikaw ay biktima ng unlawful search and seizures, ang unang gagawin ng abugado mo ay ipapa-quash ang search warrantkung saan ipapadeklara niya itong walang bisa.
Kaya kung anuman ang nakuhang bagay ay hindi magamit laban sa iyo at maaring pang maibalik kung hindi siya kontrabando tulad ng droga o hindi lisensyadong baril, o hindi siya nakursunadahan ng mga pulis
FIANZA
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ‘Yan ang isa sa pinaka-basic na karapatan ng isang akusado sa krimen. Habang hindi napapatunayan ang kanyang mga pananagutan ay isa siyang inosenteng mamayan para sa mata ng batas.
Dahil sa prinsipyong ito, nararapat din hayaan ang akusadong ma-tamasa ang kanyang kalayaan habang nililitis pa ang kaso, dahil kung tutuusin ay hindi pa napapatunayan ng hukuman ang mga binibintang sa kanya.
E pano kung talagang siya ay may sala at malaki ang posibilidad na tatakas kapag pinalaya dahil malakas ang mga ebidensiya laban sa kanya?
Diyan papasok ang paksang bail.
Ito ay isang sistema para masiguradong walang mabubulok sa kulungan dahil sa maling bintang – at sa kabilang banda – hindi basta-basta matatakasan ng isang kriminal ang kanyang mga pananagutan at magtago na lang lagi sa prinsipyong nabanggit.
Ano ba ang bail?
Ang bail o kilala sa tawag na piyansa, ay ang seguridad na ibibigay ng isang akusado para pansamantalang makalaya habang nililitis ang kaso niya at masiguradong sisipot siya tuwing may hearing. Dahil sa bail ay magda-dalawang isip ang sino man, bago pumuga.
Kung baga sa sugal, ay pumupusta ang akusado na hindi siya tatakas o tinatawag na mag “jump bail”. Syempre, ang halaga ng bailna ipapataw ng korte ay batay sa iba’t-ibang factors, tulad ng:
(1)financial status ng akusado, (2) krimen na nagawa, (3) reputasyon ng akusado, (4) edad at kalusugan niya, (5) mga ebidensiya laban sa akusado (6) posibilidad na tumakas siya (7) kung meron siyang iba pang kaso o dati nang pumuga.
Halimbawa, kung si Lucio Tan ang akusado, mahina ang isang milyong pisong bail, barya lang kasi sa kanya ‘yon. Ang kasongmurder ay mas mataas ang halaga ng bail kumpara sa kasong physical injury lang. Ang mga notoryus na estafador naman ay karaniwang mataas ang recommended bail dahil sila ay flight risk kasi maraming perang nadispalko.
URI NG BAIL
May iba’t-ibang uri ng bail o seguridad na maari mong ipusta:
(1) Cash deposit – Perang malutong. Si Vicente Lim, Josefa Escoda at Jose Abad Santos ang mga backer mo dito. Isama mo na rin si Ninoy.Aquino at Jose Rizal sa butal. Pagkatapos ng paglilitis ay ibabalik ito sa sino mang nagbayad at walang interes (hindi naman ‘yan time deposit). Kapag tumakas ka naman: bye-bye ka na rin kay Lim, Escoda at Abad Santos.
(2) Property Bond – Kung wala kang pera, pwede ang titulo ng lupa mo. Kung makatakas ka man, ang bahay mo hindi, at isusulat yan sa likod ng titulo . Kaya walang sira-ulong bibili niyan kahit ibenta mo ng palugi.
(3) Recognizance – Maaring kang palayain o ibigay ka sa kustodiya ng isang responsableng tao. Ang nakataya dito ay ang reputasyon mo o nang taong gagarantiya sa iyo. Limitado lang ang mga kasong ganito.
(4) Corporate Surety – Dito ang bonding company ang gagarantiyang hindi ka tatakas. Ang mga bonding company na ito ay dumaan sa masusing rekesitos ng Korte Suprema bago maka-operate, para maka-siguradong may sapat silang kakayahan.
Ang corporate surety or bondsman ay para sa mga taong kulang ang pera o walang ari-arian para pang bail.
Halimbawa, imbes na magbawad ka ng Php100,000.00 sa bail mo ay maaring singilin ka lang ng bondsman ng P10,000.00 at sila na ang bahala. Kaso dapat i-renew mo ito taon-taon.
Tulad ng sabi ko, ang bondsman ang mag-gagarantiya sa korte na sisipot ka sa paglilitis. Kaya kapag tumakas ka ay papahuli ka nila sa kanilang mga bounty hunters na kamukha ni Mister T at ibabalik ka sa kulungan. Kung hindi ka kasi nila mahuli ay babayaran ngbondsman ang buong halaga ng bail.
Di tulad ng cash bail, sa corporate bond ay hindi na mababalik ang pera mo. At kung tumagal ang paglilitis, ay lagi ka magre-renew, kaya kung kukuwentahin mo ay parang ganon na rin ang babayaran mo. Kapag may pera, mag cash bail ka na lang.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Ang pag-bail ay karapatan ng akusado kung ang kaso niya ay nasa Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Court (MTC) lamang nililitis. Small time lang kasi ang mga krimen sa MTC.
Ang pag-bail ay karapatan din ng akusado kung nasa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang kaso ay hindi pinaparusahan ng reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Kung ang kaso ay pinaparusahan ng reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment at malakas ang ebidensiya (evidence of guilt is strong) walang piyansa yan. Kung hindi naman malakas ang ebidensiya, ay pwede mag-bail.
Ang kaso ng mga Ampatuan (sa oras ng pagsulat ng post na ito) ay kasalukuyang dinidinig kung ang “evidence of guilt is strong.” Nag-file kasi ng Motion to Post Bail si Ampatuan, Jr., at syempre kinontra ito ng prosekusyon.
Hindi pa talaga nagsisimula ang paglilitis kung tutuusin. Preliminaries pa lang. Nagpe-presenta lang ng ebidensiya ang prosekusyon para patunayan na ang evidence of guilt is strong at hindi dapat maka-piyansa si dayunyor.
Base sa pangyayari at sa mga testimonya ng mga saksi, kapag nakapag-piyansa pa rin si dayunyor, ewan ko na lang. Sabay-sabay na lang siguro tayong mag-migrate sa Timbuktu.
BAIL WHEN DISCRETIONARY
Alam mo ba na kahit sintensiyado ang isang tao ay pwede pa rin siyang mag-bail?
Oo, pwede. Kasi may apela pa. Hanggat naka-apela ay may posibilidad na ma-acquit pa rin siya. Kapag naka-apela ay tuloy parin ang paglilitis at maaring mag-apply pa rin ang prinsipyong “innocent until proven guilty“. Kung hindi siya umapela, edi kulong na.
Kung na convict ang isang tao ng MTC ay matter of right pa rin ang bail. Kung sa RTC naman, matter of discretion na yun. Nasa korte na ang pagpapasya kung papayagang magpiyansa o hindi.
Syempre kung ang parusang ibinigay ng RTC ay reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment walang nang bail. Ano pang “evidence of guilt is strong” ang pag-uusapan e convicted na nga.
Kung ang parusang ibinigay ay lampas 6 na taong kulong, maaring ‘di payagan ang piyansa o ikansela ito kung ang akusado ay nakagawa ng krimen habang nasa piitan, dati nang pumuga sa kulungan, gumawa ng krimen habang naka-probation, siya ay isang “flight risk“, o maaring gumawa pa ng krimen habang nakaapela.
WHERE TO FILE
Maaring magpiyansa sa korte kung saan nakabinbin ang kaso. Kung sarado, sa katabing korte. Kung walang hukom sa katabing korte, sa ibang korte ma pa MTC or RTC. Kahit saan basta may bukas na tindahan.
Mabilisan kasi ‘to, kalayaan ang pinag-uusapan dito at syempre walang gusto mag-overnight sa selda.
Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation
Kapag nag-apply ka ng bail, hindi ibig sabihin noon ay kinikilala mo na ang pag-aresto sayong pinapaniwalaan mong ilegal o walang basehan. Kaya kahit ganon ang sitwasyon, mag-aaply ka muna ng bail, saka na kwestyunin ang illegal arrest ang importante, lumaya muna
FILING AND PROSECUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Schedule of Availability of Service
Monday-Friday
8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
You may call the INSPECTION, MONITORING & INVESTIGATION SERVICE (IMIS) at tel Nos.899-5067, 899-3251 for more details.
Who May Avail of the Service:
Natural or juridical persons who have complaints against Policemen
Requirements:
Sworn Statement, Complaint-Affidavit, Certificate of Non- Forum Shopping and other documents relative to the case such as medical certificate, birth certificate, etc.
Ang pag-aresto ay ang pagkuha sa isang tao ng mga otoridad at ilagay sa kustodiya nila para panagutin sa mga krimeng kanyang maaring nagawa. Take note ninyo ng salitang “maari nagawa”, ibig sabihin, hindi pa napapatunayan ng husgado na may nagawa ka nga. Pero ikaw ay nilalagay sa kustodiya (under custody) ng batas dahil baka tumakbo ka raw at takasan ang iyong pananagutan.
Kung gusto mo pansamatalang lumaya habang nililitis ang kaso mo, ay pwede kang mag-apply ng bail o piyansa. Dahil kung tutuusin ay inosente ka pa rin hanggat ‘di pa napapatunayan na ikaw ay may sala (innocent until proven guilty).
At bawat isa sa atin, mayaman o mahirap, ay hindi pwedeng arestuhin ng basta-basta ng walang warrant of arrest. ‘Yan ay gina-garantiyahan mismo ng Saligang Batas (Constitution). At eto rin ang unang-unang hahanapin mo kapag pinipilit kang damputin ng mga otoridad ng walang dahilan. Kung hindi nadala ang mismong warrant of arrest ay dapat ipakita sa ‘yo matapos kang arestuhinas soon as practicable.
TANGING HUKOM
Ang warrant of arrest ay dapat nakasulat at pirmado ng hukom…at hukom lang. Hindi nagpapalabas ng warrant of arrest ang pulis, piskal, abogado, baranggay chairman, boy scout, cub scout at sino pang Ponsyo Pilato diyan. Kapag may pinakita sa iyongwarrant of arrest at pirmado ng isang “major” o “kernel” kuno, ay sirain mo sa harap nila at ibato mo pabalik. Pero kung may dala silang baril, e ngumiti ka na lang at tumawag ng abugado
PROSESO
Bukod sa hukom lang ang nagpapalabas ng warrant of arrest, ay hindi ito basta-basta ini-issue. Mandamiento ng ating Saligang Batas na dapat may probabale cause na personal mismong inalam ng hukom, matapos niyang usisain ang nagrereklamo o testigo na nanumpa ayon sa batas (determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses).
At bago umabot sa lamesa ng hukom ang kaso mo ay dadaan muna yan sa Public Prosecutor’s Office o kilala sa tawag na fiscal. Tama, dapat kahit papaano ay nakatanggap ka muna ng subpoena sa fiscal bago isampa sa hukuman at magpalabas ng warrant of arrest ang hukom.
Kaya kung wala kang naa-alalang kaso sa fiscal at may warrant of arrest ka daw, mag-taka ka na, baka hulidap yan at peperahan ka lang.
PROBABLE CAUSE
Eto ang pinaka-importanteng dahilan para mag-issue ng warrant of arrest ang hukom. Kung walang probable cause ay walangwarant of arrest at maaring ma-dismiss na ng lubusan ang kaso mo.
Masasabing may probable cause, kung batay sa pangyayari, maniniwala ang isang resonable at maingat na tao na maaring nagawa mo nga ang krimen (lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the crime was commited by the person to be arrested).
Ibig sabihin lang nun, common sense. Oo, sintido kumon lang, hindi mo na kailangang maging hukom. Kung pagtatagpi-tagpiin ang mga nangyari, maniniwala ka na maaring nagawa nga niya ang krimen.
Pero hindi ibig sabihin na kung may probable cause ay guilty ka na agad. Syempre, magkakaroon pa ng paglilitis at mas lalalim ang kwento at maaring lumabas ang mga katotohanan. Nasa preliminary stage pa lang kasi ng pag-determine ng probable cause kaya marami pang pwede mangyari sa paglilitis at hindi malayong ma-acquit ang akusado kinalaunan.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
Meron ding mga kasong hindi na kailangan ng warrant of arrest. At sa mga kasong ito, ang pribadong taong tulad mo ay pwedeng makisaw-saw at makihuli na rin. Tinatawag natin yang citizen’s arrest.
(1) Kung ang taong aarestuhin ay naka-gawa o may ginagawa nang krimen sa harap mo (has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense).
Syempre, kung may ginagawa nang kabulastugan sa harap mo yung tao, pupunta ka pa ba sa fiscal para magsampa ng kaso?
Nais ko pong linawin na kung nagpa-plano pa lang ang isang tao gumawa ng krimen ay hindi siya paparusahan ng batas (conspiracy to commit crime is not punishable). Pwera na lang kung pinag-iisipan nila ay ang mga krimeng treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat (kudeta), sedition o arson.
Kasi nasa utak niya pa lang yun at hindi pa ginagawa ang elemento ng krimen. Kaya kahit mukhang holdaper ang katabi mo sa dyip ay hindi mo pa siya pwedeng arestuhin, hanggat hindi siya nagdedeklara ng holdap o bumubunut ng patalim o baril at itinutok sa iyo o ibang pasahero. Malay mo talagang ganun lang ang mukha niya kasi ayaw maligo at hindi naman pala holdaper.
(2) Kung may nangyaring krimen at base sa pangyayari ay may probable cause ka na ang taong aarestuhin mo ay ang gumawa ng krimen.
Ang pinagkaiba dito sa nauna ay hindi mo personal na nakita ang krimen o hindi nangyari sa harap mo. Pero base sa pangyayari ay naniniwala ka na ang taong aarestuhin mo ay ang gumawa ng krimen.
Halimbawa, may nakita kang bruskong lalake na tumatakbo papalapit sa ‘yo at may hawak na pambabaeng hand bag (kulay pink) at may babaeng sumisigaw ng “Snatcher! Snatcher!”
Ano iisipin mo?
(a) Yung lalake ay nag-jojoging lang at mahilig siya sa kulay pink na handbag? o
(b) Isa siyang snatcher at dapat mong arestuhin bilang mabuting mamamayan?
Sabi ko sa inyo, common sense lang ang probable cause.
(3) Ang taong aarestuhin ay nakatakas na preso.
Sentensiyado na yan. Wala nang warrant of arrest na kailangan. Napatunayan na ng korte na gumawa siya ng krimen.
BREAK INTO BUILDING OR ENCLOSURE
Ang taong mag-aaresto ay may karapatang pumasok sa gusali kung naniniwala siya na ang aarestuhin ay nasa loob at ayaw siyang papasukin matapos magpakilala at magpakita ng warrant of arrest.
KARAPATAN NG NAARESTO
Karapatan naman ng naaresto na bisitahin at maka-usap ang kanyang abugado sa anumang oras, araw o gabi.
CONCLUSION
Inuulit ko, walang karapatan ang sinoman ang umaresto sa inyo ng walang warrant of arrest, pwera na lang sa mga exceptional cases na nabanggit ko.
SEARCH WARRANT
“A man’s home is his castle. Not even the king would dare desecrate it.”
Kahit nakatira ka sa barong-barong at sabihin na nating isa ka lang iskwater, hindi pwede tumapak sa maputik mong sahig ang sinuman, pati ang presidente ng Pilipinas na walang pahintulot. Ito ang garantiya ng ating Saligang Batas.
Karapatan ng bawat tao ang seguridad ng kanyang sarili, tahanan, papeles, at ibang bagay laban sa hindi makatarungang paghahalughog at pagkumpiska na walang search warrant.
Para ipahiwatig ang kahalagahan ng ating karapatan laban sa unreasonable searches and seizures, idineklara ng ating Saligang Batas na anumang bagay na makukuha sa ganitong paraan ay hindi magagamit na ebidensiya sa ano mang kaso at sa anumang uri ng paglilitis.
Ito ang tinatawag na “fruit of the poisonous tree“.
Tumpak, kahit isang toneladang ecstacy ang makita ng mga pulis sa bahay mo, habang ikaw ay nakahiga sa kama ng mga dahon ng marijuana, kung wala silang search warrant, ay hindi ito magagamit bilang ebidensiya at tiyak laya ka.
Hindi ito ginawa upang protektahan ang mga kriminal, kundi para mag-ingat ang mga pulis at sumunod sa tamang proseso kung ayaw nilang masunog ang kanilang operasyon. Bukod pa yan sa kasong Violation of Domicile (Art.128 RPC) na kakaharapin ng mga pulis.
PROSESO NG PAG-ISYU NG SEARCH WARRANT
Ang proseso sa pagkuha ng search warrant ay halos katulad din ng proseso sa pagkuha ng warrant of arrest.
Una, ang search warrant ay iniisyu lang ng hukom, period. Walang kapangyarihan ang sinumang kernel, major, heneral na magpalabas ng search warrant.
Pangalawa, dapat may probable cause sa isang konektadong krimen ang pag-isyu ng search warrant na personal na denitermina ng hukom matapos niyang suriin ang testigo na nanumpa sa kanyang harapan.
Pangatlo, ang nasabing testigo ay dapat higit pa sa inyong tsismosang kapitbahay na puro sabi-sabi lang ang nalalaman. Nararapat na meron siyang personal knowledge at kayang ilarawan ang partikular na bagay na kukunin at saang lugar matatagpuan.
Kapag nakumbinse ang hukom na may probable cause ay maaring mag-isyu siya ng search warrant ayon sa tamang form.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED
Hindi porke may search warrant na inisyu ang hukom ay walang patumanggang kukunin ng mga pulis ang kanilang magustuhan. Eto lang ang mga bagay na maaring kumpiskahin.
(1) Bagay na kasama sa krimen (subject of the offense)
(2) Nakaw na bagay o bagay na bunga ng isang krimen ( fruit of the offense)
(3) Bagay na ginamit o gagamitin sa isang krimen (use or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense)
Kaya hindi pwedeng kunin ng pulis ang iyong iphone, laptop at rolex, kung ang nakalagay lang sa search warrant ay patungkol sa mga baril. Basta’t hindi ito kasama sa krimen, off-limits.
IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES
Eto ang pinaka-importanteng bagay na dapat niyong malaman. Hindi pwedeng maghalughog ang mga pulis na may search warrantsa inyong tahanan ng hindi ginagawa sa inyong harapan o sa harapan ng myembro ng inyong pamilya. Yan ay kung ayaw mo lang mawala ang bago mong Canon 7D dslr.
Kung walang tao sa bahay ay dapat gawin ang paghahanap sa harapan ng dalawang testigo na nasa tamang edad at pag-iisip na nakatira malapit sa inyo.
Tulad ng paalala sa atin ng BIR, humingi lagi ng resibo. Resibo kung saan nakasulat ang detalye ng bagay na kinuha ng mga pulis. Baka kasi magulat ka na lang at biglang may sumulpot ng 10 gramo ng shabu sa paglilitis ng hindi mo alam.
TIME OF MAKING SEARCH
Ang search warrant ay pinapatupad dapat sa araw at hindi parang isang magnanakaw na sasalakay ang mga pulis sa gitna ng malalim na gabi (unholy hour). Pwera na lang kung ang salaysay ng testigo na ang bagay na hinahanap ay nasa tao at nasa sa lugar at may direksiyon siyang maaring mahanap ito sa araw o gabi lamang.
VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANT
Ang search warrant ay may buhay lamang ng 10 araw, kaya tignang mabuti ang petsang nakasulat. Di’ tulad ng warrant of arrestna nakalutang lang sa ere hangga’t hindi nahuhuli ang akusado, ang search warrant ay napapanis.
MOTION TO QUASH
Kung ikaw ay biktima ng unlawful search and seizures, ang unang gagawin ng abugado mo ay ipapa-quash ang search warrantkung saan ipapadeklara niya itong walang bisa.
Kaya kung anuman ang nakuhang bagay ay hindi magamit laban sa iyo at maaring pang maibalik kung hindi siya kontrabando tulad ng droga o hindi lisensyadong baril, o hindi siya nakursunadahan ng mga pulis
FIANZA
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ‘Yan ang isa sa pinaka-basic na karapatan ng isang akusado sa krimen. Habang hindi napapatunayan ang kanyang mga pananagutan ay isa siyang inosenteng mamayan para sa mata ng batas.
Dahil sa prinsipyong ito, nararapat din hayaan ang akusadong ma-tamasa ang kanyang kalayaan habang nililitis pa ang kaso, dahil kung tutuusin ay hindi pa napapatunayan ng hukuman ang mga binibintang sa kanya.
E pano kung talagang siya ay may sala at malaki ang posibilidad na tatakas kapag pinalaya dahil malakas ang mga ebidensiya laban sa kanya?
Diyan papasok ang paksang bail.
Ito ay isang sistema para masiguradong walang mabubulok sa kulungan dahil sa maling bintang – at sa kabilang banda – hindi basta-basta matatakasan ng isang kriminal ang kanyang mga pananagutan at magtago na lang lagi sa prinsipyong nabanggit.
Ano ba ang bail?
Ang bail o kilala sa tawag na piyansa, ay ang seguridad na ibibigay ng isang akusado para pansamantalang makalaya habang nililitis ang kaso niya at masiguradong sisipot siya tuwing may hearing. Dahil sa bail ay magda-dalawang isip ang sino man, bago pumuga.
Kung baga sa sugal, ay pumupusta ang akusado na hindi siya tatakas o tinatawag na mag “jump bail”. Syempre, ang halaga ng bailna ipapataw ng korte ay batay sa iba’t-ibang factors, tulad ng:
(1)financial status ng akusado, (2) krimen na nagawa, (3) reputasyon ng akusado, (4) edad at kalusugan niya, (5) mga ebidensiya laban sa akusado (6) posibilidad na tumakas siya (7) kung meron siyang iba pang kaso o dati nang pumuga.
Halimbawa, kung si Lucio Tan ang akusado, mahina ang isang milyong pisong bail, barya lang kasi sa kanya ‘yon. Ang kasongmurder ay mas mataas ang halaga ng bail kumpara sa kasong physical injury lang. Ang mga notoryus na estafador naman ay karaniwang mataas ang recommended bail dahil sila ay flight risk kasi maraming perang nadispalko.
URI NG BAIL
May iba’t-ibang uri ng bail o seguridad na maari mong ipusta:
(1) Cash deposit – Perang malutong. Si Vicente Lim, Josefa Escoda at Jose Abad Santos ang mga backer mo dito. Isama mo na rin si Ninoy.Aquino at Jose Rizal sa butal. Pagkatapos ng paglilitis ay ibabalik ito sa sino mang nagbayad at walang interes (hindi naman ‘yan time deposit). Kapag tumakas ka naman: bye-bye ka na rin kay Lim, Escoda at Abad Santos.
(2) Property Bond – Kung wala kang pera, pwede ang titulo ng lupa mo. Kung makatakas ka man, ang bahay mo hindi, at isusulat yan sa likod ng titulo . Kaya walang sira-ulong bibili niyan kahit ibenta mo ng palugi.
(3) Recognizance – Maaring kang palayain o ibigay ka sa kustodiya ng isang responsableng tao. Ang nakataya dito ay ang reputasyon mo o nang taong gagarantiya sa iyo. Limitado lang ang mga kasong ganito.
(4) Corporate Surety – Dito ang bonding company ang gagarantiyang hindi ka tatakas. Ang mga bonding company na ito ay dumaan sa masusing rekesitos ng Korte Suprema bago maka-operate, para maka-siguradong may sapat silang kakayahan.
Ang corporate surety or bondsman ay para sa mga taong kulang ang pera o walang ari-arian para pang bail.
Halimbawa, imbes na magbawad ka ng Php100,000.00 sa bail mo ay maaring singilin ka lang ng bondsman ng P10,000.00 at sila na ang bahala. Kaso dapat i-renew mo ito taon-taon.
Tulad ng sabi ko, ang bondsman ang mag-gagarantiya sa korte na sisipot ka sa paglilitis. Kaya kapag tumakas ka ay papahuli ka nila sa kanilang mga bounty hunters na kamukha ni Mister T at ibabalik ka sa kulungan. Kung hindi ka kasi nila mahuli ay babayaran ngbondsman ang buong halaga ng bail.
Di tulad ng cash bail, sa corporate bond ay hindi na mababalik ang pera mo. At kung tumagal ang paglilitis, ay lagi ka magre-renew, kaya kung kukuwentahin mo ay parang ganon na rin ang babayaran mo. Kapag may pera, mag cash bail ka na lang.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Ang pag-bail ay karapatan ng akusado kung ang kaso niya ay nasa Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Court (MTC) lamang nililitis. Small time lang kasi ang mga krimen sa MTC.
Ang pag-bail ay karapatan din ng akusado kung nasa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang kaso ay hindi pinaparusahan ng reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Kung ang kaso ay pinaparusahan ng reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment at malakas ang ebidensiya (evidence of guilt is strong) walang piyansa yan. Kung hindi naman malakas ang ebidensiya, ay pwede mag-bail.
Ang kaso ng mga Ampatuan (sa oras ng pagsulat ng post na ito) ay kasalukuyang dinidinig kung ang “evidence of guilt is strong.” Nag-file kasi ng Motion to Post Bail si Ampatuan, Jr., at syempre kinontra ito ng prosekusyon.
Hindi pa talaga nagsisimula ang paglilitis kung tutuusin. Preliminaries pa lang. Nagpe-presenta lang ng ebidensiya ang prosekusyon para patunayan na ang evidence of guilt is strong at hindi dapat maka-piyansa si dayunyor.
Base sa pangyayari at sa mga testimonya ng mga saksi, kapag nakapag-piyansa pa rin si dayunyor, ewan ko na lang. Sabay-sabay na lang siguro tayong mag-migrate sa Timbuktu.
BAIL WHEN DISCRETIONARY
Alam mo ba na kahit sintensiyado ang isang tao ay pwede pa rin siyang mag-bail?
Oo, pwede. Kasi may apela pa. Hanggat naka-apela ay may posibilidad na ma-acquit pa rin siya. Kapag naka-apela ay tuloy parin ang paglilitis at maaring mag-apply pa rin ang prinsipyong “innocent until proven guilty“. Kung hindi siya umapela, edi kulong na.
Kung na convict ang isang tao ng MTC ay matter of right pa rin ang bail. Kung sa RTC naman, matter of discretion na yun. Nasa korte na ang pagpapasya kung papayagang magpiyansa o hindi.
Syempre kung ang parusang ibinigay ng RTC ay reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment walang nang bail. Ano pang “evidence of guilt is strong” ang pag-uusapan e convicted na nga.
Kung ang parusang ibinigay ay lampas 6 na taong kulong, maaring ‘di payagan ang piyansa o ikansela ito kung ang akusado ay nakagawa ng krimen habang nasa piitan, dati nang pumuga sa kulungan, gumawa ng krimen habang naka-probation, siya ay isang “flight risk“, o maaring gumawa pa ng krimen habang nakaapela.
WHERE TO FILE
Maaring magpiyansa sa korte kung saan nakabinbin ang kaso. Kung sarado, sa katabing korte. Kung walang hukom sa katabing korte, sa ibang korte ma pa MTC or RTC. Kahit saan basta may bukas na tindahan.
Mabilisan kasi ‘to, kalayaan ang pinag-uusapan dito at syempre walang gusto mag-overnight sa selda.
Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation
Kapag nag-apply ka ng bail, hindi ibig sabihin noon ay kinikilala mo na ang pag-aresto sayong pinapaniwalaan mong ilegal o walang basehan. Kaya kahit ganon ang sitwasyon, mag-aaply ka muna ng bail, saka na kwestyunin ang illegal arrest ang importante, lumaya muna
FILING AND PROSECUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Schedule of Availability of Service
Monday-Friday
8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
You may call the INSPECTION, MONITORING & INVESTIGATION SERVICE (IMIS) at tel Nos.899-5067, 899-3251 for more details.
Who May Avail of the Service:
Natural or juridical persons who have complaints against Policemen
Requirements:
Sworn Statement, Complaint-Affidavit, Certificate of Non- Forum Shopping and other documents relative to the case such as medical certificate, birth certificate, etc.
EVIDENCE
In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.
Trial evidence consists of:
1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; and Any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence; Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence; Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that the jurors have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.
THE FOUR TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
There are four traditional types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. Some rules of evidence apply to all four types and some apply only to some or one of them. First, we will cover general rules of admissibility that apply to all evidence. Then, we will cover foundational rules that relate to specific kinds of evidence. Finally, we will cover some special topics, like the form of examination, the hearsay rule, and the lay opinion rule, that frequently cause problems in the courtroom.
Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence.
Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness. It will be admissible when, with accuracy sufficient for the task at hand, it fairly and accurately reflects that testimony and is otherwise unobjectionable. Typical examples of demonstrative evidence are maps, diagrams of the scene of an occurrence, animations, and the like. Because its purpose is to illustrate testimony, demonstrative evidence is authenticated by the witness whose testimony is being illustrated. That witness will usually identify salient features of the exhibit and testify that it fairly and accurately reflects what he saw or heard on a particular occasion, such as the location of people or things on a diagram.
Documentary evidence is often a kind of real evidence, as for example where a contract is offered to prove its terms. When a document is used this way it is authenticated the same way as any other real evidence--by a witness who identifies it or, less commonly, by witnesses who establish a chain of custody for it. However, because they contain human language, and because of the historical development of the common law, documents present special problems not presented by other forms of real evidence, such as when they contain hearsay.
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.
Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a material object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics
Physical evidence is any object that can establish that a crime has been committed or can provide a link between a crime and its victim or between a crime and its perpetrator. The examination of physical evidence by a forensic investigator is usually undertaken for identification and comparison. The purpose of identification is to determine the physical or chemical identity of a substance with as near absolute certainty as existing analytical techniques will permit. The objective of a comparison is to determine whether or not the suspect specimen and a control specimen have a common origin, by subjecting them to the same examinations and tests. In a comparison analysis, the forensic investigator must not forget the role that probability plays a determining factor in the discovering the origins of two or more specimens. Evidence is said to possess individual characteristics when it can be associated with a common source with an extremely high degree of probability. However, evidence that can be associated only with a group and never with a single source is said to possess class characteristics.
Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime. It can take many forms, and is typically used to establish that a crime has been committed and identify blame or fault in a criminal case. What constitutes acceptable criminal evidence varies somewhat between legal systems, although ideally, evidence provides reasonably reliable information that gives a more complete picture of a crime.
Rule-statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct.
Preponderance of Evidence - in a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim Prima facie evidence-Latin for "at first view." Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. Collateral matter is evidence solely affecting the credibility of a witness. While questioned about a collateral matter, the party cross examining the witness is bound by the witness's answer to matters solely affecting credibility. It precludes the cross examiner from calling other witnesses or producing documentary evidence to contradict the witness
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred.
Circumstantial Evidence- relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. Also known as indirect evidence.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Autoptic preference (real evidence); Hearsay and exceptions
Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Hearsay ruleA rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule "As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration n. the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances
Resgestae Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay. Pedigree is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta something transacted between other parties Rule-statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct. Preponderance of Evidence - in a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. Prima facie evidence-Latin for "at first view." Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. Collateral matter is evidence solely affecting the credibility of a witness. While questioned about a collateral matter, the party cross examining the witness is bound by the witness's answer to matters solely affecting credibility. It precludes the cross examiner from calling other witnesses or producing documentary evidence to contradict the witness. Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material.
Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness.
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.
Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a material object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics
Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence - evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the
means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning. Hearsay ruleA rule that original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule "As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration n. the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances
Resgestae Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay. Pedigree is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta something transacted between other parties
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Attorneys and judges often undergo a great deal of deliberation in determining what types of evidence may be admissible for court trials. When a court takes judicial notice, it deems certain facts and laws as generally irrefutable and conclusive. This law of evidence allows trials to be conducted with haste, as it relieves the burden of proof from whichever party requests such notice for trial. Without this capability, the opposing party may hold up the trial process by debating evidence that need not be debated.
Judicial notice often applies to facts perceived as common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It also applies to any information that may be easily verified in an encyclopedia, dictionary, or reference book. Anything that can be verified by an expert source may also be used.
Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Autoptic preference (real evidence); Hearsay and exceptions
Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents. It is presented for the judge and members of the jury for their inspection. This type of evidence does not only include written documents such as invoice or contract; it also involves photographs, films, printed e-mails and other forms of media that can be preserved. Documentary evidence is not always conclusive unless it is supported by other evidence. When a lawyer wishes to present documentary evidence, the counter lawyer has the right to request the subject for authentication and examination. Sometimes it is relatively easy to authenticate documentary evidence, for example, when there is handwritten evidence, a witness must testify and verify that it is the handwriting of the said author. Just like any other evidence, documentary evidence must be significant to the case.
A piece of evidence is not documentary evidence unless it is relevant to the case. If a piece of paper is presented only because it was there at the scene of the crime, then it cannot be considered as a relevant evidence, the piece of paper should have been the reason why the crime is committed in order for it to be a documentary evidence. If evidence is presented for some purpose other than the assessment of the contents of the document, then it will not be considered. Documentary evidence, just like any other evidence, must be very direct in some cases, while in others it can be more complex. There must be a reason why certain evidence is being shown in court.
Documentary evidence n. any document (paper) which is presented and allowed as evidence in a trial or hearing, as distinguished from oral testimony. However, the opposing attorney may object to its being admitted. In the first place, it must be proved by other evidence from a witness that the paper is genuine (called "laying a foundation"), as well as pass muster over the usual objections such as relevancy.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience. Generally, statements in affidavits are presumed to have been made on personal knowledge, unless it appears affirmatively, or by fair inference, that they could not have been, and were not on such knowledge. It is also called as firsthand knowledge
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition.
A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Hearsay rule the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness's memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable.
A rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule definition: Verbal evidence is inadmissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written agreement.
Parol evidence of an agreement consisting of mere oral promises made previously or concurrently with the execution of a written contract of sale of land is inadmissible to charge the vendee with the payment of more than the expressed consideration, when the amount to be paid plainly appears from the face of the instrument.
"As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances ("Frankie shot me"). Although hearsay since the dead person cannot testify in person, it is admissible on the theory that a dying person has no reason not to tell the truth.
Resgestae a Latin phrase meaning "things done," is a dormant legal term that allowed certain forms of hearsay to be admitted as evidence. Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred. The rationale behind this practice was that spontaneous utterances were free from the potential misinterpretations of other kinds of hearsay.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay <the offer of drugs for sale was admissible as a verbal act>
Pedigree (law): Pedigree (from the French, pied de grue, lit. ' crane's foot') is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta Late Latin, literally, thing done among others]
: something transacted between other parties
This term is used in reference to matters not involving the same parties as those in litigation. Evidence regarding such matters is generally inadmissible. Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.
Trial evidence consists of:
1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; and Any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence; Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence; Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that the jurors have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.
THE FOUR TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
There are four traditional types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. Some rules of evidence apply to all four types and some apply only to some or one of them. First, we will cover general rules of admissibility that apply to all evidence. Then, we will cover foundational rules that relate to specific kinds of evidence. Finally, we will cover some special topics, like the form of examination, the hearsay rule, and the lay opinion rule, that frequently cause problems in the courtroom.
Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence.
Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness. It will be admissible when, with accuracy sufficient for the task at hand, it fairly and accurately reflects that testimony and is otherwise unobjectionable. Typical examples of demonstrative evidence are maps, diagrams of the scene of an occurrence, animations, and the like. Because its purpose is to illustrate testimony, demonstrative evidence is authenticated by the witness whose testimony is being illustrated. That witness will usually identify salient features of the exhibit and testify that it fairly and accurately reflects what he saw or heard on a particular occasion, such as the location of people or things on a diagram.
Documentary evidence is often a kind of real evidence, as for example where a contract is offered to prove its terms. When a document is used this way it is authenticated the same way as any other real evidence--by a witness who identifies it or, less commonly, by witnesses who establish a chain of custody for it. However, because they contain human language, and because of the historical development of the common law, documents present special problems not presented by other forms of real evidence, such as when they contain hearsay.
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.
Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a material object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics
Physical evidence is any object that can establish that a crime has been committed or can provide a link between a crime and its victim or between a crime and its perpetrator. The examination of physical evidence by a forensic investigator is usually undertaken for identification and comparison. The purpose of identification is to determine the physical or chemical identity of a substance with as near absolute certainty as existing analytical techniques will permit. The objective of a comparison is to determine whether or not the suspect specimen and a control specimen have a common origin, by subjecting them to the same examinations and tests. In a comparison analysis, the forensic investigator must not forget the role that probability plays a determining factor in the discovering the origins of two or more specimens. Evidence is said to possess individual characteristics when it can be associated with a common source with an extremely high degree of probability. However, evidence that can be associated only with a group and never with a single source is said to possess class characteristics.
Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime. It can take many forms, and is typically used to establish that a crime has been committed and identify blame or fault in a criminal case. What constitutes acceptable criminal evidence varies somewhat between legal systems, although ideally, evidence provides reasonably reliable information that gives a more complete picture of a crime.
Rule-statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct.
Preponderance of Evidence - in a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim Prima facie evidence-Latin for "at first view." Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. Collateral matter is evidence solely affecting the credibility of a witness. While questioned about a collateral matter, the party cross examining the witness is bound by the witness's answer to matters solely affecting credibility. It precludes the cross examiner from calling other witnesses or producing documentary evidence to contradict the witness
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred.
Circumstantial Evidence- relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. Also known as indirect evidence.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Autoptic preference (real evidence); Hearsay and exceptions
Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Hearsay ruleA rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule "As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration n. the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances
Resgestae Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay. Pedigree is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta something transacted between other parties Rule-statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct. Preponderance of Evidence - in a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. Prima facie evidence-Latin for "at first view." Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. Collateral matter is evidence solely affecting the credibility of a witness. While questioned about a collateral matter, the party cross examining the witness is bound by the witness's answer to matters solely affecting credibility. It precludes the cross examiner from calling other witnesses or producing documentary evidence to contradict the witness. Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material.
Demonstrative evidence is just what the name implies--it demonstrates or illustrates the testimony of a witness.
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.
Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a material object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics
Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony regarding a crime.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence - evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Substantial Evidence-evidence adequate to support the reasonable conclusion that a certain act or omission occurred. Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the
means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning. Hearsay ruleA rule that original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule "As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration n. the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances
Resgestae Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay. Pedigree is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta something transacted between other parties
Evidence Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.
Judicial Notice A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action. Attorneys and judges often undergo a great deal of deliberation in determining what types of evidence may be admissible for court trials. When a court takes judicial notice, it deems certain facts and laws as generally irrefutable and conclusive. This law of evidence allows trials to be conducted with haste, as it relieves the burden of proof from whichever party requests such notice for trial. Without this capability, the opposing party may hold up the trial process by debating evidence that need not be debated.
Judicial notice often applies to facts perceived as common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It also applies to any information that may be easily verified in an encyclopedia, dictionary, or reference book. Anything that can be verified by an expert source may also be used.
Proof (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Autoptic preference (real evidence); Hearsay and exceptions
Documentary evidence is any evidence presented at a trial in the form of documents. It is presented for the judge and members of the jury for their inspection. This type of evidence does not only include written documents such as invoice or contract; it also involves photographs, films, printed e-mails and other forms of media that can be preserved. Documentary evidence is not always conclusive unless it is supported by other evidence. When a lawyer wishes to present documentary evidence, the counter lawyer has the right to request the subject for authentication and examination. Sometimes it is relatively easy to authenticate documentary evidence, for example, when there is handwritten evidence, a witness must testify and verify that it is the handwriting of the said author. Just like any other evidence, documentary evidence must be significant to the case.
A piece of evidence is not documentary evidence unless it is relevant to the case. If a piece of paper is presented only because it was there at the scene of the crime, then it cannot be considered as a relevant evidence, the piece of paper should have been the reason why the crime is committed in order for it to be a documentary evidence. If evidence is presented for some purpose other than the assessment of the contents of the document, then it will not be considered. Documentary evidence, just like any other evidence, must be very direct in some cases, while in others it can be more complex. There must be a reason why certain evidence is being shown in court.
Documentary evidence n. any document (paper) which is presented and allowed as evidence in a trial or hearing, as distinguished from oral testimony. However, the opposing attorney may object to its being admitted. In the first place, it must be proved by other evidence from a witness that the paper is genuine (called "laying a foundation"), as well as pass muster over the usual objections such as relevancy.
Best evidence rule is a rule in law which states that when evidence such as a document or recording is presented, only the original will be accepted unless there is a legitimate reason that the original cannot be used.
Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience. Generally, statements in affidavits are presumed to have been made on personal knowledge, unless it appears affirmatively, or by fair inference, that they could not have been, and were not on such knowledge. It is also called as firsthand knowledge
Presumption The act of presuming or accepting as true. Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition.
A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.
Hearsay rule the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness's memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable.
A rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Parol Evidence Rule definition: Verbal evidence is inadmissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written agreement.
Parol evidence of an agreement consisting of mere oral promises made previously or concurrently with the execution of a written contract of sale of land is inadmissible to charge the vendee with the payment of more than the expressed consideration, when the amount to be paid plainly appears from the face of the instrument.
"As a general rule all prior oral negotiations are deemed to be merged in a written agreement, and the terms of such agreement cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol proof.
Dying declaration the statement of a mortally injured person who is aware he/she is about to die, telling who caused the injury and possibly the circumstances ("Frankie shot me"). Although hearsay since the dead person cannot testify in person, it is admissible on the theory that a dying person has no reason not to tell the truth.
Resgestae a Latin phrase meaning "things done," is a dormant legal term that allowed certain forms of hearsay to be admitted as evidence. Under resgestae, secondhand statements could be admitted into the evidence of a court case if they were made spontaneously as an event occurred. The rationale behind this practice was that spontaneous utterances were free from the potential misinterpretations of other kinds of hearsay.
Verbal act an utterance that is direct evidence (as of an offense) and not hearsay <the offer of drugs for sale was admissible as a verbal act>
Pedigree (law): Pedigree (from the French, pied de grue, lit. ' crane's foot') is the legal principle that allows a witness to testify as to his name ...
Res inter alios acta Late Latin, literally, thing done among others]
: something transacted between other parties
This term is used in reference to matters not involving the same parties as those in litigation. Evidence regarding such matters is generally inadmissible. Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.
Re - In the matter of.
Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis - Nobodys property.
Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.
Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.
Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.
Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.
Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.
Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.
