Similar Acts As Evidence
On Evidence
Similar acts as evidence
General Rule
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time.
Exceptions
Where the evidence or similar acts may prove:
1. A specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity
3. A plan, system or scheme;
4. A specific habit
5. Established customs, usages and the like
Reason For The Rule
To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues, and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it. It is an application of the principle that the evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial. In other words, evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of the offense on trial.
Section 34 is the second branch of the rule of res inter alios acta and applies to both civil and criminal cases.
This section just like the first branch of the res inter alias acta rule provided for in Sec. 28, Rule 130, is strictly enforced in all cases where it is applicable.
Evidence of similar offenses involving the making of other false representations, is admissible against the prisoner to show that he is aware of the falsity of the statements made by him in the present case and that knowing them to be false, he made them with intent to deceive.
Evidence of a number of crimes is admissible in a prosecution for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime but not where the evidence is to prove that the accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial.
Previous acts of negligence, that is, selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate, are admissible to show knowledge or intent.
In civil cases the rule as to proof of the commission of an act by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is the same as in criminal prosecution.
Is previous conduct admissible in evidence? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same thing or a similar thing at another time.
Cruz, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126713, prom. July 27, 1998
Rationale Behind The Prohibition
Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of irrelevant issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it.
Exception or when previous conduct admissible in evidence:
1. Evidence that one did or did not do
2. a certain thing at one time
3. may be received in evidence to prove
a. a specific intent or knowledge,
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time.
Exceptions
Where the evidence or similar acts may prove:
1. A specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity
3. A plan, system or scheme;
4. A specific habit
5. Established customs, usages and the like
Reason For The Rule
To compel the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues, and thus diverts the attention of the court from the charge immediately before it. It is an application of the principle that the evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial. In other words, evidence of collateral offenses must not be received as substantive evidence of the offense on trial.
Section 34 is the second branch of the rule of res inter alios acta and applies to both civil and criminal cases.
This section just like the first branch of the res inter alias acta rule provided for in Sec. 28, Rule 130, is strictly enforced in all cases where it is applicable.
Evidence of similar offenses involving the making of other false representations, is admissible against the prisoner to show that he is aware of the falsity of the statements made by him in the present case and that knowing them to be false, he made them with intent to deceive.
Evidence of a number of crimes is admissible in a prosecution for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime but not where the evidence is to prove that the accused committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial.
Previous acts of negligence, that is, selling barium chlorate instead of potassium chlorate, are admissible to show knowledge or intent.
In civil cases the rule as to proof of the commission of an act by showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at other times and under other circumstances is the same as in criminal prosecution.
Is previous conduct admissible in evidence? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same thing or a similar thing at another time.
Cruz, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126713, prom. July 27, 1998
Rationale Behind The Prohibition
Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of irrelevant issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it.
Exception or when previous conduct admissible in evidence:
1. Evidence that one did or did not do
2. a certain thing at one time
3. may be received in evidence to prove
a. a specific intent or knowledge,
b. identity, plan, system, scheme,
c. habit, custom or usage, and the like.
c. habit, custom or usage, and the like.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.