3 doctrines on evidence admissibility

The following are taken from the discussions of Regalado, a well-known expert in remedial law.

[1] Multiple admissibility. Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence shall be admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered, provided it satisfies all the requisites of law for its admissibility therefor.

It must be remembered that the purpose for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, or may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose. (G.R. No. 126619 December 20, 2006)

Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji's confession may not be competent as against his co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was, nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt (U.S. vs. Vega, 43 Phil., 41; People vs. Bande, 50 Phil., 37; People vs. Buan, 64 Phil., 296), and should have been admitted as such.

[2] Conditional admissibility. Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received, on condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, the evidence already given shall be stricken out.

[3] Curative admissibility. Where the court has admitted incompetent evidence adduced by the adverse party, a party has a right to introduce the same kind of evidence in his/her behalf.

BOOK: Florenz Regalado. Remedial Law Compendium. https://www.anvilpublishing.com/shop/text-books/college-reference/remedial-law-compendium-2/.

Popular Posts