Admissibility of Evidence
2 Axioms of Admissibility
1. None but facts having rational probative value are admissible.
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
some specific rule forbids their admission.
The Admissibility of Evidence is Determined at the Time it is Offered
to the Court.
Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa (2003)
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of
evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers
to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its
evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence
Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at
the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the
objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent, otherwise
the objection shall be considered waived.
Certain Doctrines or Rules of Admissibility
1. 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 ob condition
that the other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the
evidence given will be stricken out.
This is subject to the qualification that there should be no bad
faith on the part of the proponent.
2. Multiple admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes,
such evidence should be admitted for any or all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
law for its admissibility therefore.
3. Curative admissibility
This treats upon the right of the party to introduce incompetent
evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the same kind of
evidence adduced by the adverse party.
Three theories on curative admissibility:
1. American rule – the admission of such incompetent evidence, without
objection by the opponent does not justify such opponent in rebutting
it by similar incompetent evidence.
2. English rule – if a party has presented inadmissible evidence, the
adverse party may resort to similar inadmissible evidence.
3. Massachusetts rule – the adverse party may be permitted to introduce
similar incompetent evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other party’s evidence.