News Ticker

Menu

Similar Acts As 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 issue, 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, is admissible to show knowledge
or intent.

In civil cases the rule as to proof of 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 a 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.









Share This:

Post Tags:

Bigwas

I'm Bigwas, It is just an Alias. I have a degree in Criminology. I'm a blogger who loves to write about anything that cross my mind. I hope you learn something from my blog.

No Comment to " Similar Acts As Evidence "

Post Any Question Or Correction

  • To add an Emoticons Show Icons
  • To add code Use [pre]code here[/pre]
  • To add an Image Use [img]IMAGE-URL-HERE[/img]
  • To add Youtube video just paste a video link like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x_gnfpL3RM