1.C. Character Evidence.

Foundational Considerations for CHARACTER EVIDENCE. “Wigmore, x x x supported the policy that ‘the prosecution may not initially attack the defendant’s character’ a practice designed to protect against ‘the deep tendency of human nature to punish, not because our victim is guilty this time, but because he is a bad man and may as well be condemned now that he is caught. In Wigmore’s view, evidence law had to deprive the prosecutor of the opportunity to exploit the punitive instincts of jurors’. p. 78, JOHN HENRY WIGMORE and the Rules of Evidence, by Andrew Porwancher

Character Evidence as “Probabilistic Evidence”~~

To recall, in the beginning portion of this book, a distinction was made between two (2) kinds of Relevant evidence, which are: Direct Evidence and Probabilistic Evidence. Such discussion is worth reiterating here as foundational consideration for admissibility of character evidence, viz:

Section 1. Evidence defined. — Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)
Section 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (2a)
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (3a)
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)

When is evidence “relevant”?

1st part ~ refers to direct evidence. Here, there is no need of deductions or conclusions. If a witness says he saw the shooting, that is direct evidence which is automatically relevant without need of inferences or deductions.

2nd part ~ collateral matters: As a rule, matters which are along the periphery of the main fact in issue are irrelevant.

Except: what is known as Probabilistic evidence~ or those that may be “collateral” as they may seem and yet they “tend to prove in any reasonable degree the probability of a fact in issue.”

If witness says he knows of the accused to have “homicidal tendencies” then this may or may not prove the fact in issue and so it is a collateral matter which may be admissible only when its logical connection to the fact of killing may be reasonably established thus requiring the application of inferences, deductions or conclusions.

Probabilisitic evidence also comes into play when character evidence is material such as the good moral character of an accused in a rape case because he is known to be chaste thus it is more probable that he could not have committed the rape, or that of the victim in a homicide case , that he was known to be of troublesome nature, thus the accused was justified in killing him.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE may be that of:

(1)WITNESS Section 14, Rule 132;

(2)OFFENDED PARTY (Section 51, Rule 130;) or of,

(3) ACCUSED (Section 51, Rule 130)

CHARACTER EVIDENCE of:
(1) WITNESS Section 14, Rule 132;

Section 14, Rule 132. EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS. – Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.

This proceeds from the premise that every witness is presumed of good character. Thus, it is only when his good character had been impeached that such witness’s good character be admissible in evidence.

Thus, for instance, when a party’s witness undergoes rigorous cross- examination and in the course thereof, the witness’ bad moral character was unearthed, the party presenting the said witness may be allowed to introduce during re-direct examination, evidence of the good moral character of the witness. Or, it is submitted, that the party-presenter may later on, call another witness who can vouch for the good character of the previous witness.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE of:

xxx
(2)OFFENDED PARTY (Section 51, Rule 130;) or of,
xxx

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: — (a) In Criminal Cases:

xxx
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be

proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

(b) In Civil Cases:

Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE may be that of:

xxx
(3) ACCUSED (Section 51, Rule 130)

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

Character evidence was discussed in full in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee (G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

Bad Moral Character of Victim (Offended Party) in Murder, Homicide or Rape Cases

“Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. Good moral character includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct..

The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. There are exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

“In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1 of Section 51 of Rule 130 provides that the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where good character and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit the crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged against him.” People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

NOTE: Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130 refer to character evidence of the accused. And this evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged, meaning, that the character evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

Sub-paragraph (3) of Section 51 of the said Rule refers to the character of the offended party. Character evidence, whether good or bad, of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Such evidence is most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in a rape case.

In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and homicide. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman where the willingness of a woman is material, the woman’s character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. The exception to this is when the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation. In the crimes of qualified seduction or consented abduction, the offended party must be a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation, or a virtuous woman of good reputation. The crime of simple seduction involves the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age x x x. The burden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused. The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the aggressor. When the evidence tends to prove self- defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.

Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)

In People v. Soliman, a murder case, the defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative character of the deceased. Upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court disallowed the same. The Supreme Court held:

x x x While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense (Section 15, Rule 123),[such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126). This rule does not apply to cases of murder. ”

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions: —

(a) In Criminal Cases:

(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14.

In a nutshell, the character of a person has no bearing in a case because even a person with a very bad reputation, may have a good cause. Thus, the prosecution cannot, at first instance, prove the bad moral character of the accused. However, insofar as the accused is concerned, given that he is charged with a crime, the concept of probabilistic evidence comes into play, when, at his option he will present evidence proving that he could not have committed the crime because his good character belies it. If the accused does this, he “opens the door” for the prosecution, in rebuttal, to prove his bad moral character.

(p. 316, The Law of Evidence & Trial Techniques by Eduardo T. Reyes III, 2019 Edition).

“Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation.” –Johnny Appleseed

People of the Philippines vs. Noel Lee(G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002)