Character
as evidence
By: Tranquil
G.S. Salvador III
“While
the real character of a person is not determined by his reputation, it can be
used to prove character evidence in court.”
Character
is defined as the “qualities of mind and morals possessed by a person which
distinguishes him from others” (Francisco, Evidence, 1996). Evidence of a
person’s character or trait of character is not admissible in court for the
purpose of proving an act that he committed on a particular occasion (Section
54, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).
The
Philippine Rules on Evidence apply character evidence differently in criminal
and civil cases. In criminal cases, the prosecution cannot, at the first
instance, prove the bad moral character of the accused. The prosecution is
bound by duty to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by
proving the elements of the crime, without relying on the person’s bad character.
The
prosecution must present witnesses who can give an account on how events or
circumstances occurred, leading to the commission of the crime. Courts cannot
entertain reports on the accused’s bad character since “character is never an
issue in criminal prosecution unless the defendant (accused) chooses to make it
one” (People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192 [1930]).
According
to the Zackowitz case, “[I]n a very real sense a defendant (accused) starts his
life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar” (Evidence,
George Fisher). It means that regardless of the opinion of others about the
accused’s bad character, which may have been brought about by previous acts or
conduct, he is still entitled to the Constitutional presumption of innocence.
However,
if there are no witnesses who can testify to identify the perpetrator or
narrate the occurrence of the crime, the court may then rely on circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be the basis of conviction if: (a) there
is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven [are true]; and (c) the combination of the circumstances
produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Section 4, Rule 133, Rules on
Evidence).
Zackowitz
also states that “[E]vidence that a person has a particular character trait
generally is not admissible to show that the person acted in accordance with
that trait at a particular time”. The prosecutor’s purpose “in offering
evidence of [a] defendant’s weaponry was to prove him a man of vicious and
dangerous propensities, who (…) was more likely to kill with deliberate and
premeditated design than a man of irreproachable life and amiable manners”
(Evidence, George Fisher).
Allowing
the presentation of the bad character of the accused gives rise to unfair
prejudice and confusion of issues. Courts may fall into the trap of only
looking at the criminal records or reputation of the accused, which creates the
perception of bad character, rather than proving the circumstances of the
current charge. It may also lead the court to find the accused guilty when no
crime was committed (Evidence, George Fisher).
While
the prosecution cannot present the bad character of the accused at the first
instance, the accused may prove his good character if it is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged (Section 54, Rule 130, Rules on
Evidence). In simpler words, the accused may prove his good character in his
defense. However, it must be noted that good character may be presented by the
accused only if the offense for which he is charged presents issues of
character.
The
prosecution is permitted only to present the accused bad character during
rebuttal (or after the defense’s presentation of evidence) to allow the former
to meet and rebut the accused’s good character in his defense (Section 54, Rule
130, Rules on Evidence). Examples of pertinent character traits in offenses
are: violence or quarrelsome character for murder or homicide, sexually
perverse character for rape or acts of lasciviousness, and dishonesty or
deceitful character for estafa and fraud.
There
is a notion that only offenses under the Revised Penal Code have pertinent
character traits and those under special laws have none. This is incorrect.
There are offenses in special laws wherein moral traits may be relevant, such
as dishonesty for Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act), RA No. 7080 as amended by RA 7659 (An Act Defining or Penalizing the
Crime of Plunder), and RA No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), or
violence for RA 11479 (The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020).
However,
there are indeed offenses in special laws or ordinances that do not put
character traits in question, such as the illegal possession of drugs, illegal
possession of firearms, or prohibited smoking in enclosed premises. These
offenses cannot consider a defense of good character, no matter how impeccable
the accused’s character is, since the offense is unquestionably punishable.
The
victim’s character may be presented and proven to be relevant in establishing
to a reasonable degree the probability of the offense charged (Section 54
(a)[1], Rule 130, Rules on Evidence). In rape and acts of lasciviousness, or in
any prosecution involving the unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman
where willingness is material, the question of the woman’s chastity is
pertinent to the issue of consent (People v. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29,
2002).
Proof
of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed
with treachery and premeditation. However, in homicide cases where the defense
tends to rely on proving self-defense, the known violent character of the
victim is material in showing the existence of reasonable belief of imminent
danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt
defensive action is necessary (G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002).
In
civil cases, evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case (Section 54 (b), Rule
130, Rules on Evidence). This means that the party raising the issue of
character must raise it in the pleading, such as in a complaint or answer.
Examples include deceitful or fraudulent character in misappropriation of company
funds or property, or unchaste character in legal separation on the grounds of
adultery.
The evidence of character is proven by testimony regarding reputation or testimony in the form of an opinion (Section 54 (c), Rule 130, Rules on Evidence). While the real character of a person is not determined by his reputation, it can be used to prove character evidence in court.
(Manila Standard, March 11, 2022)