A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. T by his employer for allegedly stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T’s former supervisor, Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar incidents also involving Mr. T with his previous employer. Mr. T’s counsel objected to the question, invoking the rule on res inter alias acta. In response, the prosecutor argued that the question should be allowed since he was trying to establish Mr. T’s habit of stealing things from the workplace.
(a) Should the objection of Mr. T’s counsel be sustained? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on the bad moral character of Mr. T, may the same be admitted in the present case? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) No, Mr. T's objection should not be sustained. (b) No, evidence of Mr. T's bad moral character is inadmissible in chief. Under Section 35, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, evidence of similar acts is admissible
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
When is evidence of similar acts admissible under Section 35, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?
Evidence of similar acts is admissible under Section 35 to prove specific intent, plan, scheme, or habit.
Under Section 54(a), Rule 130, when may the prosecution present evidence of the bad moral character of the accused?
The prosecution may introduce evidence of the accused's bad moral character only in rebuttal after the defense opens the door.
What is the general rule regarding evidence of similar acts performed by a person on other occasions?
Under the second branch of res inter alios acta, evidence of similar acts on other occasions is generally inadmissible.
Why is evidence of an accused's bad moral character prohibited during the prosecution's evidence-in-chief?
Choices available with full access.
If an accused introduces evidence pertinent to his good moral character, what is the prosecution's recourse under Rule 130?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Similar Acts Evidence
Under Section 35, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, 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 similar thing at another time. However, such evidence may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. Therefore, when similar acts are offered to establish a habitual course of conduct or plan, the rule on res inter alios acta does not apply.
2. Res Inter Alios
The first branch of the res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. The second branch provides that evidence of similar acts performed on other occasions is generally inadmissible. This rule prevents unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and undue surprise to the accused. However, exceptions exist under Rule 130 where similar acts possess specific relevance, such as demonstrating habit, custom, scheme, or intent in committing the offense charged.
3. Character Evidence Rules
Under Section 54(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused unless it is in rebuttal. The accused in a criminal case may prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. Only after the defense opens the door by presenting evidence of the accused's good moral character may the prosecution introduce evidence of bad moral character in rebuttal to controvert the defense's claims.