Character

Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and

morals, distinguishing him from others. (People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 139070, 29 May
2002.)
Q: Distinguish character from credibility.
A: (Character: see definition above.) Credibility means the disposition and intention to
tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person's integrity, and to the fact that
he is worthy of belief. (CSC vs. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004.)
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. (People
vs. Lee, supra. CSC vs. Belagan, citing 29 Am. Jur. 2d Sec. 363.)
When Character Evidence is Allowed
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." In other words, character evidence must be "pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged." (Ibid.)
In criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. (Sec. 51(a)(1) Rule 130)
Reason for Proving Good Moral Character
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. (People vs. Lee,
supra.)
Prosecution - Only in Rebuttal and Must be Pertinent to the Moral Trait Involved
The prosecution may not prove the bad moral character of the accused except only in
rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged. (Sec. 51(a)(2) Rule 130.)
The offering of character evidence is a privilege of the [accused], and the prosecution
cannot comment on the failure of the defendant to produce such evidence. Once the
defendant raises the issue of his good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer
evidence of the defendant's bad character. (People vs. Lee, supra.)
Q: In a murder case, the accused alleged that the victim is a known thief and
drug addict within the community and thus, he may have been shot by any of the
persons from whom he had stolen. The accused also presented a letter written
by the victim's mom seeking help from the mayor for her son's rehabilitation.
Should the evidence presented be admitted?
A: No, the evidence presented to prove the bad character of the victim should not be
admitted.

Proof of bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or
improbability of his killing. Accused has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor
or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no connection between the
victim's drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of the accused.
Moreover, proof of victim's bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder
committed with treachery and premeditation. (People vs. Lee, supra.)
Q: Complainant bought potassium chlorate from a pharmacy of the accused to be
used for his sick horses. Moments after intake, the horses died. The remainder of
the product was brought to Bureau of Science for analysis. Dr. Pea and Dr.
Darjuan found the same to be barium chlorate (poisonous). The two chemists
went to the same pharmacy to buy potassium chlorate. Upon analysis, the
product bought was again found to be barium chlorate.
The accused was charged for violation of the Pharmacy Law. The accused assails
the admission of testimonies of Dr. Pea and Dr. Darjuan as to their purchase of
potassium chlorate at the drug store of the accused. Should the testimonies be
admitted?
A: Yes, they may be admitted as evidence.
On the trial of a criminal case where the question relates ... to explain the conduct of a
particular person, there is a certain discretion on the part of the trial judge which a
court of errors will not interfere with, unless it manifestly appears that the testimony
has no legitimate bearing upon the question at issue, and is calculated to prejudice the
accused.
Whenever necessity arises for a resort to circumstantial evidence, either from the
nature of the inquiry or the failure of direct proof, objections to the testimony on the
ground of irrelevancy are not favored.
Evidence is admissible in a criminal action which tends to show motive, although it
tends to prove the commission of another offense by the defendant.
Here, the effort is not to convict the accused of a second offense. The purpose is to
ascertain defendant's knowledge and intent, and fix his negligence. If the defendant,
on more than one occasion, performed similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly
excluded, negligence is intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be established.
(U.S. vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 12858, 22 January 1918.)
Q: In a prosecution for roberry with homicide, the prosecution presented the
testimony of the Maximiniana, whose husband was killed. The prosecution also
presented Juana, whose house was allegedly robbed by the accused and his
group after Maximiniana's. The accused argues that the testimony of Juana is
inadmissible. Decide.

A: The testimony of Juana is admissible (a) to prove the identity of the accused, (b) to
establish his presence at the crime scene, or (c) to prove a circumstance connected
with the crime.
While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for
robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify the
defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at
the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a
circumstance connected with the crime. (People vs. Irang, G.R. No. 45179, 30 March
1937.)
Character Evidence Must be of One's General Reputation, Not of Isolated and
Specific Acts
In People vs. Babiera, G.R. No. 28871, 19 September 1928, the defense attempted to
prove that the victim Severino Haro was of quarrelsome disposition, provoking,
irascible, and fond of starting quarrels in the municipality. The trial judge did not
permit it.
While it is true that when the defense of the accused is that he acted in self-defense, he
may prove the deceased to have been of a quarrelsome, provoking, and irascible
disposition, the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not of
isolated and specific acts.
Character Evidence Allowed to Impeach Witness
Q: Several accused were charged for preventing Claro Mercado from rendering
aid to Maria Mateo when she was allegedly assaulted and maltreated by defense
witness Santiago Mercado.
Private Prosecutor asked defense witness: "How many times have you been
convicted of assault upon persons?" Defense counsel objected on the ground
that the question is impertinent. Private Prosecutor counters that the purpose of
the question is to prove the pugnacious disposition of the defense witness,
claiming that he had the occasion to defend the witness in various causes for
assault. The trial judge overruled. Is the judge correct? Explain.
A: The judge is not correct. The objection should have been sustained.
Generally speaking, a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has
been called, except by showing:
That he has made contradictory statements; or
By showing that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad.
Nevertheless, you may show by an examination of the witness himself or from the
record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a "high crime."
High crimes are generally defined as such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly
allied and equal in guilt to felonies. We believe that the objection should have been
sustained. (U.S. vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 8332, 13 November 1913.)

*NOTE: In this case, the SC held that even if the question had been properly interposed
and was sustained, it would not prejudice the right of either party since it was
established that the defense witness assaulted Maria Mateo.
It is submitted that the question is not impertinent because the existence of assault
upon Maria Mateo is an element in the crime charged.
Character Evidence Allowed to Prove Specific Intent or Knowledge, etc.
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; but it may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. (Sec. 34 Rule 130)
Habit, custom, usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like any other facts. Courts
must contend with the caveat that, before they admit evidence of usage, of habit or
pattern of conduct, the offering party must establish the degree of specificity and
frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a
given manner but rather, conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. The offering party
must allege and prove specific, repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of
habit. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit, or pattern of evidence must be
numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. Mere similarity of
contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh
the danger of prejudice and confusion.
In determining whether the examples are numerous enough and sufficiently regular,
the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. After all, habit
means a course of behavior of a person regularly represented in like circumstances. It
is only when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous
enough to lose an inference of systematic conduct that examples are admissible. The
key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response or ratio of reaction to
situations. (Boston Bank of the Philippines vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, 09 February
2006.)
Character Evidence Must be Confined to a Time Not Too Remote from the Time in
Question
Q: In an administrative complaint for sexual harassment filed in 1994, defendant
presented evidence showing several charges filed against the complainant for
grave oral defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries,
malicious mischief, etc., in the 1980's. CSC found the defendant guilty.
On appeal, the CA gave paramount importance on the cases filed against complainant
in ruling that the complainant is an unreliable witness, her character being
questionable.
Are the previous cases filed against the complainant sufficient to prove her
questionable character?

A: No, the evidence presented by the defendant is not sufficient to prove the
questionable character of the complainant witness.
Settled is the principle that evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined
to a time not too remote from the time in question - in other words, what is to be
determined is the character or reputation of the person at the time of the trial and
prior thereto, but not a period remote from the commencement of the suit. (CSC vs.
Belagan, supra.)
Mere Allegation is Not Evidence
Mere allegation is not evidence and such unproved allegation may not be given any
favorable consideration whatsoever. (People vs. Cheng, G.R. No. 120158-59, 15
September 1997.)
Loose Morals per se is Not a Ground to Discredit a Witness
In this jurisdiction, loose morals per se is not a ground to discredit a witness. There
must be clear indications militating against her credibility other than being a person of
ill repute. Otherwise stated, even a prostitute may be a competent witness to the
extent that even with her sole testimony,an accused may be duly convicted, provided
that such witness is not coached and her testimony is not rehearsed and on all other
counts worthy of credence beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Cheng, supra.)