Difference between admission and appreciation of evidence

Difference between admission and appreciation of evidence | Daily Tribune

This is part two of what I wrote about last week. In the previous article, I discussed when objections to testimonies and evidence should be made. Obviously, they cannot be made anytime but seasonably. And the rules specifically mandate when and how they should be made.

Again, it is at this point when the offer is made, when a party must object. Once offered, the court will rule whether to admit the evidence or not; even over the objection of the other party.

Note that it does not mean that once the court admits the evidence, the court is bound by the purpose for which it is offered. It is still up to it to consider its probative value. This is where the difference between admission and appreciation of evidence lies.

In the same case I discussed last week, the Supreme Court explained the difference between the two. It decreed that “it bears to stress however that allowing the testimony does not mean that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. It falls within the discretion of the court whether to adopt or not to adopt testimonies of expert witnesses, depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and applicable law.”

As held by the Court: “Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions on the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion; his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements.

“The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.

“The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. Objections to documentary evidence should likewise be raised in a timely manner.

“True, the petitioner acted prematurely when it objected to the psychological report at a time when it was still being identified. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, not earlier. Because at that time, the purpose of the offer had already been disclosed and ascertained. Suffice it to say that the identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it.

“Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to objection to the document when it is formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit. However, while an objection was prematurely made, this does not mean that the petitioner had waived any objection to the admission of the same in evidence.

“Petitioner can still reiterate its former objections, this time seasonably, when the formal offer of exhibits was made. At any rate, it must be stressed that the admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.

“Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.”

The facts and the quoted redacted portion of the decision are from S.C. G.R. No. 205333 (18 February 2019).