ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case.

The
test of competency is the law or rules. If the law or rules
exclude the evidence, it is incompetent.
To be admissible, the evidence must be both relevant and
competent.

Example of a relevant, but incompetent testimonial evidence.

Ex 1. Witness swears that the accused killed the victim

because his best friend told him so. (The testimony, although
relevant, is incompetent because the witness is not testifying
based on his personal knowledge of the event). It would have
been competent had he be an eyewitness to the act of killing to
the victim.

Ex 2. Wife of the accused testified that the husband admitted

to her in confidence that it is he who killed their neighbor.
(This evidence is incompetent by reason of privilege
communication between husband and wife) rule 130 sec. 24 (a)

Ex 3. Testimonial evidence covered under statute of frauds is

incompetent, since the NCC requires them to be in writing. It
cannot be received in evidence without the writing.

a. Agreement not to be performed within a year from

the making thereof
b. Special promise to answer for the debt, default or
miscarriage of another
c. Agreement for leasing for a longer period than one
year, or for sale of real property

What is the test of relevancy?

Relevance is a matter of relationship between the evidence and

a fact in issue. Determination of relevance is not a matter of
law, but of inference. The test would therefore, be one of
logic, common sense, and experience. The matter of relevance
is a matter that is addressed t the court. Meaning, there is no
precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law

What is competent evidence?