Sub-paragraph 1 of Section 51 of Rule 130 provides that the accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
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. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good character and
high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged against him.
Sub-paragraph
2 provides that 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. This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might
otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty but because he is a person of
bad character. The offering of
character evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, 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. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from
refutation, would have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character
upon the tribunal. Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130
refer to character evidence of the accused. And this evidence must be "pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged," meaning, that the
character evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character
for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence;
on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity.
