CHAPTER 21 Section 1.

Preponderance of evidence, how determined- In

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
The Equipoise Rule
-where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support the conviction.
-the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal
case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence
tilts the scales in favor of the accused.
civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial. The court may also consider the number of
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with
the greater number.

When inculpatory facts are susceptible of two or more -In civil cases, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of
interpretations, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral evidence, which means “that evidence that is of greater weight or is
certainty more convincing than that which is in opposition to it.

-an accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the
Bill of Rights guarantees.
-the burden of proof is on the prosecution and UNLESS it discharges
that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf,
and he would be entitled to an acquittal.
-it does not mean absolute truth, but it means that the testimony of
one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the
probability of truth is on one side than on the other.
-it is proof that leads to the trier of facts to find that the existence of
the contested fact is more probable than it nonexistence.

-proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of Quantum of evidence for forfeiture proceedings
proof as excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute
-civil in nature
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. -preponderance of evidence is required: the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
-in criminal litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or
considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the
fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of
evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence.
the defense.
- preponderance of evidence means probability of the truth.
Falsus in uno falsu in omnibus (False in one false in everything)
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence
-applies if two requisites occur:
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the other
1. The witness deliberately or intentionally falsified the truth; side.
2. The other portions of the testimony to be discredited are not
corroborated by circumstances of other unimpeached
evidence.

-does not apply where the mistakes were not on very material points,
where there was sufficient corroboration on many grounds of the
testimony and the errors did not arise from an apparent desire to
pervert the truth but from innocent mistakes and the desire of the
witness to exculpate himself though not completely.

A telephone conversation is not in itself sufficient proof of

identity of the caller

--it is essential for purposes of reliability and trustworthiness that a

telephone conversation be authenticated before it could be received in
evidence

-the caller must be reliably identified first before a telephone

communication is accorded probative weight. (People v. Wagas)

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

Preponderance of evidence, how determined

Sec. 1 of Rule 133