You are on page 1of 61

Evidence

Rule 133
Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
This refers to the balance of evidence and in
whose favor it tilts. This refers to the indication
of the greater evidence between the parties.
This depends on the judicial evaluation within
the guidelines provided by the rules and by
jurisprudence.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Sufficiency refers to the adequacy of evidence,
or such evidence in character, weight or
amount as will legally justify the judicial action
demanded or prayed for by the parties.
Sufficiency of evidence therefore refers to the
question of whether the evidence meets the
required quantum needed:
to arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal, or
administrative case; or
to prove matters of defense or mitigation; or
to overcome a prima facie case or a presumption.
REQUIRED QUANTUM OF
EVIDENCE (Hierarchy)
SPS. MANALO vs. ROLDAN-CONFESOR
G.R. No. 102358, November 19, 1992

Consequently, in the hierarchy of


evidentiary values, We find proof beyond
reasonable doubt at the highest level,
followed by clear and convincing evidence,
preponderance of evidence, and
substantial evidence, in that order.
SO
a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b) Clear and convincing evidence
c) Preponderance of Evidence
d) Substantial evidence
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. - In civil cases, the party
having burden of proof must establish his
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 there 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.
Definition
BJDC CONSTRUCTION versus LANUZO
G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014

By preponderance of evidence is meant that the


evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other. It refers to the
weight, credit and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term
greater weight of evidence or greater weight
of the credible evidence. It is evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
(False in one thing, false in
everything)
If the testimony of the witness on a material

issue is willfully false and given with an


intention to deceive, court may disregard all
the witness testimony. (Not a mandatory rule
of evidence).
It deals only with the weight of evidence
and not a positive rule of law
The witnesses false or exaggerated
statements on other matters shall not
preclude the acceptance of such evidence
as is relieved from any sign of falsehood
The court may accept and reject portions
of the witness testimony depending on the
inherent credibility thereof.
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainly. Moral
certainly only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Definition
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is
that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind, not of the absolute
certainty but only the moral certainty that a
crime has been committed and that the
accused is guilty thereof.
AMANQUITON vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 186080, August 14, 2009
Rationale:
It lies in the fact the State is arrayed against the
subject; it enters the contest with a prior
inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited
means of command; with counsel usually of
authority and capacity, who are regarded as public
officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially,
and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in
striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a
perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not
for life. These inequalities of position, the law
strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no
conviction where there is reasonable doubt of guilt.
Basis
Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt
finds basis not only in the due process
clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in
the right of an accused to be "presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved."
(MACAYAN versus PEOPLE, G.R. No.
175842, March 18, 2015)
BENITO versus PEOPLE
G.R. No. 204644, February 11,
2015
The fact of conspiracy "must be proven on
the same quantum of evidence as the
felony subject of the agreement of the
parties," that is, proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
Criminal case

a. During preliminary investigation Well


founded belief of the fact of commission of a
crime
b. Issuance of warrant of arrest Probable
cause
c. To convict an accused Evidence of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
d. Accused claims justifying/exempting
circumstances Clear and convincing evidence
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 5. Substantial evidence. - In cases
filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established
if it is supported by substantial evidence,
or that amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF
Clear and convincing proof means that the
evidence presented by a party during the trial
is more highly probable to be true than not and
the judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A
greater degree of believability must be met
than the standard of proof in civil actions
which is preponderance of evidence, which
requires that the facts more likely than not
prove the issue for which they are asserted.
What must be proven by this
quantum of proof?
GATMAITAN vs. GONZALES
G.R. No. 149226, June 26, 2006

Bad faith can never be presumed; it must


be proved by clear and convincing
evidence.
FONTANA RESORT versus TAN
G.R. No. 154670, January 30,
2012
The general rule is that he who alleges fraud or
mistake in a transaction must substantiate his
allegation as the presumption is that a person
takes ordinary care for his concerns and that
private dealings have been entered into fairly
and regularly. One who alleges defect or lack of
valid consent to a contract by reason of fraud or
undue influence must establish by full, clear and
convincing evidence such specific acts that
vitiated a partys consent, otherwise, the latters
presumed consent to the contract prevails.
Analysis
Remember that good faith is presumed. If you
allege fraud or bad faith, you are going up
against this strong presumption.
Similarly, regularity is presumed. There are
several presumptions in Rule 131 that deal
with regularity in private or public transactions.
If you allege fraud, bad faith or mistake, you
are going up against all these presumptions.
Thus:
You need to establish these facts by clear and
convincing evidence.
Cross-reference
Rule 8, Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition
of the mind. In all averments of fraud or
mistake the circumstances constituting fraud
or mistake must be stated with particularity.
XXX
DUTY FREE vs. TRIA
G.R. No. 174809, June 27, 2012
In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is
burdened to prove just cause for
terminating the employment of its
employee with clear and convincing
evidence. This principle is designed to give
flesh and blood to the guaranty of security
of tenure granted by the Constitution to
employees under the Labor Code.
TING versus CA
G.R. No. 146174, July 12, 2006
An employer can terminate the services of
an employee only for valid and just causes
which must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence.
Analysis
The law always tilts in favor of labor. In case of
doubt, the doubt is construed liberally in the
employees favor and strictly against the
employee.
If you go up against this bias (i.e., guaranty of
security of tenure granted by the Constitution),
you need to do so by clear and convincing
evidence.
PEOPLE versus GANI
G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013
The Court also upholds the rulings of the RTC
and the CA that appellant's defense of alibi
deserves scant consideration. Alibi is an
inherently weak defense because it is easy to
fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit
approbation, the appellant must adduce clear
and convincing evidence that he was in a place
other than the situs criminis at the time when the
crime was committed, such that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of
the crime when it was committed.
PEOPLE versus NIEVA
G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010
A defense of denial which is unsupported
and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence becomes negative
and self-serving, deserving no weight in
law, and cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over convincing,
straightforward and probable testimony on
affirmative matters.
PEOPLE versus TORRES
G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013

For the defense of denial to prosper,


appellant must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that government officials
have performed their duties in a regular
and proper manner.
PEOPLE versus DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. 109119, August 16, 1994
The defense of frame-up must be supported
by clear and convincing evidence because
it is in the same category as alibi.
Analysis
In defenses of denial such as alibi and frame-up,
the pleader does not address the elements of the
offense. He simply says that I did not do it.

Thus, if your defense is merely denial, during trial


you have to wait until the prosecution is done
presenting its evidence. If it meets the
requirement of a prima facie case, you have to
proof your negative defense with clear and
convincing evidence.
PEOPLE versus NIEVA
G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010
Police officers are presumed to have acted
regularly in the performance of their official
functions in the absence of clear and
convincing proof to the contrary or proof
that they were moved by ill will.
PEOPLE versus LAGOS
G.R. No. 184658, March 6, 2013
Unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that the members of the buy-bust
team were inspired by any improper motive
or were not properly performing their duty,
their testimonies on the operation deserve
faith and credit.
WEBB versus PEOPLE
G.R. No. 127262. July 24, 1997
A party has the right to seek the inhibition
or disqualification of a judge who does not
appear to be wholly free, disinterested,
impartial and independent in handling the
case. XXX Hence, to disqualify a judge on
the ground of bias and prejudice, the
movant must prove the same by clear and
convincing evidence.
LAZARO vs. AGUSTIN
G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010

Documents acknowledged before a notary


public have in their favor the presumption
of regularity. However, this presumption is
not absolute and may be rebutted by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Analysis
In the foregoing cases, once again you go up
against presumption of regularity.
PEOPLE versus MALICDEM
G.R. No. 184601, November 12,
2012
Self-defense, under Article 11, paragraph 1,
and accident, under Article 12, paragraph 4
of the Revised Penal Code, are affirmative
defenses which the accused is burdened to
prove, with clear and convincing evidence.
By admitting killing the victim in self-
defense or by accident without fault or
without intention of causing it, the burden
is shifted to the accused to prove such
affirmative defenses. He should rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of that of the prosecution. If
the accused fails to prove his affirmative
defense, he can no longer be acquitted.
Analysis
When the accused pleads self-defense, for
example, he is saying that he committed the
crime but he should not be held liable because
what he did was justified or that it was an
accident.
This is contrary to the presumption that a
criminal act was done with unlawful intent.
SUMMARY
A party who wishes to defeat a presumption or
statutory bias, as a general rule, can only do
so if he establishes facts by clear and
convincing evidence.
EXCEPTION:
Presumption of innocence.
It is a constitutional presumption that the
Constitution says cannot be defeated by clear
and convincing evidence. It has to be by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not
sufficient ground for conviction. - An
extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti.
Examples Of Corpus Delicti
In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is
the fact of death (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil.
381), which may be proved even
circumstantially. (People v. Sasota, 91 Phil.
111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
Conviction for murder proper even if victims
body is not produced. In all crimes against
persons in which the death of the victim is an
essential element of the offense, there must
be satisfactory evidence of the fact of death
and the identity of the victim that a crime has
been committed which is what corpus delicti
really means.
The failure of the prosecution to produce the
body of the victim does not imply the absence
of corpus delicti for the term does not refer to
the body of the murdered person (People v.
Centeno, et al., 130 SCRA 209).
Examples of Corpus Delicti
In robbery or theft, the fact of loss. (People v.
Niem, 75 Phil. 668)
In arson, the fact of burning, (People v. Marquez,
77 Phil. 83; People v. Mones, 58 Phil. 46)
In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard
and a bystander was killed by one of the shots
constitute evidence of corpus delicti, which is the
violent death of a person, whether feloniously
caused or not. (People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018)
PEOPLE vs. VILLAHERMOSA
G.R. No. 186465, June 1, 2011
What is material to a prosecution for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the
illicit transaction took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when
sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Definition
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from
which the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common
experience (PEOPLE versus BRONIOLA,
G.R. No. 211027, June 29, 2015).
Viability as Basis for Conviction
A finding of guilt is still possible despite the
absence of direct evidence. Conviction based
on circumstantial evidence may result if
sufficient circumstances, proven and taken
together, create an unbroken chain leading to
the reasonable conclusion that the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, was the author of
the crime (ALMOJUELA versus PEOPLE, G.R.
No. 183202, June 2, 2014).
The circumstances proved must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis
that the accused is guilty, and, at the same
time, inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except that of guilt. Corollary thereto, a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence
must exclude each and every hypothesis
consistent with innocence (CANDELARIA
versus PEOPLE, G.R. No. 209386, December
08, 2014).
The rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on
circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of
guilt. The lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto
bar the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long
as the prosecution establishes the accused-
appellant's participation in the crime through
credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that
leads to the inescapable conclusion that he
committed the imputed crime, the latter should be
convicted (CELEDONIO versus PEOPLE, G.R. No.
209137, July 01, 2015).
Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant
the absence of direct evidence. Where the court
relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the
combined effect of the pieces of circumstantial
evidence must inexorably lead to the conclusion
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than
moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or
circumstantial evidence (MANULAT versus
PEOPLE, G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015).
Guidelines in Convictions Based
on Circumstantial Evidence
In PEOPLE versus GALVEZ, G.R. No.
157221, 548 Phil. 436 (2007), the Supreme
Court had the occasion to lay down the basic
guidelines that judges must observe when
faced with merely circumstantial evidence in
deciding criminal cases. The probative value
of such circumstantial evidence must be
distilled using the following:
Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon
with caution;
All the essential facts must be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt;
The facts must exclude every other theory but
that of the guilt of the accused; and
The facts must establish with certainty the guilt
of the accused so as to convince beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused was the
perpetrator of the offense.
Section 6. Power of the court to stop
further evidence. - The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any
particular point when the evidence upon it
is already so full that more witnesses to
the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But
this power should be exercised with
caution.
Section 7. Evidence on motion. - When a
motion is based on facts not appearing of
record the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct
that the matter be heard wholly or partly on
oral testimony or depositions.
EXAMPLES OF MOTIONS WHICH
NEED HEARING
CRIMINAL CASES
Motion for bail
Under Criminal Procedure, the evidence taken up
during the hearing of the motion will form part
automatically of the records of the case, so there
is no need to repeat in the trial what have been
covered in the hearing of the motion
EXAMPLES OF MOTIONS WHICH
NEED HEARING
CIVIL CASES
Application for preliminary attachment or
injunction
Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts
which are not solely predicated on absence of
jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action,
i.e. it is predicated on the ground of payment
Evidence taken up during hearing become
automatically part of records of the case.