EVIDENCE

RULES 128-133
RULES OF COURT
As amended by AM No. 19-08-15-SC
 Rule 128
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Evidence Defined. Evidence means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
SCOPE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:

Principle of Uniformity:
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all
trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these
Rules. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE VS. EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
CASE
The party having the burden of proof must prove his The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
claim by a preponderance of evidence. (Sec. 1, Rule reasonable doubt. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)
133)
GR: GR:
An offer of compromise is not an implied admission An offer of compromise by the accused may be
of any liability and is not admissible in evidence received in evidence as an implied admission of
against the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct guilt.
nor statements made in compromise negotiations XPNs:
admissible. 1. Those involving offenses (criminal negligence);
XPN: and
Evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for 2. Criminal cases allowed by law to be compromised.
another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or
proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation
or prosecution. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)
 EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
CASE
The concept of presumption of innocence does not The accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of
apply and generally, there is no presumption for or innocence.
against a party except in cases provided for by law.
The concept of confession does not apply. Confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt.

PROOF VS. EVIDENCE

PROOF EVIDENCE
It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is It is the mode or manner of proving competent facts
the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting in judicial proceedings. (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil.
from consideration of the evidence. 640)
Without evidence, there
is no proof.
Effect or result of evidence. Medium of proof.
 FACTUM PROBANDUM VS. FACTUM PROBANS
FACTUM PROBANDUM
The fact or proposition to be established.
The fact to be proved, the fact which is in issue
and to which the evidence is directed.
Ultimate Facts.
Hypothetical.
FACTUM PROBANS
The facts or material evidencing the fact or
proposition to be established.
The probative or evidentiary fact tending
to prove the fact in issue.
Intermediate or evidentiary facts.
Existent.

Illustration:
A, in a vehicular collision, hit B. B was rushed to the hospital and was, later on, found out
to have been amputated by reason of such collision. B alleged that A was negligent in his
driving for reason that he exceeded the speed limit required when approaching a crossing.
The negligence of A is the factum probandum. The evidence offered by B constitute the
material to prove the liability of A. The totality of the evidence to prove the liability is the
factum probans.
 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Section 3. Admissibility of Evidence. Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not
excluded by the Constitution, the law, or these Rules.
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral
matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.
 Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence:

1. The evidence is relevant to the issue; and

NOTE: It is relevant if it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)

2. The evidence is competent.

NOTE: The evidence is competent when it is not excluded by the
Constitution, the law, or these Rules (Sec. 3, Rule 128, 2019 Amendments on
the Revised Rules on Evidence). Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence.
 EXCLUSIONARY RULES
The rules of exclusion are rules of exception to the general
admissibility of all that is rational and probative.

A. Constitutional Exclusionary Rules:

1. Unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
2. Privacy of communication and correspondence (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
3. Right to counsel, prohibition on torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or
other means which vitiate the free will; prohibition on secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
B. Statutory exclusionary rules
1. Lack of documentary stamp tax in documents, instruments, or papers
required by law to be stamped makes such documents inadmissible as evidence
in court until the requisite stamp/s shall have been affixed thereto and canceled.
(Sec. 201, NIRC)
2. Any communication obtained by a person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication, by tapping any wire/cable or using any
other device/arrangement to secretly overhear/intercept/record such information
by using any device, shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial/quasi-
judicial/legislative/administrative hearing or investigation. (Secs. 1 and 4, .A.
No. 4200 or Anti-Wire Tapping Act)
3. Any confession, admission, or statement obtained as a result of torture shall
be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as
evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture. (Section 8,
RA 9745 or Anti Torture Act of 2009)
 Admissibility vs. Weight
Admissibility Weight (Probative
Value)
Refers to the questions whether or Refers to the question of whether or
not the evidence is to be considered not the evidence proes an issue.
at all.

Depends on relevace and Pertains to tendency to convice or

competence. persuade.
Doctrine ofthe Fruit ofthe Poisonous Tree
Illegally obtained evidence shall be
insadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding because they are the “fruit of
the poisonous tree.”
Relevancy of Evidence
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. (Sec. 4,
Rule 128)
The court will admit only evidence which is
relevant to the issue. (Sec. 3, Rule 128, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Ruleson Evidence)
 Collateral matters

Collateral matters refer to matters

other than the fact in issue.

GR: Evidence on collateral mattersis not allowed.

XPN: It is allowed when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of fact in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
 Multiple Admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and competent
for two or more purposes, such evidence should be
admitted for any or all purposes for which it
is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
law for its admissibility.
 Conditional Admissibility
Where theevidence at thetime of its offer appears to be
immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected with the other
facts to be subsequently proved, such evidence may be received
on condition that the other facts will be proved
thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be
stricken out.

Curative Admissibility
It allows a party to introduce otherwise
inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing party’s
previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
Multiple, Conditional and Curative Admissibility
If relevant and competent, evidence may be
(1) conditional, which connotes tentative or temporary
evidence;
(2) multiple, where it is legally permissible for different
aspects; or
(3) curative, when it is intended to receive inadmissible
evidence from a party to neutralizea previously accepted
inadmissible evidence from the other party.
 Direct Evidence
That which proves a fact withoutthe need to
make an inference from another fact.

Circumstantial Evidence
That which proves a fact in issue indirectly through
an inference which the fact finder draws from
the evidence established. (People v. Matito, G.R.
No.144405, February 24, 2004)
Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without
drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on
the other hand, indirectly proves a fact in issue,
such that the fact_x0002_finder must draw an
inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
(Planteras v. People, G.R. No. 238889, October3,
2018)
 Cumulative Evidence
Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind
and character as that already given and that tends to prove
the same proposition. (Wyne v. Newman, 75 Va., 811, 817)

Corroborative Evidence
Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to
that already given tending to strengthen or confirmit. It is
additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
(Edwards v. Edwards, Tenn. App., 501 S.W. 2d283. 289)
An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction,unless corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti. (Sec 3, Rule 133)

NOTE: Corroborative testimony is not

always required. Witnesses are to be
weighed, not numbered.
 Positive Evidence
Exists when the witness affirms in the stand that a
certain state of facts does exist or that a certain
event happened.

Negative Evidence
Exists when the witness states that an event
did not occur or that the state of factsalleged toexist
does not actually exist.
 Denial as negative evidence
Denial is considered by the Court to be a
very weak form of defense and can never
overcome an affirmative or positive testimony
particularly when the latter comes from the mouth of
a credible witness. (People v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 146693-94, July 31, 2003)
 Competent Evidence
One that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to
eligibility of an evidence to be received as such. The test
of competence is the Constitution, the laws or the rules.
Credibility
The worthiness of belief, that quality which
renders a witness worthy of belief.
NOTE: Admissible evidence is not necessarily
credible evidence. Admissibility does not guarantee
credibility.

Findings and conclusions ofthe trial court on the

credibility ofwitnesses are entitled to great respect
because they have the advantage of observing the
demeanor of witnesses as they testify.
 Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Definition
Burden of proof or “onus probandi” Burden of evidence is that logical
traditionally refers to the obligation of necessity whichs rests upon a party at
a party to the litigation to persuade the any particular time during the trial to
court that he is entitled to relief. create a prima facie case in his favor or
to overthrow one created against him.

It is the duty of a party to present It is the duty of a party to present

evidence on the facts necessary to
establish his or her claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by
law. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, 2019
Amendmens to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)
evidence sufficient to establish or rebut
fact in issue to establish prima facie
case. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, 2019
Amendmens to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)
 Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Whether it shifts throughout the proceedings
Never shifts (Sec. 1, Rule 131, 2019 May shift from one party to the other in the
Amendments to the Revised Rules on course, of the proceedings, depending on
Evidence) the exigencies of the case. (Sec. 1, Rule 131,
2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
It remains throughout the entire case exactly Evidence)
where the pleadings originally placed it or
with the party upon whim it is imposed.
(Republic v. Mupas, G.R.No. 181892,
September 8, 2015)
What determines it
Generally determined by the pleadings filed Generally determined by the developments
by the party. of the trial, or by the provisions of
substantive law or procedural rules which
may relieve the party from presenting
evidence of the facts alleged.
 Who has the burden of proof?
1. CIVIL CASE
Plaintiff - To show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a
negative defense.
Defendant - If he raises an affirmative defense.
2. CRIMINAL CASE
Prosecution - Because of presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused,
the prosecution has the duty to prove the guilt of the accused.
Accused - When he admits the offense/crime charged but raises justifying,
exempting circumstances, or absolutory causes, he will have the burden of proof
to prove such justifying, exempting circumstances, or absolutory causes.
 Who has the burden of evidence?
1. CIVIL CASE
Plaintiff - Plaintiff has the burden of evidence because he has to prove his
affirmative allegations in the complaint.
Defendant - Defendant has the burden of evidence to prove the affirmative
allegations in his counterclaim and his affirmative defenses.

2. CRIMINAL CASE
Prosecution - Has to prove its affirmative allegations in the Information
regarding the elements
of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances
Accused - Has to prove his affirmative allegations regarding the existence of
justifying, exempting, absolutory, or mitigating circumstances
 Test of determining where the burden of proof lies

Ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers

no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the
basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.

Credibility
The worthiness of belief, that quality which
renders a witness worthy of belief.
 Heirarchy of burden of proof

Proof beyond reasonable doubt Criminal case

Criminal case
Clear and convincing evidence (Accused claims justifying/exempting
circumstance)

Preponderance of evidence Civil case

Prelim. Inv. / Issuance

Probable cause of Warrant of Arrest

Administrative case
Substantial evidence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt:
❖Required to convict an accused
❖Moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
❖Does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility
of error.

Clear and convincing evidence

❖Degree of proof which produces in the mind of the courts a firm belief
or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.
❖Adduced to established a prima facie case or a disputable presumption.
Preponderance of evidence:
❖Degree of proof required in civil cases.
❖Evidence which is of greater weight or superior weight of evidence than
that which is offered in opposition to it.

Substantial evidence:
❖Applicable in cases filed before an adminsitrative or quasi-judicial
bodies.
❖Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion
 Who has the burden of proof in self-defense?
One who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the killing.
Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the
justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he
indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger. Self-
defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted.
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused has admitted that
he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him in order
to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him
with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the
weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even
if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after
the accused himself had admitted the killing.” (Cabuslay v. People and
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129875, Sept. 30, 2005).
 Principle of Negative Averments
GR: Negative allegations need not be proved, whether in civil or criminal
cases.
XPN: Where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of
action or defense in a civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense
in a criminal case or the defenses thereto, negative allegations should be
proved. (Industrial Finance Corp., v.Tobias, G.R. No. L-41555, July 27,
1977)
XPN to the XPN: In civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an
essential part of the cause of action or defense, it does not have to be
proved if it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document
which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
 PRESUMPTIONS

Matters which need not be proved:

1. Facts admitted or not denied provided they have been

sufficiently alleged (Sec. 11, Rule 8);
2. Agreed and admitted facts (Sec. 4, Rule 129);
3. Facts subject to judicial notice (Sec. 3, Rule 129); and
4. Facts legally presumed (Secs. 2 & 3, Rule 131).
Presumption

- It is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are

permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
- It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law, which requires such
fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise
established in the action

Note: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence. It
imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward
with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
 PRESUMPTION OF LAW PRESUMPTION OF FACT
(Praesumptiones Juris) (Praesumptiones Hominis)
It is a deduction which the law expressly It is a deduction which reason draws
directs to be made from particular facts. from the facts proved without an
express direction from law to that
effect.
A certain inference must be made Discretion is vested in the tribunal as
whenever the facts appear which furnish to drawing the inference.
the basis of the inference.
Reduced to fixed rules and form a part Derived wholly and directly from the
of the system of jurisprudence. circumstances of the particular case
by means of the common experience
of mankind.
Need not be pleaded or proved if the Has to be pleaded and proved
facts on which they are based are duly
averred and established
 2 Kinds of Presumptions of Law

1. Conclusive presumptions (presumptions juris et de jure) -

those which are not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary.
No evidence hall be allowed to rebut the presumption.

2. Disputable presumptions (presumptions juris tantum) - Those

which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence. (Sec. 3, Rule 131)
 2 Classes of Conclusive Presumptions
1. Estoppel in pais – Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing
to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it [Sec. 2, (par. a)]
2. Estoppel by deed – A party to a property deed is precluded from asserting, as
against another party to the deed, any right or title in derogation of the deed, or
from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the deed e.g. The tenant is
not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between them [Sec. 2 (par. b)]

Note: Estoppel may attach even though the landlord does not have title at the
commencement of the relations. It may inure in favor of the successor.If the title
asserted is one that is alleged to have beenacquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
1. A person is innocent of a crime or wrong.
2. Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent.
3. Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
4. Person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
5. Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
The requisites for the presumption to apply are:
a. The evidence is material;
b. The party had the opportunity to produce it; and
c. The evidence is available only to the said party.
 The presumption will not be applicable when:
a. Suppression of evidence is not willful;
b. Evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or
cumulative;
c. Evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and
d. Suppression is by virtue of an exercise of privilege.

Note: Failure of the prosecution to present a certain witness and to proffer a

plausible explanation does not amount to willful suppression of evidence since
the prosecutor has the discretion/prerogative to determine the witnesses he is
going to present (People v. Jalbuena, G.R. No. 171163, July 4, 2007).
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
6. Money paid by one to another was due to the latter.
7. Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.
8. Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid.
9. Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is
produced.
10.A person found in possession of a thing takenin the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
him.
11.Person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money
or the delivery of anything has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
12. Person acting in public office was regularly appointed or elected to it.
13. Official duty has been regularly performed.
14. A court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
15. All the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by them.
16. Private transactions have been fair and regular.
17. Ordinary course of business has been followed.
18. There was a sufficient consideration for a contract.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
19. Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration.
20. An endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was
overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated.
21. A writing is truly dated.
22. Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.
23. Absentee of 7 years, it being not known whether or not he is still alive, is
considered dead for all purposes except for succession. For the purpose of
opening his succession, an absence of 10 years is required; and if he
disappeared after the age of 75, absence of only 5 years is sufficient. The
following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of
estate among the heirs:
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
a) Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is
missing,who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
b) Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been
missing for 4 years;
c) Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for 4 years;
d) If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead; 2 years in case of disappearance where there is danger of
death under the circumstances hereinabove provided. Before marrying again, the
spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code
and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the effect of re-appearance of the absent spouse.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
24. Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable
to the law or fact.
25. Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life.
26. Persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract of co-partnership.
27. A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage.
28. Property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other
and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work
or industry.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
29.In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each
other and who have acquired properly through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.
30.If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within 300
hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary:
Presumptions of paternity:
a. A child born before 180 days after the subsequent marriage is conceived during the former
marriage, provided it is born within 300 days after the termination of the former marriage.
b. A child born after 180 days following the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
conceived during the subsequent marriage, even though it be born within the 300 days after
the termination of the former marriage.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130

❖ There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy when a child is born after 300

days following dissolution of marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation (Sec. 4).
31. A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature.
32. The law has been obeyed.
33. A printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public
authority, was so printed or published.
34. A printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in
tribunalsof the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such
cases.
 Disputable Presumptions of Law under
Section 3 of Rule 130
35. A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular
person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to
perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest.
36. That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to
succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of
one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be
considered to have died at the same time
37. Except for purposes of succession, when 2 persons perish in the same calamity,
and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from
which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities
resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
First Person Second Person Presumed To
Have Survived
< 15 yrs old < 15 yrs old older
> 60 yrs old > 60 yrs old younger
< 15 > 60 yrs old < 15
>15 and < 60 >15 and < 60 The male
male female
>15 and < 60 >15 and < 60 The older
female female
< 15 or > 60 15-60 The one between those
ages
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) (RULE 133)

Weight of evidence
- It is the probative value given by the court to particular evidence admitted
to prove a fact in issue.

When is evidence credible?

- It is credible if it is admissible and believable and worthy of belief, such
that it can be used by the courts in deciding a case.
 Equipoise Doctrine in the law of evidence and cite its constitutional and procedural
bases:

The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced
or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. In such case the decision
should be against the party with the burden of proof (Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, G.R. No.
130998, Aug. 10, 2001).

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec.
1, Rule 131).

In criminal cases, the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence is evenly balanced,
the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. (Malana
v. People, G.R. No. 173612, Mar. 26, 2008)
ALIBI
- It is a defense where an accused claims that he was somewhere else at the
time of the commission of the offense. It is one of the weakest defenses an
accused may avail because of the facility with which it can be fabricated, just
like a mere denial (People v. Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003).
- weakest defense
- A categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of
ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over an
alibi (People v. Gingos and Margote, G.R. No. 176632, Sept. 11, 2007).
- When alibi is the defense of the accused, it must be established by positive, clear and
satisfactory evidence.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that:
1. He was somewhere else; and
2. It was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. (People v. Gerones, et.al., G.R. No. L-6595, Oct. 29, 1954)

Out-of-Court Identification
- It is a means of identifying a suspect of a crime and is done thru:
3. Show-ups: where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification;
4. Mug shots: where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect; or
5. Line-ups: where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for
the purpose. (People v. Claudio Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, Oct. 6, 1995)
⮚ The relevance of an eyewitness identification is often decisive of the
conviction or acquittal of an accused. Identification of an accused through
mug shots is one of the established procedures in pinning down criminals.
However, to avoid charges of impermissible suggestion, there should be
nothing in the photograph that would focus attention on a single person
(People v. Villena, G.R. No. 140066, Oct. 14, 2002).

⮚ A police line-up is merely a part of the investigation process by police

investigators to ascertain the identity of offenders or confirm their
identification by a witness to the crime. Police officers are not obliged to
assemble a police line-up as a condition sine qua non to prove the identity
of an offender. If on the basis of the evidence on hand, police officers are
certain of the identity of the offender, they need not require any police
line_x0002_up anymore (Tapdasan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 141344, Nov.
21, 2002).
- END -