PREPARED BY ATTY.

FLORANTE ZAGADA ONLY FOR THE STUDENTS OF PHIL

CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL OF LAW.

RULE 133

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE


SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In civil cases, the
party having the 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 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. (1 a)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN CIVIL CASES Preponderance of
evidence.

What is PREPONDENRANCE OF EVIDENCE it is a quantum of evidence in a
civil case required in establishing his case. It also means the greater or
superior weight of evidence. It is an evidence which is more convincing and
more credible that the one offered by the adverse party. It is an evidence
adduced by one side which is more superior or has greater weight than the
other.

Preponderance of evidence is 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 the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis,
means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

WHO IS THE PARTY OBLIGED TO ESTABLISH SUCH PREPONDENRANCE OF
EVIDENCE? It is a party who has the burden of proof. As in the case of a
plaintiff, he shall establish by preponderance of evidence his cause of action
while the defendant has the burden of proof to establish his defense.

WHAT ARE THE THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN
DETERMINING THE PREPONDENRANCE OF EVIDENCE?

1. All the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means
and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying.
3. The nature of the facts to which they testify.
4. 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.
5. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1 a)


Preponderance of evidence is not based on the QUANTITY OF EVIDENCE but
the QUALITY of the testimony. While the court may consider the number of
witnesses, the quality of the testimony of the witnesses must take precedence.
One witness as long as he is credible is sufficient to establish the quantum of
proof that three witnesses whose testimonies are superficial and doubtful.



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 as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only
is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. (2a)

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES: Proof Beyond Reasonable
Doubt.

What is Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt? It does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind. It does not mean such a degree of proof that excludes
all possibility of error. Only moral certainty is required.

Every accused is entitled to constitutional right of presumption of innocence
until the contrary is proved. Prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of
accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It should not rely on the weakness
of evidence of the defense but it must prove its case. (Ubales vs. People, G.R.
No. 175692, October 29, 2008) However, if the defense invokes self defense, the
burden of proof rests upon the defense to prove the killing was justified. (
People vs. Tan, 315 SCRA 75)


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. (3)




What is extra-judicial confession? Extrajudicial Confession is a confession
made out of court, and not as a part of a judicial examination or investigation.
Such a confession must be corroborated by some other proof of the corpus
delicti, or else it is insufficient to warrant a conviction.

What is a CORPUS DELICTI? Corpus delicti has been defined as the body,
foundation, or substance of a crime. The evidence of a dead body with a
gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder has been
committed. Corpus delicti has two elements: (a) that a certain result has been
established, for example, that a man has died and (b) that some person is
criminally responsible for it. The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus
delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
or presumptive evidence.
[4]


The defense claims that the prosecution failed to prove corpus
delicti since it did not bother to present a medical certificate identifying the
remains found at the dump site and an autopsy report showing such remains
sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death; and the shells of
the guns used in killing the victim. But corpus delicti need not be proved by an
autopsy report of the dead victims body or even by the testimony of the
physician who examined such body.
[5]
While such report or testimony is useful
for understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered, they are not
indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death.
[6]
Nor is the
presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable since the physical
existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime of murder.
[7]
(People
vs. Rumulo Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710, January 19, 2010.)


SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if;

(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(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. (5)

Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the only matrix
wherefrom a court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. The rules on
evidence and case law sustain the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence.

Otherwise stated, in finding guilt of the accused, the court does not only draw
its conclusion from direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence present in
the commission of the crime.
What is Circumstantial evidence? According to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules
of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(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.
[



Circumstantial evidence as basis and weight: Direct evidence of the
commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding
of guilt, because established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead
the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a
conviction. Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence sustain
the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, defined as that
which "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-
finder draws from the evidence established."

Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in
setting a felon free. It is not a weaker form of evidence vis--vis direct evidence.
Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, circumstantial
evidence may surpass direct evidence in weight and probative force.

Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states that circumstantial evidence
suffices to convict if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

After a careful review of the records of this case, we find that, when viewed as a
whole, the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution points unerringly
to the culpability of appellant Norberto Delim as one of the persons responsible
for the killing of the victim, Modesto Delim. Indeed, the combination of the
circumstances which comprised such evidence forms an unbroken chain that
points to appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL
DELIM alias "BONG," NORBERTO DELIM and RONALD DELIM alias "BONG,"
accused, NORBERTO DELIM, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 175942, September
13, 2007)




Circumstantial evidence, as a basis for conviction of a crime, should be acted
on and weighed with great caution, particularly where the crime is heinous
and the penalty is death, as in the instant cases. In determining the
sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, each case is to
be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the facts and
circumstances are to be considered together as a whole, and, when so
considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction, although one or more
of the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose. [23
CJS p. 555]. No general rule has been formulated as to the quantity of
circumstantial evidence which will suffice for any case, but that matters not.
For all that is required is that the circumstances proved must be consistent
with each other, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that
he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
[People v. Contante, 12 SCRA 653].

The requirements for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are
present in this case. The aforementioned circumstances constitute an
unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to
the guilt of the accused Jara beyond reasonable doubt [See US v. Villos, 6
Phil. 510; People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692]. Mere denials of the accused as to
his participation in the crime are only self-serving negative evidence which
cannot outweigh circumstantial evidence clearly establishing his active
participation in the crime.cralaw



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. (n)


QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE or QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES.
Substantial evidence is required.



What is substantial evidence? It is a fact established that constitutes
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. It refers to evidence that a reasonable mind
could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Substantial evidence is defined as "more than a scintilla but less than
preponderance," and consists of "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Mareno v. Apfel,
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8575 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 8, 1999)

Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence
rule. Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have
to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the
respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint.
[13]
Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine
otherwise. (Rosario Dadulo vs. vs. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 17545, April 13, 2007)

Employer and employee relationship should be proved by substantial evidence:

No particular form of evidence is required to prove the
existence of such employer-employee relationship. Any competent
and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be
admitted. Hence, while no particular form of evidence is required, a
finding that such relationship exists must still rest on some
substantial evidence. Moreover, the substantiality of the evidence
depends on its quantitative as well as
its qualitative aspects. Although substantial evidence is not a
function of quantity but rather of quality, the x x x circumstances
of the instant case demand that something more should have been
proffered. Had there been other proofs of employment, such as x x
x inclusion in petitioners payroll, or a clear exercise of control, the
Court would have affirmed the finding of employer-employee
relationship. (Bitoy Javier vs. Fly Ace Corporation, GR. NO. 192558,
Feb. 15, 2012)



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. (6)

Can the court stop further presentation of evidence? Yes, on the following
ground - 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 of the court 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. (7)

Self explanatory