Presumption, Burden of Proof and Weight of Evidence

Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that a person is presumed innocent of crime or wrongdoing. This Court
has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary
is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.70

Burden of proof, on the other hand, is defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as 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. In disbarment proceedings, the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof.71

Weight and sufficiency of evidence, under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not determined mathematically by the numerical
superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the
judge trying the case.72

Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear
and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order.73 Considering the
serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.74

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than
that of the other.75 It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.76 Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) 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; (c) the witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that
preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.

When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision
should be against the party with the burden of proof, according to the equipoise doctrine.77

To summarize, the Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys
the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The
evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are
equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.

(SIAO ABA, MIKO LUMABAO, ALMASIS LAUBAN, and BENJAMIN DANDA vs ATTYS. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN, JR., WENCESLAO
PEEWEE TRINIDAD and ANDRESITO FORNIER [A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011])

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/7649.html

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

I. INTRODUCTION
Weight of Evidence: - 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- refers to the adequacy of evidence. Such evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will
legally justify the judicial action demanded or prayed by the parties.

This refers to the question as to whether the evidence amounts or 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
II. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES
1. a). Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b). Clear and convincing proof
c). Preponderance of Evidence
d). Substantial evidence
2. a). Conclusive- overwhelming or incontrovertible
b). Prima Facie- that which suffices until rebutted
c). Probable Cause- as that required for filing of an Information in Court or for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest

III. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED

A. Criminal cases: Proof of Guilt Must be Beyondreasonable doubt.
1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the
inculpatory facts 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 a conviction.
B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This means that he weight, credit and value of the aggregate
evidenced of one is superior to the other

IV. RULES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

1. Courts shall consider and take into consideration : (a) all facts which were presented during the trial
whether testimonial, object, or documentary (b) all facts which were stipulated or judicially admitted (c) those
judicially noticed and (d) all facts which are presumed
2. No extraneous matters shall be considered even if the Court knows them as existing in his personal
capacity
3. In determining the weight and sufficiency of a party’s evidence, the court shall consider :
A.) All the facts and circumstances of the case.
B). The testimonial characteristics of a witness such as:
i). The manner of testifying by a witness which includes his conduct and behavior on the
witness stand, the emphasis, gestures, and inflection of his voice in answering questions.
This is the reason why the rules require the witness to personally testify in open court.
ii). The intelligence of the witness. This refers o this position to perceive by the sue of his
organs of sense, his opportunity for accurate observation and faithful recollection of the facts
to which he is testifying.
This intelligence must be coupled with integrity, a general reputation for truth, honesty
and integrity. This is because a witness to be believed must be truthful in his narration of
correct facts.
iii). The means and opportunity of knowing the facts which includes his presence and
observation of the facts.
iv). The nature of the facts to which the witness is testifying such as: whether he did the act
as a participant, whether he saw the occurrence of an accident as he was a passenger; the
identity of a person who is an old acquaintance; thus as to the circumstances of the birth a
person, the mother would be the best witness on this point mother.
v). The absence or presence of interest or basis for bias or prejudice.
 vi). Personal Credibility of the witness, referring to his general reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity as for example: (i) the case of an young girl who makes a complaint for rape ; as for
instance the accused claiming self defense who is well built, broad shouldered a boxer and
expert in martial arts claiming the victim of assault by an ordinary person
viii). The probability or improbability of the testimony

C. The number of witnesses. However witnesses are to been weighed not numbered because
quantitative superiority does not necessarily mean legal preponderance. Thus an accused may be
convicted based solely on the testimony of one witness.
But where the evidence for both parties is principally testimonial where the version of each
exhibit equal tendency to be true and accurate, and the witnesses have not betrayed themselves by
major contradictions or other indications of falsehood, there exists every reason to measure
preponderance by numerical advantage. .

4. The Court has the power to stop the further presentation of evidence on the same point as when the
additional evidence is only corroborative or the point has already been established, or when it results to
unnecessary delay

5. As to the testimony of a witness:

A). the court must consider everything stated by the witness during the direct, cross, re-direct and
re-cross examinations
B). the testimony of a witness maybe believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on
the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. It is accepted as a
matter of common sense that if certain parts of the testimony are true, his testimony can not be
disregarded entirely.
Contrast this with the so called “Falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus”

6. The Preference of Evidence must be observed in case of conflict:

A). Physical or Object evidence is evidence of the highest order and prevails over contrary
testimonial evidence
B). Documentary over testimonial evidence
C). Positive over negative evidence. E.G. positive identification over alibi; an assertion of the
occurrence of a thing over a plain denial. “Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence.” ( Wa-acon vs.
People, 510 SCRA 429)
D). Direct over circumstantial
E). Testimony in open court over sworn statements or affidavits
F). The “Admitted Facts Rule”- evidence of whatever description must yield to the extent that it
conflicts with admitted or clearly established facts”. Thus courts give superior credit to witnesses
whose testimonies on material points are in accord with facts already established ( Frondarina vs.
Malazarte 510 SCRA 223)

7. Rule in criminal cases

A. For conviction
 i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt i.e. moral
certainty not absolute certainty
ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused
iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt
iv) Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak because conviction must
be on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of
the accused

B. Affirmative Defenses be shown by clear, positive and convincing evidence

C. Two Witness Rule in Treason
D. If conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The requirements under section 4 must be present
i). There must be more than one circumstance
ii). The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
iii). The combination of all such circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt
E. If based on Extra Judicial Confession, same must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti

IV. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Evidence to be believed requires:

A.) That it be credible in itself i.e. such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. Testimony must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to
believe
B). Must come from a credible source- a credible witness is one who testifies in a categorical, straightforward
spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross examination

V. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT by trial court generally accorded respect by appellate courts
as the former have first hand contact with the evidence and were able to observe the witness as they testified.
In matters concerning the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of trial
courts unless they neglected, ignored or misappreciated material and substantial facts, which could materially affect
the results of the case.

VI. 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
wholly or partially on oral testimony or depositions.
A. This refers to collateral issues or motions based on facts not appearing on record such as (i) proof of service
by publication (ii) relief from order of default (iii) Taking of depositions (iv) motion for new trial (v) relief from
judgment (vi) issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
https://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/remedial-law/evidence/1092-weight-and-sufficiency-of-evidence.html
Rule 133: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
RULE 133

Weight and Sufficiency of 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. (1a)

Sec. 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. (2a)

Sec. 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)

Sec. 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. (5)

Sec. 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)

Sec. 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)

Sec. 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)