LAW ON EVIDENCE
JESS ESPEJO
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.
Thus, the hierarchy is:
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b. Clear and convincing evidence
c. Preponderance of Evidence
d. Substantial evidence
Rule 133, 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.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
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
based on the lectures of ATTY.
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, the 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.
Rule 133, 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.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
It 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.
LAW ON EVIDENCE
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
Rule 133, 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 party’s consent,
otherwise, the latter’s 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
based on the lectures of ATTY. JESS ESPEJO
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 employee’s 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.
LAW ON EVIDENCE
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.
based on the lectures of ATTY. JESS ESPEJO
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.
Rule 133, 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
1. 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 victim’s 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).
2. In robbery or theft, the fact of loss. (People v. Niem, 75 Phil.
668)
3. In arson, the fact of burning, (People v. Marquez, 77 Phil. 83;
People v. Mones, 58 Phil. 46)
4. 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.
LAW ON EVIDENCE based on the lectures of ATTY. JESS ESPEJO

Rule 133, 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.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
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
d. 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.
Rule 133, 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.
Rule 133, 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.

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).
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
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.

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:

a. Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with caution;

b. All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of
guilt;
c. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of the guilt
of the accused; and