E.
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION A: Evidence is clear and convincing if it
OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE
Q: Why should the rules on evidence be
liberally construed?
A: These rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. (Rule 1, Sec. 6)
Q: How must the Rules on Electronic
Evidence be construed?
A: Rules on Electronic Evidence shall be
liberally construed to assist the parties in
obtaining a just, expeditious, and inexpensive
determination of cases. (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC,
Rule 2, Sec. 2)
F. QUANTUM OF PROOF
(WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE)
TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2. Preponderance of evidence
3. Substantial evidence
4. Clear and convincing evidence
Q: What is Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
A: Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. (Sec. 2, Rule 133, Revised
Rules on Evidence)
Q: What is Preponderance of Evidence?
A: It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it
means that the testimony of one side is more
believable than that of the other side, and that
the probability of truth is on one side than on the
other. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
115625, 1998)
In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. (Rule 133, Sec. 1)
Q: What is Clear and Convincing Evidence?
produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm
belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be
established. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.,
596)
This is a greater burden than preponderance of
evidence, the standard applied in most civil
trials, but less than evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt, the norm for criminal trials.
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., 596)
Q: What are the instances when clear and
convincing evidence is needed?
A: An accused who invokes self-defense must
prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
(Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, 2014)
In extradition cases, the potential extraditee
must prove by "clear and convincing evidence"
that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all
the orders and processes of the extradition
court. (Gov’t of HK v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675,
2007)
The rule is that charges of misconduct against
judges should be proven by clear and
convincing evidence, otherwise they should be
dismissed. (Pesole v. Rodriguez, A.M. No. 755-
MJ, 1978)
Q: What is Substantial Evidence? (Rule 133,
Sec. 5)
A: In cases filed before administrative and quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial
evidence.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Q: What is Circumstantial Evidence?
A: Circumstantial evidence is competent to
establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused, and not someone else, was
responsible for the killing.
For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict
an accused, the following requisites must
concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this
case, these requisites for circumstantial
evidence to sustain a conviction are present.
(People v. Oandasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605,
2016) (San Diego v. CA, G.R. No. 176114, April
8, 2015)