Evidence

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION:
Rpc bk 1 1-113
Bk 2 114-365
Rules of court rule 110-rule 127 crim pro
Rule128 -135 evidence

Probable cause
A. Importance of the study of Evidence in Law Enforcement:
As an element of our Criminal Justice System, it is the duty of every law enforcement
agencies to provide the prosecution with the materials and information (Evidence)
necessary in order to support conviction.
acquittal
Every person is entitled to be presumed innocent of a crime or wrong, unless proven
otherwise. This is a prima facie presumption which must be overcome by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION The presumption of innocence is the principle that
one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the
Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on
the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
B. Connecting the chain of events through Evidence during Trial:
Trial refers to “the examination before a competent tribunal, according to the laws of the
land, of the facts in issue in a cause, for the purposes of determining such issue” (U.S. v.
Raymundo, 14 Phil 416).

Evidence helps in the determination of Questions of Facts by helping the judge reconstruct
the chain of events from the conception up to the consummation of a criminal design.
QUESTIONS OF FACTS Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically
states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set
forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of
the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact.
A question of law in a murder case is whether the facts adduced at trial can constitute
Murder or a lesser crime. A question of fact is whether TESTIMONY will support a
factual basis for sustaining a Murder charge based upon the testimony.
discernment

An example of a question of fact is a person says they saw the Defendant shoot somebody
and another person says they saw somebody else do the shooting. Its left up to the trier of
fact, usually a jury, to decide which testimony they want to accept as "fact."
An example of a conflict of law may be whether a Defendant can be charged with
Attempted Murder and Assault 1st. Both result in serious physical injury, but one has a
different intent than the other and a Defendant can't have both states of mind
simultaneously. This happened in a case that is presently pending in New York and the DA
dismissed the Attempted Murder charge before the case went to the jury because both
charges couldn't stand at the same time before the jury.
C. Factum Probandum and Factum Probans

Factum Probandum – The ultimate facts to be proven. These are the propositions of
question of law.
Examples:
• murder was committed thru treachery
• robbery was made through force upon things

Factum Probans – The evidentiary Facts. These addresses questions of fact.

Examples:
• exit wounds were in front indicating that victim was shot at the back
• destroyed locks indicative of force upon things

Thus, the outcome of every trial is determined by:

• Propositions of law, and

• Questions of fact.

D. Proof and Evidence

Evidence – the means to arrive at a conclusion. Under the Revised Rules of Court, evidence
is defined as “the means, sanctioned by the rules, for ascertainment in a judicial proceeding,
the truth, respecting a matter of fact”.

Proof – the result of introducing evidence. The establishment of a requisite degree of belief
in the mind of the judge as to the facts in issue. It refers to the accumulation of evidence
sufficient to persuade the trial court.

Quantum of evidence – the totality of evidence presented for consideration. The quantum
of evidence is the amount of evidence needed;

Quantum of proof – refers to the degree of proof required in order to arrive at a

conclusion. The quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered.
Burden of evidence – the duty of a party of going forward with evidence.
burden of evidence connotes the burden of going forward with the evidence or that logical
necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima
facie case in his favor, or to overthrow one when created against him.
PRIMA FACIE Prima facie evidence is a legal term used to mean that you have enough
evidence to prove something by pointing to some basic facts, but that your proof can be
refuted.

Prima Facie in a Criminal Case

Before an individual can be tried on criminal charges, a preliminary hearing must be held
so that the court can determine whether there is sufficient cause to continue to trial. During
this prima facie stage of the legal process, it is only necessary to present some credible
evidence of each element of the case. By contrast, successfully prosecuting the defendant
during trial requires that he is guilty of each element of the crime be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
When an individual is being tried on criminal charges, the prosecutor has the burden of
presenting a prima facie case, proving each and every element of the crime.
For example:
Angelo has been charged with burglary of Stephanie’s home. At trial, the prosecutor must
present evidence that Angelo entered into the home without authorization, which is just
one element of the crime of burglary. The prosecutor presents testimony that Angelo and
Stephanie had an argument at work, during which Angelo flung some vague threats. A few
weeks following the burglary, Angelo was found to possess one of the items stolen from
Stephanie’s home.
While Angelo having possession of an item belonging to Stephanie is suspicious, and may
be evidence of some other crime, such as possession of stolen property, it is not in itself
evidence of a burglary. There were no witnesses, and no evidence that Angelo was ever in
Stephanie’s home. The defendant could request the charge of burglary be dismissed, or
that the judge order a directed verdict, based on the prosecution’s failure to present a
prima facie case for burglary, without ever having to present any evidence of his own.
Burden of proof – the duty of the affirmative to prove that which it alleges.
By burden of proof is meant the obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence
of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action to establish it by
proof. Under the Rules, it 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. It
means the burden of establishing a case, whether by a preponderance of the evidence, or
beyond a reasonable doubt, or by substantial evidence.

Variations on degrees of proof based on type of action:

1. Criminal Action – proof beyond reasonable doubt [that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind]
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT A related idea is Blackstone's formulation "It
is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Beyond a reasonable
doubt is the highest burden of proof in any court in the United States. Criminal cases must
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Civil Action – preponderance of evidence [evidence of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered to refute it]
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant
must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In
civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of
the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).
3. Administrative Action – sufficiency of evidence [that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion]

E. Exclusionary Rule. (Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)

Evidence ILLEGALLY OBTAINED are inadmissible for reasons of public policy. This is
so because of the constitutional requirement of due process. Due process has been defined
as “the law that hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after fair trial”.

As a result, jurisprudence has evolved a rule that renders inadmissible any evidence
obtained in an illegal search from being introduced in trial.

F. Principle of Chain of Custody of Evidence

If the evidence is of a type which cannot be easily recognized or can readily be confused or
tampered with, the proponent of the object must present evidence of its chain of custody.
The proponent need not negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering in the chain of
custody, but must show that:
The evidence is identified as the same object which was taken from the scene;
It was not tampered with, or that any alteration can be sufficiently explained (i.e.
discoloration due to the application of ninhydrine solution, etc.); and
The persons who have handled the evidence are known and may be examined in court with
regard to the object.

II. GENERAL PROVISIONS:

A. Concepts of evidence:

1. It is a means of ascertainment – used to arrive at a legal conclusion

2. It is sanctioned by the rules of court – meaning, not excluded by the rules on relevancy
and admissibility
3. It is used in a judicial proceeding – there is a jural conflict involving different rights
asserted by different parties
4. It pertains to the truth respecting a matter of fact – evidence represents a “claim”
either for the prosecution or for the defense where issues (clashes of view) are present.

Admissibility of Evidence:

For evidence to be admissible, it must be:

1) relevant to the issue [relevancy test], and
2) not excluded by the law or rules of court [competency test].

Note: To determine the relevancy of any item of proof, the purpose for which it is sought
to be introduced must first be known (There must be a formal offer).

Test of relevancy of evidence:

Whether or not the factual information tendered for evaluation of the trial court would be
helpful in the determination of the factual issue that is disputed.

When is evidence relevant?

When it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in it’s:

1) existence, or
2) non-existence

In other words, evidence is relevant when it is:

1) material, and
2) has probative value

What is meant by “probative value”?

It is the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.
“Collateral Matters” not admissible except when it tend in any reasonable degree to
establish probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Collateral matters – matters other than the fact in issue and which are offered as a basis
for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.

Collateral matters are classified into:

1. Antecedent circumstances – facts existing before the commission of the crime [i.e.
hatred, bad moral character of the offender, previous plan, conspiracy, etc.]
2. Concomitant circumstances – facts existing during the commission of the crime [i.e.
opportunity, presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, etc.]
3. Subsequent circumstances – facts existing after the commission of the crime [i.e. flight,
extrajudicial admission to third party, attempt to conceal effects of the crime, possession of
stolen property, etc.]
Query: Is modus operandi an antecedent, concomitant or subsequent circumstance?

B. Judicial Notice, basis of:

Judicial notice is based on necessity and expediency. This is so because what is known need
not be proved.

Different kinds of judicial notices:

1. mandatory
2. discretionary
3. hearing required

C. Confession and Admission, distinguished:

Confession – an acknowledgement of guilt.
Admission – an acknowledgment of facts.
Different kinds of confession/admission:
1. Judicial
2. Extrajudicial
3. Oral
4. Written
5. Voluntary
6. Forced

Different kinds of evidence:

1. Relevant evidence – evidence having any value in reason as tending
to prove any matter provable in an action.
2. Material evidence – evidence is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as
determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings.
3. Competent evidence – not excluded by law.
4. Direct evidence – proves the fact in issue without aid of inference or presumptions.
5. Circumstantial evidence - the proof of fact or facts from which, taken either singly or
collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as necessary or
probable consequence.
6. Positive evidence – evidence which affirms a fact in issue.
7. Negative evidence - evidence which denies the existence of a fact in issue.
8. Rebutting evidence – given to repel, counter act or disprove facts given in evidence by
the other party.
9. Primary/Best evidence – that which the law regards as affording the greatest certainty.
10. Secondary evidence – that which indicates the existence of a more original source of
information.
11. Expert evidence – the testimony of one possessing knowledge not usually acquired by
other persons.
12. Prima facie evidence – evidence which can stand alone to support a conviction unless
rebutted.
13. Conclusive evidence – incontrovertible evidence
14. Cumulative evidence – additional evidence of the same kind bearing on the same point.
15. Corroborative evidence – additional evidence of a different kind and character tending
to prove the same point as that of previously offered evidence.
16. Character evidence – evidence of a person’s moral standing or personality traits in a
community based on reputation or opinion.
17. Demeanor evidence – the behavior of a witness on the witness stand during trial to be
considered by the judge on the issue of credibility.
18. Demonstrative evidence – evidence that has tangible and exemplifying purpose.
19. Hearsay evidence – oral testimony or documentary evidence which
does not derive its value solely from the credit to be attached to the
witness himself.
20.Testimonial evidence – oral averments given in open court by
the witness.
21. Object/Auotoptic proferrence/Real evidence – those addressed to
the senses of the court (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste).
22. Documentary evidence – those consisting of writing or any material
of written expression offered as proof of its contents.
 containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes

Best Evidence Rule:

When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original of the document.

For exceptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.

A document is legally considered “Original” when:

1. It is the subject of an inquiry
2. When in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents.
3. When an entry is repeated in ordinary course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction.

Question: May a “fake” document be considered as “original” or “authentic”?

Yes. A forged or spurious document when presented in court for examination is considered
as the original fake/forged document. Thus, a mere photocopy of the allegedly forged or
spurious document is only secondary to the original questioned document.

Secondary Evidence
When the original document has been:
1. lost,
2. destroyed, or
3. cannot be produced in court.

The offeror without bad faith must:

1. prove its execution or existence, and
2. prove the cause of its unavailability.

Secondary evidence may consist of:

1. a copy,
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
3. by testimony of witnesses.

When original document is in the custody of:

1. adverse party – adverse party must have reasonable notice to produce it. After such
notice and satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce it, secondary evidence may
be presented.
2. public officer – contents may be proved by certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof.

III. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:

Qualifications of witnesses:
1. can perceive
2. can make known their perception to others
3. not disqualified by reason of mental incapacity, immaturity, marriage, privileged
communications, or “dead man’s statute”.

“Res Inter Alios Acta” Rule

General Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another.

Exception:
1. admission by a co-partner or agent
2. admission by a conspirator
3. admission by privies
4. admission by silence

In the above cases, the admission of one person is admissible as evidence against another.
Testimonial Knowledge:
General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. Any statement which
derives its strength from another’s personal knowledge is hearsay, and is therefore
inadmissible.

Exceptions:
1. Dying declarations (ante-mortem statements)
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Part of the res gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treatises
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
12. Examination of child victim/witness in cases of child abuse

IV. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS:

Burden of proof – 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.

Presumption – an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its
usual connection with another which is known or a conjecture based on past experience as
to what course human affairs ordinarily take.

2 kinds of presumptions:
1. Conclusive presumptions [jure et de jure] – based on rules of substantive law which
cannot be overcome by evidence to the contrary.
2. Disputable presumptions [prima facie presumptions, rebuttable presumptions] – based
on procedural rules and may be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

Kinds of Conclusive Presumptions:

1. Estoppel by record or judgment – the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth
in a record, whether judicial or legislative, and also deny the facts adjudicated by a court of
competent jurisdiction (Salud v. CA, 233 SCRA 387).
2. Estoppel by deed – a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from
asserting as against the other and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed or
denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it (Iriola v. Felices, 30 SCRA 202).
3. Estoppel in pais – based upon express representation or statements or upon positive
acts or conduct. A party cannot, in the course of litigation or in dealings in pais, be
permitted to repudiate his representation or occupy inconsistent positions.
4. Estoppel against Tenant – 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.

Note: For Kinds of disputable presumptions, see Sec. 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Presentation of Evidence:
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done is open court,
and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the answer of the witness shall be given orally.

Rights and Obligations of witnesses:

1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions,
and from harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty
for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation,
 unless it be to the very fact at issue or to the fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed,but a witness must answer to the
facts of his previous final conviction for an offense.

Order of Examination of individual witnesses:

Direct examination by the proponent
Cross examination by the opponent
Re-direct examination by the proponent
Re-cross examination by the opponent

Direct examination – the examination in chief of a witness by the party presenting him on
the facts relevant to the issue.
Cross examination – the examination by the adverse party of the witness as to any matter
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue.
Re-direct examination – second questioning by the proponent to explain or supplement
answers given in the cross examination.
Re-cross examination – second questioning by the adverse party on matters stated on the
re-direct and also on such matters as may be allowed by court.

Different Types of Questions:

Leading questions –It is one where the answer is already supplied by the examiner into the
mouth of the witness. [Ex. You saw Jose killed Juan because you were present when it
happened, didn’t you?]
Misleading question – a question which cannot be answered without making an unintended
admission. [Ex. Do you still beat your wife?]
Compound question – a question which calls for a single answer to more than one question.
[Ex. Have you seen and heard him?]
Argumentative question – a type of leading question which reflects the examiners
interpretation of the facts. [Ex. Why were you driving carelessly?]
Speculative question – a question which assumes a disputed fact not stated by the witness
as true. [Ex. The victim cried in pain, didn’t he?]
Conclusionary question – a question which asks for an opinion which the witness is not
qualified or permitted to answer. [Ex. Asking a high school drop-out whether the gun used
is a Cal. 45 pistol or 9mm pistol]
Cumulative question – a question which has already been asked and answered.
Harassing/Embarrassing question – [Ex. Are you a homosexual?]

Classes of Documents:
Documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or a foreign country.
2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments.
3. Public records (1) kept in the Philippines, or private documents (2) required by law to
be entered therein.
All other writings are private.

SOME USEFUL LATIN TERMS AND LEGAL MAXIMS:

Verba legis non est decendendum – from the words of the law there can be no departure.

Dura lex sed lex – the law may be harsh but it is the law.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat – ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Ignorantia facti excusat – mistake of fact excuses.

Praeter intentionem – different from that which was intended.

Error in personae – mistake in identity.

Abberatio Ictus – mistake in the blow

Nulum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing the
same.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal where the mind is not
criminal.

Actus mi invictu reus, nisi mens facit reum – an act done by me against my will is not my
act.

Mens rea – guilty mind.

Actus reus – guilty act.

Res ipsa loquitor – the thing speaks for itself.

Causa Proxima – proximate cause which produced the immediate

effect.

Prima facie – at first glance.

Locus Criminis – scene of the crime or crime scene.

Pro Reo – principle in Criminal Law which states that where the statute admits of several
interpretations, the one most favorable to the accused shall be adopted.

Res Gestae – the thing itself.

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus -– false in one part of the statement would render the
entire statement false (note: this maxim is not recognized in our jurisdiction).

Evidence - Definition of Terms: Next Page

Related Readings:
1. Criminal Jurisprudence Reviewer 1
2. Criminal Jurisprudence Review Questions

Evidence - Definition of Terms

Admissible evidence - Evidence that is both relevant and
competent.

Admissions - Any statement of fact made by a party against his

interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends
or is inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

Best Evidence Rule - When the subject of inquiry is the contents

of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself.

Burden of Proof - Duty of a party to present evidence on the

facts in issue necessary to establish his claim/defense by the
amount required by law.

Child Witness - Any person who at the time of giving testimony

is less than 18 years old.

Circumstantial Evidence - Proof of fact/s from which, taken

singly/collectively, the existence of the particular fact in
dispute may be inferred as a necessary/probable consequence.
It is evidence of relevant collateral facts.

Collateral Matters - Matters other than the fact in issue and which
are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue.

Competence - Evidence is not excluded by law or Rules of Court.

Conclusive Evidence - That class of evidence which the law does

not allow to be contradicted.

Confession - A categorical acknowledgment of guilt made by an

accused in a criminal case without any exculpatory statement
or explanation.
Corroborative Evidence - Additional evidence of a different
character to the same point.

Cumulative Evidence - Evidence of the same kind and to the

same state of facts.

Direct Evidence - Proves the fact in dispute without aid of any

inference or presumption.

Documentary Evidence : Writings or any material containing

letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their content.

Electronic Data Message - Information generated, sent, received

or stored by electronic, optical or similar means

Electronic Document - Information or the representation of

information/data/figures/symbols or other modes of written
expression described or however represented, by which a right
is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact
may be proved and affirmed, which is received/recorded/
transmitted/stored/processed/retrieved/produced electronically.
It includes digitally signed documents and any print out or output,
readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document.

Electronic Signature - Any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or

sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person
and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any methodology/
procedure employed/adopted by a person and executed/adopted
by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or electronic document.

Ephemeral Electronic Communication - Refers to telephone

conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded/retained.

Extra Judicial Admission - Any admission other than judicial.

Factum probandum – ultimate fact or the fact sought to be

established.
Factum probans – evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum probandum is
to be established.

Judicial Admissions - Admissions, verbal or written, made by

the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
It requires no proof.

Negative Evidence - When witness states that he did not see or

know of the occurrence of a fact (total disclaimer of personal
knowledge).

Object Evidence - Directly addressed to the senses of the court.

Also called real evidence.

Parol Evidence Rule - Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or

written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a
document.

Pedigree - Relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,

death, the dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It also embraces facts
of family history intimately connected with pedigree.

Positive Evidence - When a witness affirms that a fact did or did

not occur (there is personal knowledge).

Preponderance of Evidence - The evidence adduced by one

side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that
of the other. Where the evidence presented by one side is
insufficient to ascertain the claim, there is no
preponderance of evidence.

Prima Facie Evidence - That which, standing alone, is sufficient

to maintain the proposition affirmed.

Primary Evidence - (Best Evidence) - That which the law regards

as affording greatest certainty of the fact in question.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - That degree of proof which

produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It does not mean
such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required
– that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Relevance - Evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief of its existence or non-existence.

Res Gestae - It literally means “Things done”.

1) Statements made by a person while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto, with respect to the
circumstances thereof.
2) Statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance.

Res Inter Alios Acta - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced

by an act/declaration/omission of another.
Secondary Evidence - (Substitutionary) - That which is inferior to
the primary evidence and is permitted by law only when the best
evidence is not available.

Substantial Evidence - The amount of relevant evidence which

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

Testimonial Evidence - Submitted to the court through the

testimony or deposition of a witness.

Criminal Jurisprudence Definition of Terms: Next Page

Related Pages:
1. Crime Detection
2. Criminal Sociology
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

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 Beyond

reasonable 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