RULE 133

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.............1

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE..............................................1
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE......................................1
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE........................1
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE...........................1
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.................3
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION...............................4
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CONFESSION...........................6
WEIGHT ON THE OPINION OF THE EXPERT WITNESS 7
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE......................................7
AMPARO PROCEEDING............................................8
SLAPP.......................................................................8
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.....................9
POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER EVIDENCE 9
RULE ON EVIDENCE ON MOTION..........................9

TESTIMONY
OF A
> AFFIDAVIT

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF WITNESS

EVIDENCE
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
The concept that the evidence submitted may have
its own probative value but in the appreciation
The balance or preponderance of evidence; the
thereof proper degrees are considered by the court.
inclination of the greater amount of credible
(Arroyo us. El Beaterio)
evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the
issue rather
AS BETWEEN POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
than the other. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
AND INCOMPLETE ENTRY IN THE POLICE
BLOTTER, WHICH HAS MORE WEIGHT?
It is the probative value or credit that the court gives
The incomplete blotter cannot overcome the
to a particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in
positive identification of the perpetrator.
issue, and particular evidence is admitted only if it
is relevant and it is not excluded by law or the rules.
POSITIVE
IDENTIFICATI
> INCOMPLETE
POLICE
ON BLOTTER
IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN
AFFIDAVIT AND TESTIMONY WHICH HAS
MORE WEIGHT? HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE
In case of inconsistency between the affidavit and
the testimony of a witness, the latter should be The hierarchy of evidentiary value shall be
given more weight. 1) Proof beyond reasonable doubt,
2) Clear and convincing evidence,
 3) Preponderance of evidence, and It refers to evidence that is of greater weight or
4) Substantial evidence. more convincing, than that which is offered in
opposition to it.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
SECTION 1, RULE 133 WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN
CIVIL CASES?
Preponderance of Evidence, How Determined. —
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof In civil cases, the party having the burden of
must establish his or her case by a preponderance proof must establish his case by a preponderance
of evidence. In determining where the of evidence.
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on
the issues involved lies, the court may consider all In CRIMINAL CASES - the burden of proof lies in the
the facts and circumstances of the case, the party prosecution;
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to In CIVIL CASES - the burden of proof lies in the party
who substantially ASSERTS THE AFFIRMATIVE
which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to allegations.
which they testify, the probability or improbability
of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
and also their personal credibility so far as the DETERMINING PREPONDERANCE OF
same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The EVIDENCE
court may also consider the number of witnesses,
though the preponderance is not necessarily with In determining where the preponderance or superior
the greater number. weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider:
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
1) All the facts and circumstances of the case;
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is 2) The witnesses' manner of testifying;
usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" credible evidence." 3) Their intelligence;
CHARACTERISTIC OF PREPONDERANCE 4) Their means and opportunity of knowing the
OF EVIDENCE facts to which they are testifying;
It is evidence which is more convincing to the 5) The nature of the facts to which they testify;
court as worthy of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.
6) The probability or improbability of their
testimony;
HOW TO PROVE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP
OVER AN UNTITLED LAND?
7) Their interest or want of interest; and
The rule is that tax declarations and receipts are
8) Also their personal credibility so far as the
NOT conclusive evidence of ownership or of the
same may legitimately appear upon the trial;
right to possess a land when not supported by any
other evidence. These are merely indicia of a claim
9) The court may also consider the number of
of ownership.
witnesses, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number.
CONCEPT OF PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE
WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN
CASE OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE? WHAT IS
THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE?
 FRAUD OR MISTAKE
BURDEN OF Party alleging fraud or
PROOF mistake BURDEN QUANTUM
QUANTUM OF preponderance of OF PROOF OF PROOF
EVIDENCE evidence. CIVIL Party who Preponderance of
substantially evidence
Party alleging fraud or mistake has the burden of asserts the
proving the same by preponderance of evidence. affirmative
allegations.
CRIMINAL Party Proof beyond
EFFECT IF THE PARTY WAS NOT ABLE TO prosecution reasonable
ESTABLISH THE CASE BY ADMINISTRAVE Substantial
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE evidence
Amparo Substantial
In civil cases case if the plaintiff was not able to Proceeding evidence
prove his claim by preponderance of evidence, the FRAUD OR Party alleging preponderance
defendant may file a DEMURRER TO MISTAKE fraud or of evidence
EVIDENCE based on insufficiency of evidence. mistake
FORGERY one who preponderance
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE alleges of evidence
DOUBT forgery
SECTION 2, RULE 133 PAYMENT ONE WHO
PLEADS
PAYMENT
Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt. — In a criminal STATUTOR prosecution
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless Y RAPE must prove
his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such 1) the age of
a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, the
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is complainant,
required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 2) the
identity of
CONCEPT OF PROOF BEYOND the accused,
REASONABLE and

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an 3) the sexual

acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond intercourse
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt between the
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding accused and
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. the
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of complainant
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced ill-gotten REPUBLIC
mind. wealth
foreclosure mortgagor-
SOURCE OF THE QUANTUM OF PROOF proceeding of party litigant.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT the properties
were not
The quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt validly
springs from no less than the Bill of Rights, which conducted
recognizes every person's right to be presumed actual reasonable
innocent until proven otherwise. degree of
 damages, certainty. CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS NOT
NECESSARY TO FIND JUST CAUSE FOR
THE TERMINATION OF AN EMPLOYEE
frame-up must accused clear and
be convincing RATIONALE: The dismissal of criminal case does
evidence. NOT carry with it dismissal of administrative case
evident clear evidence
premeditation EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
SECTION 3, RULE 133
HOW TO PROVE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for
conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by
To secure conviction, the prosecution must an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
overcome this presumption by presenting evidence conviction, unless corroborated by evidence
of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of of corpus delicti.
the crime charged.
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION IN A
CRIMINAL CASE A declaration made at any time by a person,
voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement,
Proof beyond reasonable doubt imposes upon the stating or acknowledging that he has committed or
prosecution the burden of proving an accused's participated in the commission of a crime. (People
guilt through the strength of its own evidence. of the Philippines vs. Mojica)

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT REQUIREMENT IN ORDER THAT

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION SHALL BE
Such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of A GROUND FOR CONVICTION
error, produces absolute certainty.
GENERAL RULE: An extrajudicial confession
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO made by an accused, shall not be
OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF sufficient ground for conviction,
GUILTLESSNESS
EXCEPTION: Extrajudicial confession made by an
In order to overcome the presumption of accused, shall be sufficient ground for
guiltlessness, it must pass the test of relevancy conviction, if CORROBORATED BY
and competency in accordance with Sec. 3, Rule EVIDENCE OF CORPUS DELICTI.
128 of the Rules of Court.
CORPUS DELICTI
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER THAT AN
UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF A Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission
LONE WITNESS WILL PROVE THE GUILT of the crime charged or to the body or substance of
OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE the crime.
DOUBT
CORPUS DELICTI CAN BE ESTABLISHED
Well-settled is the principle that the testimony of a BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE
single witness in a simple, spontaneous, categorical CRIME OF THEFT
and straightforward manner, not motivated by ill-
will which could have impelled him to falsely if the elements that the property was lost by the
testify against the accused, and positive owner, and that it was lost by felonious taking.
identification of the accused is sufficient to convict
him.
WHAT IS THE CORPUS DELICTI IN THE 3) Any confession or admission obtained in
PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS? violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case,
constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON RIGHT
in sustaining a conviction under R.A. 9165. AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION - Sec. 17,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT
CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Confession in order to be admissible must concur
with the following requisites: PRINCIPLE OF INTERLOCKING
CONFESSION WHAT IS ITS NATURE AND
1) The confession must involve an express and BINDING EFFECT AGAINST A CO-
categorical acknowledgment of guilt. ACCUSED?
(U.S. vs. Corrales)
Extrajudicial confessions were independently made
2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of a without collusion, are identical with each other in
criminal offense. (U.S. Us. Flores) their material respects and confirmatory of the
other.
3) The confession must have been given
voluntarily and intelligently. (People us. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN
Nishima) CASE OF CONFESSION?

4) There must be no violation of the Confession must be voluntary and the burden of
constitutional rights of the accused under proof rests on the DEFENSE to prove that it was
Sec. 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine involuntarily done.
Constitution.
RATIONALE FOR THE INADMISSIBILITY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON OF INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION- Sec. 12,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The reason for the inadmissibility of an involuntary
confession is that they are unreliable, and on the
Section 12. grounds of humanitarian consideration, and it is
violative of the constitutional right against self-
1) Any person under investigation for the incrimination.
commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain BINDING EFFECT OF AN EXTRAJUDICIAL
silent and to have competent and CONFESSION
independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the GENERAL RULE: extrajudicial confession is
services of counsel, he must be provided binding only on the accused and not on
with one. These rights cannot be waived his co-accused:
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. EXCEPTIONS: If the latter did impliedly
2) No torture, force, violence, threat, acquiesce in or adopt said confession by
intimidation, or any other means which not questioning its truthfulness as where
vitiate the free will shall be used against it was made in his presence and he did
him. Secret detention places, solitary, not remonstrate against his being
incommunicado, or other similar forms of implicated therein.
detention are prohibited.
EFFECT IF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL
CONFESSION WAS REPEATED IN COURT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION

Extrajudicial confession made by a co-conspirator Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

becomes JUDICIAL ADMISSION if he repeats conviction if:
the same in court.
a) There is more than one (1) circumstances;
EFFECT IF THE ACCUSED SIGNED THE
RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED BY b) The facts from which the inferences are
VIRTUE OF A SEARCH WARRANT derived are proven; and

Signature of the accused in the receipt of the c) The combination of all the circumstances is
property seized considered as extra judicial such as to produce a conviction beyond
confession which is done without counsel, and reasonable doubt.
therefore inadmissible in evidence
THE FOLLOWING CAN BE ESTABLISHED
Signature of extra judicial BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
the accused confession 1) Crimes of robbery and carnapping
in the  which is done = INADMISSIB 2) Conspiracy
receipt of without LE in evidence
the property counsel
3) Penetration in the crime of rape
seized 4) Positive Identification

BINDING EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE vs DIRECT

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION EVIDENCE

Extrajudicial confession is binding only on the The difference between direct evidence and
confessant. circumstantial evidence involves the relationship of
the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CONFESSION offense. Their difference does not relate to the
SECTION 4, RULE 133 probative value of the evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence, When Sufficient - CRIMES OF ROBBERY AND CARNAPPING

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction CAN BE PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL
if: EVIDENCE provided the requisites must be
proven.
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are REQUIREMENT IN ORDER THAT
derived are proven; and CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL BE
SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT
c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond Circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support
reasonable doubt. conviction, all circumstances must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. the accused is guilty and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent,
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and with every other rational hypothesis except that
of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence
that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an CONSPIRACY CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY
inference which the fact-finder draws from the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE if it will
evidence established. constitute an unbroken chain that leads to one fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, d) Such other factors as the court may deem
to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. helpful to make such determination

PENETRATION IN THE CRIME OF RAPE This is a new insertion. It provides that in case of
CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL opinion of expert witness, the court has a wide
EVIDENCE in the absence of direct evidence. latitude of discretion in determining the weight of
evidence to be given to such opinion. Even prior to
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION MAY BE this amendment, such rule was already settled by
PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE jurisprudence. The opinion of an expert witness or
when the accused is last seen with the victim expert evidence is admissible, but such testimony is
immediately before or after the crime. merely persuasive and are not binding upon the
courts. (Orense, Jr. v. Recasas, G.R. No. 199992
WHEN IS MOTIVE MATERIAL IN THE (Notice), 19 April 2017) Courts may place whatever
PROSECUTION OF THE CASE weight they may choose upon such testimonies in
accordance with the facts of the case. The relative
Motive becomes material when the evidence is weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is some peculiarly within the province of the trial court to
doubt on whether a crime has been committed or decide, considering the ability and character of the
whether the accused has committed it. witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the
weight and process of the reasoning by which he
EFFECT IF THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor
ESTABLISH THE UNBROKEN CHAIN OF of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a
CIRCUMSTANCES paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and
observation of the matters about which he testifies,
FAILURE to establish the unbroken chain of and any other matters which deserve to illuminate
circumstances would result to acquittal of the his statements. The problem of the credibility of the
accused. expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is
left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
WEIGHT ON THE OPINION OF THE thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse
EXPERT WITNESS of discretion. (Tabao v. People, G.R. No. 187246,
SECTION 5, RULE 133 20 July 2011)

Weight to be Given Opinion of Expert Witness, With the incorporation of the foregoing
How Determined. — In any case where the opinion jurisprudential pronouncement, the revised rule also
of an expert witness is received in evidence, the provides for the factors for the court to consider in
court has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such opinion.
determining the weight to be given to such opinion,
and for that purpose may consider the following: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SECTION 6, RULE 133
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN OPINION OF
EXPERT Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may
a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient be deemed established if it is supported by
facts or data; substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
b) Whether it is the product of reliable adequate to justify a conclusion.
principles and methods;
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
c) Whether the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts
of the case; and
Such amount of relevant evidence which a AMPARO PROCEEDING
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify SECTION 17, AMPARO RULE
a conclusion.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN AN AMPARO
CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PROCEEDING - SUBSTANTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS? WHAT ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE COURT
IN CASE THE ALLEGATIONS ARE PROVEN
In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN AN
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is AMPARO CASE?
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might If the allegations are proven by substantial
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN appropriate which contains contain measures which
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS - are essential for the continued protection of the
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE petitioner in the Amparo case.

NATURE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A

FINDING THAT THE STATE HAS
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, VIOLATED THE PERSON'S RIGHT TO LIFE,
and it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable LIBERTY, OR SECURITY?
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Substantial evidence is still the rule to warrant a
finding that the State has violated, is violating, or is
EFFECT OF DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL threatening to violate, amparo petitioners' right to
CASE TO A PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE life, liberty, or security.
CASE
REQUIRED QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE TO
The dismissal of criminal case does NOT carry MAKE APPROPRIATE INTERIM AND
with it dismissal of administrative case which PERMANENT RELIEF IN A WRIT OF
must be proven by substantial evidence only. AMPARO AND DATA

REQUIRED PROOF IN CASE OF It requires only substantial evidence to make the

DISCIPLINARY CASE AGAINST THE appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available
EMPLOYEE to petitioner.

Merely substantial evidence is required in SLAPP

disciplinary action upon employees. SECTION 2, RULE 19, PART IV OF THE RULES
OF PROCEDURE
NATURE OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OR QUASI- NATURE ON THE HEARING ON THE
JUDICIAL BODIES DEFENSE OF SLAPP

Findings of fact of administrative agencies or quasi- The nature of the hearing on the defense of a
judicial bodies are accorded respect and even SLAPP shall be summary in nature.
finality.
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
ON THE PARTY SEEKING THE DISMISSAL
OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION BASED ON
SLAPP?
The parties must submit all the available evidence QUANTUM OF
in support of their respective positions. The party EVIDENCE
seeking the dismissal of the case must prove by FORGERY
substantial evidence that his acts for the TO REBUT THE
enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate PRESUMPTION CLEAR, POSITIVE,
action for the protection, preservation, and THAT THE AND CONVINCING
rehabilitation of the environment. PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE
CONJUGAL
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE DEFENSE OF
ON THE PARTY FILING THE ACTION FRAME-UP TO BE
ASSAILED AS A SLAPP? ADMISSIBLE

The party filing the action assailed as a SLAPP shall

POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP
prove by preponderance of evidence that the action
is not a SLAPP. FURTHER EVIDENCE
SECTION 7, RULE 133
CLEAR AND CONVINCING
Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence. —
EVIDENCE
WHEN CAN THE COURT ORDER TO STOP
Clear and Convincing Evidence is a kind of FURTHER PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE?
evidence which establishes in the minds of a trier of
facts a firm belief on the existence of the fact in The court may stop the introduction of further
issue. testimony upon any particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN witnesses to the same point cannot be expected to
CASE OF ALIBI TO BE SUSTAINED? be persuasive. This be exercised with caution.
Alibi to be given weight and credit must be proven
RULE ON EVIDENCE ON MOTION
by clear and convincing evidence.
SECTION 78 RULE 133
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CASE OF
Evidence on Motion. — When a motion is based on
FORGERY
facts not appearing of record, the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by
Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and
the respective parties, but the court may direct that
convincing evidence.
the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE
PRESUMPTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS
CONJUGAL

Presumption that the property is conjugal property

may be rebutted by clear, positive, and convincing
evidence.

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN ORDER THAT

THE DEFENSE OF FRAME-UP BE
ADMISSIBLE

Defense of frame-up to be admissible should be

established by clear and convincing evidence.