You are on page 1of 4

Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy's testimony. But that testimony is just one piece of evidence against respondent.

It must be considered and weighed along with petitioners' other evidence vis--vis respondent's contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." "Preponderance of evidence" is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.1[13] Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in determining preponderance of evidence, thus:

GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE, accusedappellants. PARDO, J.: Appeal seeking to reverse the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato, at Kidapawan City, Branch 17 finding accused Gilbert Baulite and Liberato Baulite guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Delia Jacobo Lano in the sum of P50,000.00, with costs. On December 1, 1993, Eddie Arguelles, a farmer, passed by a river on his way to Old Bunawan, Tulunan, Cotabato. In the river, he saw two men Gilbert and Liberato Baulite washing their bloodied hands. Eddie continued on his way after seeing them. Upon reaching the road, he hear a boy shouting that somebody was found dead. Jonathan Cando, a civilian volunteer, was on horseback crossing a river on his way to Bunawan. He heard a woman crying "indi" "indi". He checked his left, and approximately six (6) meters away, he saw a person mounting somebody, as if choking the one mounted. He went to the barangay captain and related what he heard and saw. The barangay captain, however, dismissed the incident, speculating that the two were "only sweethearts." Around 3 to 4 in the afternoon of the same day, a boy found the body of Delia Jacobo Lano, Delia was a public school teacher at Old Bunawan, Datu Paglas and a resident of Maybula, Tulunan, Cotabato. An examination of her body revealed that Delia suffered a three-inch-deep punctured wound between her eyes, a smashed face (left side) and a bruised neck (upper portion). Vaginal smear test also found her positive for (dead) spermatozoa. However, there were no indications that Delia's genitalia sustained any laceration. The medical examiner opined that Delia had probably delivered several children. The examination was conducted approximately five (5) to six (6) hours after Delia died. On December 7, 1993, 2 assistant provincial prosecutor of Cotabato Alfonso B. Dizon, Jr., filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato, at Kidapawan an information for rape with homicide against Gilbert Baulite and Liberato Baulite, the two men caught wshing their bloodied hands by the river. The information reads: "That on or about December 1, 1993. At Barangay New Bunawan, Municipality of Tulunan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the above named accused, with lewd design, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of force and intimidation succeeded in having sexual intercourse with one DELIA JAGOBO LANO against her will, and thereafter said accused, with intent to kill with personal violence, strangulated the victim with the use of a hand as shoen by finger nails marking which caused hematoma of the upper portion of the neck and likewise with the use of a sharp object, inflicted punctured wound (sic) located just above and between the eyes, three (3) inched deep, directed and posteriorly and superiorly and multiple fracture of the bone of the left face with hematoma of both eyes, which injuries is
nd 1

SECTION I. 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 they 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.

Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Page

(sic) the direct and proximate cause of death of 2 said DELIA JOCOBO LANO." On June 23, 1994, the trial court arraigned the accused. 3 They each pleaded not guilty. After due trial, on November 25, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision finding the two accused guilty of rape with homicide, the decretal portion of which reads as follows: "Prescinding from the foregoing facts and considerations, the Court finds accused Gilbert Baulite and Liberato Baulite guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged, accused Liberato Baulite and Gilbert Baulite are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Consonant with the recent jurisprudence, both accused are hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Delia Jacobo Lano the sum of P50,000.00 "With costs de oficio.1wphi1.nt IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

positively identify the person "mounting and choking" the 9 victim. In light of the prosecution's evidence, we are not convinced that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. "The rule is clear. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never committed, let alone when no less than the capital punishment is imposed, would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may 10 have perpetrated." "On the whole then, the scanty evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees the accused. It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of 11 innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt." Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, there must be an even greater need to apply the rule that the prosecution depends not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of its own evidence. Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilty of the accused. "For circumstantial evidence to convict, the Rules of Court require that: (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 produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. On the latter, decided cases expound that the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to accused, to the 12 exclusion of all others, as the guilty person." The Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of the 13 accused. We agree. We find the circumstantial evidence adduced not sufficient to support a finding that both accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide. To begin with, witness Jonathan Cando was no able to identify either the woman victim or the person choking 14 the victim. We cannot conclude with certainly that the blood in the hands of the accused-appellant was the blood of the victim, and that the person choking her was one of the accused-appellants. Speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of the 15 accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused 16 must be duly taken into account. In our criminal justice, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his 17 guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be 18 overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In conclusion, because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant, they must be acquitted. "Every

On December 29, 1998, the accused filed a notice of 5 appeal. The issues in the appeal are: (1) Was the guilt of the accused-appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the accused-appellants? The Trial court convicted the accused on the basis of the following circumstantial evidence, namely: a) A witness saw accused-appellants Gilbert and Liberato Baulite washing their bloodied hands; b) A boy was heard shouting that somebody was found dead; c) A witness hear a woman shouting "indi" "indi" who was being choked and later the dead body 6 of Delia Lano was found. An autopsy revealed that the body of Delia Lano sustained a three-inch-deep punctured wound between the eyes and 7 a smashed face. Accused-appellants explained that the blood in their hands 8 was that of a chicken that they had dressed recently. Witness Jonathan Cando heard a woman shouting "indi", "indi", then saw a person mounting somebody as if choking the person mounted. However, in the absence of an eye-witness identifying the person choking, accusedappellants would not necessarily be incriminated in the crime. Subsequent examination of the body of Delia Lano revealed that she was choked, as evidenced by the finger markings or hematoma on the upper portion of her neck. The fact that the upper portion of the neck was the one severely injured is physical evidence consistent with the scenario that one in a mounting position applied pressure or choking in the upper portion of the neck of person "mounted." The prosecution, unfortunately, failed to

Page

accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional 19 duty of the court to acquit them. Highest burden of proof in a criminal case, placed normally on the prosecution. Because under common law the defendant is presumed innocent, his or her guilt must be proven to the entire satisfaction of the judge or jury. This term, however, does not imply 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' If the evidence is so strong that there is only a remote possibility (and no probability) of an extenuating circumstance, the guilt is then deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the same level of proof is required also in civil cases is still a matter of debate. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proofbeyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnR The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. Cross-references The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy. Cross-references Moral certainty refers to a degree of assurance that induces a reasonable man to act without doubts and reach conclusions. It is an essential element constituting crime. Guilt must be proved by the evidence to a moral certainty. Proof to a moral certainty means that a juror first must conscientiously consider all the evidence and must then reach a resulting firm and settled belief that the charge is true. *Commonwealth v. Walker, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 194, 201 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)] Mendoza vs. Arrieta, 91 SCRA 113 Facts: On October 22, 1969, at around 4pm, a 3-way vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway Bulacan, involving a Mercedez Benz owned and driven by petitioner, a private jeep owned and driven by respondent Salazar and a gravel and sand truck owned by respondent Timbol and driven by Montoya. As a consequence, separate informations were filed against Salazar and Montoya. At the trial, petitioner testified that Salazar overtook the truck, swerved to the left and hit his car. He further testified that before impact, Salazar jumped from the jeep not knowing that Salazar was hit by the truck of Montoya. Montoya affirmed this. On the other hand, Salazar tried to show that after overtaking the truck, he flashed a signal showing his intention to turn left but was stopped at by a policeman directing traffic at the intersection which he contends to be the time he was hit by the truck causing his jeep to hit petitioners car. Issues: (1) Whether or not the damages ensued to the vehicle of petitioner shall be the liability of the driver of the jeep or of the truck. (2) Whether or not the trucks owner may be held liable for damages caused by him employee.

3
Page

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then

Held: Thus, the trial Court absolved jeep-owner-driver Salazar of any liability, civil and criminal, in view of its findings that the collision between Salazar's jeep and petitioner's car was the result of the former having been bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Neither was petitioner awarded damages as he was not a complainant against truck-driver Montoya but only against jeep-owner-driver Salazar. That petitioner's cause of action against Timbol in the civil case is based on quasi-delict is evident from the recitals in the complaint to wit: that while petitioner was driving his car along MacArthur Highway at Marilao, Bulacan, a jeep owned and driven by Salazar suddenly swerved to his (petitioner's) lane and collided with his car That the sudden swerving of Salazar's jeep was caused either by the negligence and lack of skill of Freddie Montoya, Timbol's employee, who was then driving a gravel and sand truck iii the same direction as Salazar's jeep; and that as a consequence of the collision, petitioner's car suffered extensive damages. Clearly, therefore, the two factors that a cause of action must consist of, namely: (1) plaintiff's primary right, i.e., that he is the owner of a Mercedes Benz, and (2) defendant's delict or wrongful act or omission which violated plaintiff's primary right, i.e., the negligence or lack of skill either of jeep-owner Salazar or of Timbol's employee, Montoya, in driving the truck, causing Salazar's jeep to swerve and collide with petitioner's car, were alleged in the Complaint. Consequently, petitioner's cause of action being based on quasi-delict, respondent Judge committed reversible error when he dismissed the civil suit against the truck-owner, as said case may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. In view of what has been proven and established during the trial, accused Freddie Montoya would be held able for having bumped and hit the rear portion of the jeep driven by the accused Rodolfo Salazar. Considering that the collision between the jeep driven by Rodolfo Salazar and the car owned and driven by Edgardo Mendoza was the result of the hitting on the rear of the jeep by the truck driven by Freddie Montoya, this Court behaves that accused Rodolfo Salazar cannot be held able for the damages sustained by Edgardo Mendoza's car.

resulted in the death to seven (7) and physical injuries to five (5) of its passengers. At the time of the accident, Eugenio Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with defendant-appellant, Rosalia Arroyo, for sixteen (16) years in a relationship akin to that of husband and wife. Motion for reconsideration was filed by Rosalia Arroyo praying that the decision be reconsidered insofar as it condemns her to pay damages jointly and severally with her co-defendant, but was denied. Issue: Whether or not Article 144 of the Civil Code (now Article 148 of FC) is applicable in a case where one of the parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to marry. Ruling: It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos, there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. Under the aforecited provision of the Civil Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. The jeepney belongs to the conjugal partnership of Jose and his legal wife. There is therefore no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising from the death of, and physical injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney which figured in the collision

Schizophrenic Mind at Wednesday, March 07, 2012 Share

Sent from my iPhone On Apr 13, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Melai Ysulat <melanie.martish.marketing@gmail.com> wrote: Juaniza vs. Jose Case Digest Juaniza vs. Jose 89 SCRA 306 Facts: Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of the passenger jeepney involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of the Philippine National Railways that took place on November 23, 1969 which

Page