Rule 131, Section 1

Burden of Proof

SPOUSES RAMOS vs. RAUL OBISPO and FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
[G.R. No. 193804, February 27, 2013]

Facts:
Nilo Ramos and Raul Obispo became best friends while they were working in
Saudi Arabia as contract workers. In August 1996, petitioners executed a Real Estate
Mortgage (REM) in favor of respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)-
Fairview Branch, over their property and the notarized REM secured credit
accommodations extended to Obispo in the amount of P1, 159,096.00.
On September 17, 1999, FEBTC received a letter from petitioners informing that
Obispo, to whom they entrusted their property to be used as collateral for a P250,000.00
loan in their behalf, had instead secured a loan for P1,159,096.00, and had failed to
return their title despite full payment by petitioners of P250,000.00. However, FEBTC took
no action, thus, a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage with damages
against FEBTC and Obispo was filed by the petitioners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the REM was attended by fraudulent acts or misrepresentations?
RULING:
The Court held in the negative.
In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of
proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must rely on the
strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their
opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant had not been given
the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order. The extent of the relief
that may be granted can only be as much as has been alleged and proved with
preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto.
As to fraud, the rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake affecting a
transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes
ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular.
The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient
evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence. Moreover, fraud is not
presumed it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, petitioners testimonial evidence failed to convince that Obispo
deceived them as to the debt secured by the REM. Petitioners factual allegations are
not firmly supported by the evidence on record and even inconsistent with ordinary
experience and common sense.


















Rule 131, Section 1
Burden of Proof

ANONYMOUS vs. JUDGE RIO C. ACHAS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,
Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental
[A.M. No. MTJ-11-1801, February 27, 2013]
FACTS:
An administrative case was filed against Judge Achas, Presiding Judge,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental
alleging of his immorality and conduct unbecoming. That in the letter-
complaint against him alleges that: (1) it is of public knowledge in the city that
Judge Achas is living scandalously with a woman who is not his wife; (2) he lives
beyond his means; (3) he is involved with illegal activities through his connection
with bad elements, the kuratongs; ( 4) he comes to court very untidy and dirty;
(5) he decides his cases unfairly in exchange for material and monetary
consideration; and (6) he is involved with cockfighting/gambling.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a letter-complaint alone is sufficient to prove an
administrative case filed against Judge Achas?
RULING:
The Court finds that under Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,
anonymous complaints may be filed against judges, but they must be
supported by public records of indubitable integrity. Courts have acted in such
instances needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by the
complainant. Thus, for anonymous complaints, the burden of proof in
administrative proceedings rests with the complainant and must be buttressed
by indubitable public records and by what is sufficiently proven during the
investigation. If the burden of proof is not overcome, the respondent is under no
obligation to prove his defense.
In the present case, no evidence was attached to the letter-complaint.
The complainant never appeared, and no public records were brought forth
during the investigation. Respondent Judge Achas denied all the charges made
against him, only admitting that he was separated de facto from his wife and
that he reared fighting cocks.

Rule 133, Section 4
Circumstancial Evidence

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOHN ALVIN PONDIVIDA
[G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013]
FACTS:
The accused John Alvin Pondivida, alias "Scarface," was charged the
crime of murder of Gener Bondoc y Cudia.
Rodelyn Buenavista, the common law partner of the victim testified as
witness for the prosecution that at the time of the incident she was roused from
sleep by incessant knocking and the sound of someone kicking the front door of
their house. That she immediately woke her common-law partner, Gener
Bondoc. His brother, Jover Bondoc (nicknamed Udoy), was also awake and was
peeping through the door of one of the rooms. Outside she saw accused
George Reyes, John Alvin Pondivida, and Glen Alvarico who was carrying an
armalite rifle. And when she answered the door, the three men asked for the
whereabouts of "Udoy" and "Bagsik," both brothers of Gener. One of the men,
later identified as accused George Reyes, searched the house and asked her
who Gener was and she merely replied that he was neither Udoy nor Bagsik,
and that the persons they were looking for were not inside the house. In
response, the men fired four shots, prompting her to plead that her children
were sleeping upstairs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Rodelyn is admissible and circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to prove conviction of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt?
RULING:
The court held in the positive.
The court takes cognizance of Rodelyns eyewitness testimony on all the
events, except the actual shooting, and properly appreciate it as positive
identification through circumstantial evidence.
The Court stated that identification of a malefactor, to be positive and
sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct evidence from an
eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be possible in crimes where there are
no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally
confirm the identification and overcome the constitutionally presumed
innocence of the accused. Thus, the Court has distinguished two types of
positive identification to wit: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness
to the very commission of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such
as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after the
crime.
The Court said: Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of
identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of
commission of the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A witness
may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the
crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This
constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although
a witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he
may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of
a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last
seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the
crime. This is the second type of positive identification, which forms part of
circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of
evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion
of all others. If the actual eyewitnesses are the only ones allowed to possibly
positively identify a suspect or accused to the exclusion of others, then nobody
can ever be convicted unless there is an eyewitness, because it is basic and
elementary that there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is
positively identified. Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled
that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.