QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE (weight and sufficiency of evidence)

Admissibility of evidence is different from its probative value.

Admissibility refers to whether pieces of evidence are to be considered by the court at all, while
probative value refers to whether the admitted evidence proves an issue.

Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on
judicial evaluation in accordance wit the rules of evidence.

Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt- it is required for the conviction of an accused in a criminal
case.

2. Clear and convicing evidence- this is adduced to overcome a prima facie case or a disputable
presumption; an accused who invokes self-defense must prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

3. Preponderance of evidence- the degree of proof required in civil cases

4. Substantial evidence- required to reach conclusion in administrative proceedings or to establish

a fact before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.

A. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required quantum of evidence in order to convict an accused
in criminal cases as provided in Sec. 2 of Rule 133.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution because
of the Constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved under the Bill of Rights.

Meaning of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty with no possibility for error. What
is required is moral certainty which is “that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.”

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things given, the mind of the judge can rest at
ease concerning its verdict (Pilares Sr. v. People, G.R. No. 165685, March 14, 2007).

In the case of People vs Ladrera, 150 SCRA 113, which involved a kidnapping for ransom, a child
was kidnapped but the family members failed to come up with ransom money so the kidnappers
killed the boy. The kidnappers were never apprehended except for one. The investigators suspected
that the gardener of the family was in conspiracy with the kidnappers. Such gardener was then tried
and convicted in the lower court. SC en banc affirmed the decision of conviction except for Justice
Cruz who dissented. According to Justice Cruz, it is possible that the accused was guilty but his
conscience could not seem to accept that.

Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt v. Reasonable Doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty- a certainty that satisfies the reason and
conscience of those who are to act upon it.

Reasonable doubt, on the other hand, is that “doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole
proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt
(People v. Quinto, 93 SCRA 605).

In short if there is reasonable doubt, the accused is an entitled to an acquittal.

For the defendant, it is enough that he is able to prove his defenses by preponderance of evidence
since it will create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Must all the elements of the offense charged be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

YES. When a specific intent or guilty knowledge is an element which the State must prove, it is
incumbent upon the State to produce direct or circumstantial proof, showing, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that such intent or knowledge existed in the mind of the defendant. In the case of
circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain of circumstances ordinarily must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.

SOME PRINCIPLES

I. The prosecution's case must rise and fall on its own merits and cannot draw its strength
from the weakness of the defense.

II. Motive is not an element of a crime and need not be proved to produce conviction. This is
the general rule.

Exception: It becomes relevant only when the accused has not been positively identified and
proof thereof becomes essential only when the evidence of the commission of the crime is purely
circumstantial or is inconclusive (People vs Aguiliz, GR. No. 91662, March 22, 1992).

III. Affirmative testimony is stronger than negative testimony.

Example: Ryan accuses Mark of stealing from his store. A witness says he saw Mark take the
property. This is a positive testimony. Meanwhile, Mark counters that he can present 5 witnesses to
testify that they did not see him steal from Ryan's store. This is a negative testimony to prove denial.
However, the weight of the evidence is with the witness who saw what actually happened.

A positive assertion identifying the accused as having committed the crime prevails over the
negative denial.

IV. Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense and for the defense of alibi to prosper, it
must be established clearly and convincingly that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the
commission of the crime and it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the vicinity
thereof because he was so far away at the time the crime was committed.

V. Number of witnesses- how many witnesses must be presented in order to have somebody
convicted

Except under Art. 114 of the Revised Penal Code (Treason). Outside of treason, there is no other
law which specifies the number of witnesses.

TREASON: No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at
least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

In fact testimony of only one witness if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court beyond
reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict..

VI. Rape Cases

In rape cases, the lone testimony of the offended party, if free from serious and material
contradictions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction.

Reason according to SC is that no young Filipina of decent repute would undergo the expense,
trouble, inconvenience of a public trial, exposing herself to public shame and ridicule, suffer
scandal, embarassment and humiliation of a public trial and publicly admitting that she was
criminally abused unless it is the truth.

VII. Credibility of Witnesses

Factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility are entitled
to great weight and respect because it is the trial judge, who has the direct opportunity to observe
and evaluate the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand.

VIII. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (“False in one thing, false in everything”)- Bar Question

The rule means that where a witness has wilfully falsified the truth on one point, his testimony upon
other points may be disregarded unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached
evidence.

However, courts are not mandated or ordered to apply this rule or maxim. This is merely
DIRECTORY, depending upon the court's appreciation of the evidence.

The maxim deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law; the rule is not
an inflexible one of universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility
when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the
corroborative evidence presented at the trial.