Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
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
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
.
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 :
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”
A). Physical or Object evidence is evidence of the highest order and prevails over contrary
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)
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). 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.