RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE RELEVANT
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. – In civil cases, the party having
the burden of proof must establish his or her
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. (1a)
• CIVIL CASE: Need of PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE
o MORAL DAMAGES
o RECOVERY OF POSSESION
o FORCEBALE ENTRY
HOW WILL THE COURT DETERMINE?
-SUPERIOR WEIGHT
-all facts and circumstances of the case
-Number of witness, however, check for
credibility.
THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED CIVIL
CASES IS PREPONDERANCE OF 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 WORTHY OF BELIEF
THAN THAT WHICH IS OFFERED IN
OPPOSITION THERETO [CENCINAS V.
NATIONAL BOOKSTORE, INC, 485 PHIL
683, 695 [2004), CITED IN REPUBLIC VS.
CUENCA, GR NO. 198393, APRIL 4,2018]
ASSIGNMENT 1 WHOLE
1. What will happen if both parties have same
weight of evidence 50% 50%?
The burden of proof
DEFENDANT WINS: PLAINTIFF DOESN’T HAVE
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE
DEFENDANT WINS: DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
OUTWEIGHTS PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF WINS: PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
OUTWEIGHTS DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCEE
IS PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE
IN CRIMINAL CASE?
-NOT APPLICABLE
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. – In
a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
(2a)
*when in doubt, acquit the accused
*degree of proof and Moral certainty needed in
criminal case
THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
• PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
DOES NOT CONNOTE ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY. IT MEANS THE DEGREE OF
PROOF WHICH PRODUCES MORAL
CERTAINTY IN AN UNPREJUDICED MIND
OF THE CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED.
SUCH PROOF SHOULD CONVINCE AND
 SATISFY THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE
OF THOSE WHO ARE TO ACT UPON IT THAT
THE ACCUSED IS IN FACT GUILTY [NG VS.
PEOPLE, GR NO. 173905, APRIL 23,2010].
BURDEN OF PROOF
- THUS, THE PROSECUTION IS NOT
PRECLUDED FROM ADDUCING EVIDENCE
TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL CASES. [PAREDES
VS. CA, 528 SCRA 577).

ASSIGNMENT 2:
WHAT IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?
WHAT IF IN CRIMINAL
NOT IN THE RULES
CASE? WHAT IF THE
WEIGHT OF THE STANDARDS OF PROOF
EVIDENCE IN 50/50
DEFINITION: IT IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING IF IT
BOTH PARTIES? WHAT
PRODUCES IN THE MIND OF THE TRIER OF FACT A
IS THE TERM IN
FIRM BELIEF OR CONVICTION AS TO THE
CRIMINAL CASE?
ALLEGATION SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED. IT IS
INTERMEDIATE, BEING MORE THAN
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, BUT NOT TO
Section 6. Substantial
THE EXTENT OF SUCH CERTAINTY AS IS REQUIRED
evidence. – In cases
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL
filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
CASES. (BLACK LAW DICTIONARY)
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it
is supported by substantial evidence, or that INSTANCES WHERE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
amount of relevant evidence which a EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED:
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
1. TO PROVE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
justify a conclusion. (5)
[PEOPLE VS. ABINA, GR NO. 220146, APRIL
-Before a NAPOLCOM/PRCOR OTHER 18,2018]
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES 2. TO PROVE BAD FAITH AND FRAUD
[CALILING V. FELICIANO, G.R. NO.
Evidence amounting/ relevant which is
185829, APRIL 25, 2012 671 SCRA 186, 217]
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
3. TO PIERCE THE VEIL OF CORPORATE
justify a conclusion
FICTION [MANILA HOTEL VS. NLRC, G.R.
THE QUANTUM OF PROOF IN ADMINISTRATIVE NO. 120077]
CASES IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 4. FOR THE SUCCCESSFUL INVOCATION OF
THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI
• Substantial evidence means such 5. TO PROVE JURISDICTIONAL
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind REQUIREMENTS IN THE RECONSTITUTION
might accept as adequate to support a OF DESTROYED OR LOST TITLE
conclusion [Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 6. IN PROVING CONSENTED SEARCH
Phil. 46, 57 [2008D]. 7. IN GRANTING BAIL IN EXTRADITION
WILL THE ACQUITTAL IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL
CASE?

- NO. IT WILL NOT FOLLOW.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO DIFFERENT
PROCEEDINGS. THEY INVOLVE DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE.
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF
• Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts, in issue
necessary to establish his or her claim or
defense by the amount of evidence
required by law. Burden of proof never
shifts (Section 1, Rule 131).
RELEVANT CONCEPTS ON BURDEN OF PROOF
• In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the
party making allegations has the burden
of proving them by preponderance of
evidence. By preponderance of
evidence is meant that evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to that of the other side (NFF
Industrial Corporation vs. G& L •
Brokerage, January 12, 2015).
• In administrative cases, the complainant
bears the burden in proving the
averments of his complaint by substantial
evidence. However, conjectures and
suppositions are not sufficient to prove
accusations (Lorenzana vs. Austria, April
2, 2014).
• .The burden of proof that a debt was
contracted lies with the creditor-plaintiff.
He who asserts, not who denies, must
prove (Homeowners Savings & Loan
Bank vs. Dailo, 453 SCRA 283).
• However, he who pleads payment has
the burden of proving it. (Bognot vs. RRI
Lending, September 24, 2014)
WHAT IS THE TEST FOR DETERMINING WHERE THE
BURDEN OF PROOF LIES?
• Ask: Which party to an action or suit will
fail if he offers no evidence competent
to show the facts averred as basis for the
relief he seeks to obtain.
• If the defendant has affirmative
defenses, he has the burden of proving
them (Aznar Brothers Realty vs. Aying, 458
SCRA 496).
-Affirmative Defenses?
• An affirmative defense is an allegation of
a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the
pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery
(Rule 6, Sec. 5).
• Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A
defendant shall raise his affirmative
defenses in his answer, which shall be
limited to the reasons set forth under
Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following
grounds:
• 1. That the court has no jurisdiction over
the person of the defending party;
• 2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity
to sue;
• 4. That the pleading asserting the claim
states no cause of action; and
• 5. That a condition precedent for filing
the claim has not been complied with.
• (b) Failure to raise the affirmative
defenses at the earliest opportunity shall
constitute a waiver thereof.
• (c) The court shall motu proprio resolve
the above affirmative defenses within
thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of
the answer.
• (d) As to the other affirmative defenses
under the first paragraph of Section 5(b),
Rule 6, the court may conduct a
summary hearing within fifteen (15)
calendar days from the filing of the
answer. Such affirmative defenses shall
be resolved by the court within thirty (30)
calendar days from the termination of
the summary hearing.
• (e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall
not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or petition for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised on
appeal after a judgment on the merits.
(n)
[The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, “2019
Amendments”) takes effect on 1 May 2020.
Affirmative defenses are included in Rule 8
(“Manner of Making Allegations in Pleading“) of
the 2019 Amendments, but it might be more
helpful to discuss it in a separate post. The
summary of other Rules may be tracked through
the Menu.
The affirmative defenses, which are limited only
to the grounds enumerated in the 2019
Amendments, must be included in the Answer
(Rule 8, Sec. 12[a]).
I. WAIVER IF NOT RAISED
The 2019 Amendments provides that the failure
to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest
opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof
(Rule 8, Sec. 12[b]). This is consistent with Rule 9,
which provides that defenses and objections
not pleaded in either a motion to dismiss or in
the answer are deemed waived (Sec. 1).
However, the following are not waived and the
court can still dismiss the claim:
• the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter,
• there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause, or
• the action is barred by a prior judgment.
• These exceptions are provided in both
Rule 6 (Sec. 5) and Rule 9 (Sec. 1) of the
2019 Amendments.
II. OTHER GROUNDS
In addition to the three grounds mentioned
above, affirmative defenses include fraud,
statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former
recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any
other matter by way of confession and
avoidance. (Rule 6, Sec. 5)
The court may conduct a summary hearing
within 15 calendar days from the filing of the
answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be
resolved by the court within 30 calendar days
from the termination of the summary hearing.
The third set of grounds as affirmative defenses,
which the court must resolve motu proprio
within 30 calendar days from the filing of the
answer, are as follows:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states
no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim
has not been complied with.
III. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
As provided in Rule 9 of the 2019 Amendments,
an order granting an affirmative defense (this
can also be done through a motion to dismiss)
shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim,
in the following instances:
• that the cause of action is barred by a
prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
• that the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff’s pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise
extinguished; or
• that the claim on which the action is
founded is unenforceable under the
provisions of the statute of frauds,
[See Summary/Discussion of Rules on Motions),
specifically Motions to Dismiss; see also Manner
of Making Allegations in Pleadings.]
IV. REMEDIES
DENIAL. Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not
be the subject of a motion for reconsideration
or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus, but may be among the matters to
be raised on appeal after a judgment on the
merits. [Rule 8 , Sec. 12(e)]
GRANT. An order granting an affirmative
defense may be the subject of appeal. [Rule 15,
Sec. 13]
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to
present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut
a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to
the other in the course of the proceedings,
depending on the exigencies of the case. (1a).
- JUST TO REBUTT A FACT IN ISSUE TO
EXTABLISH PRIMA FACIE CASE
• It is the duty of a party to go forward with
evidence to overthrow the prima facie
evidence against him (People vs. CA,
February 25, 2015)
• If the accused admits the killing, the
burden of evidence is shifted to the
accused to prove his defenses (Flores vs.
People, February 27, 2013)
MAUUNA SI PROSECUTION MAGPRESENT NG
EVIDENCE IN CASES OF CRIMINAL CASES AFTER
PROSEC, THEN ACCUSED NEXT
HOWEVER, KAPAG NAG-ADMIT SI ACCUSE, SI
ACCUSED NAMAN MAUUNANG MAGPRESENT
NG EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS DEFENSE →CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (BURDENN OF
PROOF)
PRESUMPTION & ASSUMPTION
• It is an assumption of fact resulting from
the rule of law which require such fact to
be assumed from another fact or group
of facts found or otherwise established in
an action (Black Law Dictionary)
• It is an inference of the existence or non-
existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from proof of other
facts (In the matter of the Intestate of
Delgado and Rustia, 480 SCRA 334)
EXAMPLES:
• Prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the later installment is
produced (Sec. 3(i), Rule 131; Art. 1177).
• Common Carrier is presumed to be liable
(1756).
- Public utility vehicles, vessels,
commercial vessels. Expected due
diligence to transfer or transport the item
or person.
• Money paid by one to another was due
to the latter (Sec. 3(f), Rule 131).
• Official duty has been regularly
performed (Sec. 3(m), Rule 131).
-PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
EFFECTS OF PRESUMPTION
• A party in whose favor the legal
presumption exists may rely on and
invoke such legal presumption to
establish a fact in issue. One need not
introduced evidence to prove the fact
for a presumption is prima facie proof of
the fact presumed (Diesel Construction
vs. UPSI Property, 549 SCRA 12)
KINDS OF PRESUMPTION
1. CONCLUSIVE - when the presumption
becomes irrebuttable upon the
presentation of evidence and any
evidence tending to rebut the
presumption is not admissible
2. DISPUTABLE - if it may be contradicted by
other evidence.
SECTION 2. CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS. – The
following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or
she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it; and
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title
of his or her landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. (2a)

Example of estoppel

• Persons who assume to be a corporation

without legal authority to act as such
shall be considered a corporation by
estoppel and shall be liable as general
partners (Sec. 21, CCP)