RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Weight
-pertains to evidence already admitted and its
tendency to convince and persuade
-probative value refers to the question of whether
or not it proves an issue
Weight means the balance of evidence;
-the indication of the greater amount of credible
evidence offered at the trial to support a fact in
dispute;
-weight is not a question of mathematics, but
depends on its effect in inducing belief
Admissibility
-depends on its relevance and competence
-refers to question of whether or not the
circumstance (evidence ) is to be
considered at all;
Note: While evidence may be admissible, it
may be entitled to a little weight or no weight
at all.
Evidence which may have evidentiary
weight may be inadmissible because the
rule forbids its reception.
Sufficiency of evidence
-refers to the question as to whether it amounts to the required quantum of evidence needed to arrive at a
decision in civil, criminal or administrative case or to prove matters of defense or mitigation or to overcome a
prima facie case or disputable presumption

Quantum of evidence
In civil cases -preponderance of evidence (Sec. 1)
In criminal cases- proof beyond reasonable doubt ( Sec. 2)
Clear and convincing evidence- adduced to overcome a prima facie case or a disputable presumption or is
the required amount of evidence to overturn the regularity of public or notarial documents
In administrative or quasi judicial bodies or tribunal – substantial evidence

Prima Facie evidence is evidence which if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in
favor of the issue which it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence.
- Evidence which is good and sufficient on its face; such evidence as, in judgment of the law is to establish a
given fact, or the group or chain of acts constituting the party’s claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or
contradicted , will remain sufficient.
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof mus
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)

Preponderance of evidence
-the degree of evidence required in civil cases;
- the weight or credit and value of aggregate evidence on either side;
-means that which is a greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
- synonymous with the terms greater weight of evidence or greater weight of credible evidence
What are the facts and circumstances in determining
preponderance of evidence
1) witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, 2) their means
and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying;
3) the nature of the facts to which they testify;
4) the probability or improbability of their testimony, 5)their interest
or want of interest, and
6) their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial
7) the number of witnesses though preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number
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)

. 1)Proof beyond reasonable doubt- required for conviction of an accused in criminal case. The term means that which is
the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any consideration, of the moral certainty of the
guilt of the accused or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind

Does not mean such 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 (People
vs. Bacalso 191 SCRA557)
2) Circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction must:
a. More than one circumstance
b. Facts from which inferences are derived are proven
c. Combination of all circumstances such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt
3) Substantial evidence
 That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. - An extrajudicial confession made
by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
(3)

Elements of Corpus delicti

1) a certain result has been proven ;
2) some person is criminally responsible

Definition of Corpus Delicti

-It is the body of the crime and , in its primary sense means a crime has actually been committed.
Applied to a particular offense, it is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
People vs. Robles 333SCRA107 (2000)
-it means the substance of the crime ; it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed

Please read the case of People vs. Valla 322 SCRA 74, 83-84( 2000)

Note: Section 3, Rule 133 is not applicable to capital offenses and in the crime of treason as provided under
Article 114 of the revised penal code which provides that “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.”
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a)
Evidence is either direct or Circumstantial
Direct Evidence is that evidence which proves a fact in issue directly without any
reasoning or inference drawn on the part of the fact finder.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue.
The fact finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts other than
the fact in issue, which if proved, may tend by inference to establish the fact in issue
Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. - In any case where the
opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in
determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case;
and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)

While the courts may not be bound by the findings and opinions of expert
witnesses, the Committee through this new Section has provided judges with a
helpful tool, standard and guidelines to consider in the appreciation and
determination of evidentiary value and weight to expert testimonies.
Section 6. Substantial evidence. - In cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (5)

Substantial evidence
-means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion.
- It is the quantum if evidence required to establish a fact in cases before the
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies or to be adequate to justify a conclusion
or judgment
Section 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon
it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. This power shall be exercised with caution.
(6a)

The trial court has the discretion in determining the quantum of evidence
required to prove a particular fact. It may limit the number of witnesses upon
collateral as well as upon main issues. The Court should however exercise this
discretion reasonably so as not to deprive the parties of their material rights.
Section 8. Evidence on motion. - When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
on oral testimony or depositions. (7)
Motion is an application for relief, which is what is prayed for, on grounds
stated therein , other than by pleading.

Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights
of the adverse party, every written motion which alleged facts not of record or of
judicial notice shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers and
shall be set for hearing by the applicant.