Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: XI. WEIGHT & SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - D. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
        
        E. TERMINATION OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
        
        FURTHER TESTIMONY MAY BE STOPPED IF:
        
        EVIDENCE IS SO FULL THAT
        
        MORE CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED AS ADDITIONALLY PERSUASIVE
        
        EXERCISED WITH CAUTION
        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)
        
        F. EVIDENCE ON MOTION
        
        IF MOTION IS BASED ON FACTS NOT ON RECORD, THEN COURT MAY:
        
        HEAR THE MATTER,
        
        ON AFFIDAVITS/DEPOSITIONS
        a. PRESENTED BY RESPECTIVE PARTIES
        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)
        
        ALTERNATIVELY,
        COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT THAT IT BE HEARD ON ORAL TESTIMONY/DEPOSITIONS, WHOLLY OR PARTLY
        
        CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE
        Clear and convincing evidence is more than mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases [Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 102358 (1992)
        
        USED TO OVERTURN PRESUMPTIONS
        It is used for overturning disputable presumptions, such as the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties [Portuguez v. People, G.R. No. 194499, (2015)] or the existence of a valuable consideration [Tolentino v. Sps. Jerera, G.R. No. 179874 (2015)]
      - ADMINISTRATIVE/QJA ONLY REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        Section 6. Substantial evidence. – In cases fi led 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)
        
        PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
        ADMIN PROCEEDING AGAINST JUDGE
        Administrative proceedings against judges are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    - - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS ALONE CANNOT CONVICT ACCUSED
        Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not suffi cient ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be suffi cient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION WHEN:
        Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
        
        MORE THAN 1 CIRCUMSTANCE
        (a) There is more than one [(1)] circumstance;
        
        FACTS FROM WHICH INFERENCES ARE DERIVED ARE PROVEN
        (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
        
        COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRODUCES CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
        (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
        
        INFERENCES CANNOT BE BASED ON INFERENCES
        Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
        Proof of facts from which, taken collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence
        
        DEFINED: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - INDIRECTLY PROVES A FACT THROUGH INFERENCE
        Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence that "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.
        Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free."
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE STRONGER THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE
        It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, the former may surpass the latter in weight and probative force.
        (People v. Matito y Torres, G.R. No. 144405, [February 24, 2004], 468 PHIL 14-33)
        People v. Matito 423 SCRA 617 (2004)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN STILL CONVICT A CRIMINAL OF A CRIME
        It is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted of the crime for which he is charged. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the community.
        (People v. Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, [August 13, 2012], 692 PHIL 469-487)
        
        CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOUR
        BASIC GUIDELINES
        And in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, there are four basic guidelines:
        
        CAUTION
        It should be acted upon with caution;
        
        ALL ESSENTIAL FACTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT
        All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
        
        EXCLUDES EVERY OTHER THEORY BUT THAT OF GUILTY
        The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and
        
        BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
        The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.
        (People v. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, [July 30, 2002], 434 PHIL 575-587)
        
        TWO INFERENCES: WHEN ONE OF TWO INFERENCES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, THAT INFERENCE PREVAILS
        Jurisprudence instructs that where the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and, therefore, is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.||| (People v. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, [July 30, 2002], 434 PHIL 575-587)
        
        1 more item...
        
        UNLESS CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF CORPUS DELICTI
      - MORAL CERTAINTY ONLY IS REQUIRED, NOT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
        MORAL CERTAINTY PRODUCES CONVICTION IN AN UNPREJUDICED MIND
        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)
  - - - # OF WITNESSES CAN BE CONSIDERED, BUT PREPONDERANCE NOT NECESSARILY WITH GREATER NUMBER
        The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a)