CHRISTIAN JOY P.

CARABBACAN ASYNCHRONOUS ACTIVITY

RULE 133 REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.

- In this section, it was discussed that the required quantum of evidence in Civil cases is
preponderance of evidence. And to determine whether such quantum of evidence was met,
the court may: 1.) consider all the facts and circumstances of the case; 2.) the witnesses'
manner of testifying; 3.) their intelligence; 4.) their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying; 5.) the nature of the facts to which they testify; 6.) the
probability or improbability of their testimony; 7.) their interest or want of interest; and 8.)
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.
- Examples: In the case of Caluna vs. Vicente, CA G.R. No. 3911-R, February 17, 1951, the
Court stated that, while as a general rule, the number of witnesses should not in and by itself
determine the weight of evidence, but in case of conflicting testimonies of witnesses, the
numerical factor maybe given certain weight. Also, in the case of People vs. Magallanes, G.R.
Nos. L-21559-21560, June 29, 1968, the Court explained that the trial courts are in better
position than the appellate court in assigning values to testimonies of witnesses. It was cited
on the case that the matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best
and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and
attitude at the trial; and as far as credibility and veracity of witnesses are concerned, the
conclusions of lower courts command great weight and respect. The Court also explained in
the case of U.S. vs. Macuti, 26 Phil. 170 how the witness’ manner of testifying is being
considered. The court Stated that it is well-settled that the doctrine that the demeanor, the
emphasis, gestures an inflection of the voice of a witness, while testifying, are potent aids in
the proper evaluation of his credibility.

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

- In this section, the Rules established that the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases
is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt entitles him to an acquittal. As contemplated by the Rules, what is only
required is moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
- Example: In the case of people vs. Ganguso, G.R. No. 115430. November 23, 1995, the Court
stated that Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, 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. The
conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged. In the
same case the Court established the guilt of the accused even in the absence of prior
surveillance and the non-presentation of the marked money because the prosecution was
able to established moral certainty that the accused was engaged in selling drugs. The Court
furthered that the fact that SPO2 Lumapat and SPO3 Fucanan were not able to see at close
range the object of the transaction between the appellant and Vermug does not adversely
affect the evidence for the prosecution. The testimonies regarding the buy-bust operation,
being merely corroborative, are not indispensable for the conviction of the appellant. Neither
CHRISTIAN JOY P. CARABBACAN ASYNCHRONOUS ACTIVITY
EVIDENCE 05/17/2022

are prior surveillance and the presentation in evidence of the marked money. It has been
held that a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation
especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their
informant. The absence of the marked money neither creates a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution so long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug
subject of the transaction is presented before the court.

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction.

- In this section, it was discussed that an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not
be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
- Example: In the case of People vs. Nazario, G.R. No. L-470, February 28, 1947, the Court
acquitted the accused of robbery despite the existence of extra-judicial confession because
the prosecution failed to provide evidence of corpus delicti. The supposed offended party
did not testify as a witness at the trial which made testimony of the police officer who
assisted the offended party on her report of the incident as a hearsay.

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.

- This section provides the following as the requisites for as circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient: 1.) There is more than one circumstance; 2.) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and 3.) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- Example: In the case of People vs. Turtoga, G.R. No. 135536, June 7, 2002, the accused was
found guilty of the crime Robbery with Homicide by presentation of circumstantial evidence.
The Court stated appellant was in dire need of money when he approached the victim. But
she refused to lend him any, and even openly scolded him. It was established that appellant
left in a huff without showing courtesy to Mrs. Padilla. Appellant and co-accused Margallo
did not return to work anymore on the succeeding days, contrary to the instructions of Mrs.
Padilla. Thereafter, Mrs. Padilla was robbed and killed. Her money and jewelry were taken
on the occasion of the killing in the early hours of January 25, 1994. The Padillas had no
known enemies. Only the accused and his co-workers had frequented the Padilla home in the
course of their work. Who could have done the dastardly act? In the present case, motive
proved to be the key element in establishing appellant’s guilt through circumstantial
evidence presented before the trial court. Robbery as a motive explains the killing. Coupled
with evidentiary facts from which it may be inferred that the accused was the malefactor,
motive could be sufficient to support a conviction.

Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined.

- In this section, the Rules provide for the criteria in giving weight to the opinion of an expert
witness. The following may be considered: 1.) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient
facts or data; 2.) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods; 3.) Whether
the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case; and 4.)
Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination.
- Example: Casumpang vs. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015, the Court gave weight to
the testimony of a physician in the existence of medical negligence of the Pediatric Doctors
in the treatment of their patients. The Court stated: Interestingly in this case, Dr. Jaudian,
the expert witness was admittedly not a pediatrician but a practicing physician who
specializes in pathology. He likewise does not possess any formal residency training in
CHRISTIAN JOY P. CARABBACAN ASYNCHRONOUS ACTIVITY
EVIDENCE 05/17/2022

pediatrics. Nonetheless, both the lower courts found his knowledge acquired through study
and practical experience sufficient to advance an expert opinion on dengue-related cases.

Section 6. Substantial evidence.

- In this section, the Rules established that the quantum of evidence required in cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence as
defined is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
- Example: In the case of Biak-Na-Bato Mining Co. vs. Tanco, G.R. Nos. L-34267-68, January 25,
1991, the Court stated that Substantial evidence has been defined or construed to mean not
necessarily preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this
case, the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in an administrative
case was upheld for being supported by substantial evidence. The Court stated, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources made the following findings and conclusions:
(a) that the locations made by Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company's assignors were mere table
locations not actually made on the ground as required by Sections 39, 40, 41 and 47 of the
Mining Law and, therefore, the declarations made thereunder are null and void. As such, no
rights could accrue in favor of the so-called locators, and having no rights the latter could not
assign any rights in favor of Biak-Na-Bato Mining Company. Neither the latter nor its
assignors have the personality to file any protest before the Bureau of Mines: (b) that the
presumption of abandonment was overturned by the showing that Balatoc-Lubuagan Mines,
Inc. and Mountain Mines, Inc. have filed their affidavits of annual assessment work for the
years 1965, 1966 and 1967 in question and have paid the real estate taxes for 170 claims for
the years 1956 to 1970; and (c) that the only irregularity pointed out by Biak-Na-Bato Mining
Company is the fact that the original locators were not notified, which was settled by the
Order of Reconstitution which was preceded by publications and hearings and which have
become final. Even the fact that the questioned documents did not appear in the notarial
register, did not make said documents spurious, fake and non-existent because the notarial
register is not always the memorial of all the daily transactions of a notary public. The notary
being only human, lapses by way of omission may happen.

Section 7. Power of the court to stop further evidence.

- In this section the Rules provide that 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.
- Example: In the case of Guinea vs. Vda. De Ramonal, G.R. No. L-38659 February 20, 1975, the
Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the petitioner’s
witness to testify on the issue of possession and in terminating the presentation of
petitioners' evidence. The Court stated: If, according to the petitioners, Ello would testify
that they were in possession of the lot from 1940 to 1966, except during wartime then that
testimony would be merely cumulative because, according to the petitioners, seven
witnesses had already testified to the same effect. Petitioners' assertion that Ello's testimony
would be "corroborative" is incorrect.

Section 8. Evidence on motion.

- In this section, it was discussed that 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.
- Example: In the case of Sapida vs. De Villanueva, G.R. No. L-27673 November 24, 1972, it
was ruled by the Court that while the court may hear and rule upon motions solely on the
basis of affidavits or counter-affidavits, if the affidavits contradict each other on matters of
fact, the court can have no basis to make its findings of fact and the prudent course is to
subject the affiants to cross-examination so that the court can decide whom to believe.