Evidence Flashcards

Rules of Court

1
Q

The hierarchy of evidentiary values

A
  1. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. Clear and convincing evidence
  3. Preponderance of evidence
  4. Substantial evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Judge’s role (PH)

A

Trier of law and trier of facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Judge’s obligation

A

Need to demonstrate moral certainty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Not an obligation of judge

A

To support conclusion with objective truth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Is Absolute and Objective Truth Necessary(Absolute Certainty) in law?

A

No. Only Moral Certainty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Moral Certainty?

A

(PEOPLE v. DECENA)
-Where the CONSCIENCE is satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Clear and Convincing Evidence?

A

Riger V. Atty Mateo

It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is Substancial evidence?

A

Rule 133, Section 5
- amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evidence Definition

A

Caranto v. Caranto
- Weight, Credit, and Value of Aggregate Evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Formula for Preponderance of Evidence

A

Verifying content minus Falsifying content

P(e)= V(e)- F(e)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Atty _____ failed to establish fraud as he was NOT ABLE TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Atty. ____ deceived him.

A

RIQUER v. MATEO
Atty Riquer failed to establish fraud as he was NOT ABLE TO PRESENT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Atty. Mateo deceived him.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case where Preponderance of Evidence was distinguished from Clear and Convincing Evidence

A

ESTELLA v. PEREZ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

The ___ evidence must show that the proposition has more/greater chance of being true

A

Preponderance of Evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

___ Evidence must lead to firm belief of conviction of its truth with substancially greater than 50% likelihood

A

Clear and Convincing Evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Where Clear and Convincing Evidence required?

A

Civil, Admin Cases, Fraud and Parental Rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Where Preponderance of Evidence Required?

A

Civil cases and admin hearings

17
Q

Highest Quantum of Proof

A

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

18
Q

Case where prosecution failed to overcome proof beyond reasonable doubt after the accused showed substancial proof to rebutt the presumed regularity of a marriage certificate

A

Santos v. People

19
Q

What evidence is an intermediate standard of proof and less stringent then proof beyond reasonable doubt

A

Clear and Convincing Evidence

20
Q

Verifying content must be ___ than falsifying content

A

GREATER

21
Q

Mathematical illustration for preponderance of evidence

A

> 50% chance

22
Q

Mathematical Illustration for Clear and Convincing Evidence

A

75-99% chance

23
Q

What is a credible evidence?

A

Greater weight of credible evidence or more likely to be true (>50% true) than the evidence presented by the other.

24
Q

Rule 128, Section 1

A

Accused is entitled to ACQUITTAL unless shown guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Criminal cases)

25
Q

case involved the Ombudsman’s decision, which was overturned because it was based on conjectures and not supported by substantial evidence.

The Court ruled in favor of Bernaldo, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence rather than speculation.

A

Bernaldo v. Ombudsman

26
Q

Substancial Evidence

A

relevant evidence that can adequately support a conclusion.