Remedial Law (Evidence)

Question 1

What is the hierarchy of evidentiary values (quantum of proofs)?
(PROC PRES)

Answer 1

(1) Proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases)
(2) Clear and convincing evidence (hybrid civil and criminal cases - mada ra ug reasonable doubt)
(3) Preponderance of evidence (ordinary civil cases)
(4) Substantial evidence (labor, administrative, and quasi-judicial proceedings)

Preponderance: majority; a superiority or excess in number or quantity

Substantial: being largely but not wholly that which is specified; considerable in quantity; significantly great

Question 2

What are the two main types of evidence?

Answer 2

The two (2) main types of evidence are:
1) Direct Evidence; and
2) Circumstantial Evidence

Question 3

For criminal cases, what quantum of proof is needed?

Answer 3

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
(GR 172532, 172544-45)

Question 4

What is the quantum of evidence required in proving conspiracy?

What type of evidence is needed, direct or circumstantial?

Answer 4

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

EITHER Direct OR Circumstantial Evidence

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. Conspiracy must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, direct proof is not required. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be proved through the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of a felony, all the accused aiming at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another for the attainment of the same objective, their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Direct proof of a person in agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It is enough that at the time of the commission of a crime, all the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in their execution. Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all.

(People of the Philippines v. Armando Caballero et al., G.R. No. 149028-149230, April 2, 2003; Dear PAO - January 26, 2024 Entry)

Question 5

What are instances that need clear and convincing proof?

Answer 5

SELF-DEFENSE
FRAUD and DAMAGES

1. Claims involving fraud, wills, and withdrawing life support
2. Plaintiff seeking punitive damages
3. Job discrimination
4. Fraud in contracts
5. Any criminal issue wherein the defendant raises an issue on self-defense (in the nature of confession and avoidance)

Question 6

What is the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance?

Answer 6

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to acquit the accused. For instance, defendants interposing self-defense are only required to demonstrate self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. In cases where the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers is invoked, this Court likewise only requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The same quantum of evidence applies to cases where the defense of state of necessity is invoked. Likewise, proof of other exempting circumstances only requires clear and convincing evidence.

(People v. Lito Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020; Dear PAO - March 29, 2024 Entry)

Question 7

What is the quantum of evidence required in a criminal case involving accident as defense/exempting circumstance (in the nature of confession)?

Answer 7

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

Question 8

What is the quantum of evidence required to overcome the presumption of regularity of notarized documents?

Answer 8

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Respondent argues that the presumption of regularity of the notarized Affidavit of Ownership had been overturned. We rule otherwise. As pointed out by respondent, to overcome the presumption of regularity of notarized documents, it is necessary to contradict it with ‘evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.’ Contrary to respondent’s assertion, the ownership of the subject grader was not conclusively established by the prosecution. As earlier stated, Engr. Gulmatico was unable to confirm its ownership in his testimony. Further, the Memorandum Receipt also failed to establish this. Despite the many opportunities to submit additional proof of ownership, the prosecution failed to do so.

(Mariano Lim v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016; Dear PAO - November 19, 2023 Entry)

Question 9

What is the quantum of evidence required in order to rebut the presumptive conjugal nature of a property, showing that there is exclusive ownership of one of the spouses?

Answer 9

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In order to rebut the presumptive conjugal nature of the property, the petitioner must present strong, clear and convincing evidence of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses. The burden of proving that the property belongs exclusively to the wife or to the husband rests upon the party asserting it.

(Philippine National Bank v. Jose Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 182839, June 02, 2014; Dear PAO - December 29, 2023 Entry)

Question 10

What is the quantum of evidence required in interposing self-defense?

Answer 10

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to acquit the accused. For instance, defendants interposing self-defense are only required to demonstrate self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. In cases where the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers is invoked, this Court likewise only requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The same quantum of evidence applies to cases where the defense of state of necessity is invoked. Likewise, proof of other exempting circumstances only requires clear and convincing evidence.

(People v. Lito Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020; Dear PAO - March 29, 2024 Entry)

Question 11

What is the quantum of evidence required in proving defense of strangers?

Answer 11

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to acquit the accused. For instance, defendants interposing self-defense are only required to demonstrate self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. In cases where the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers is invoked, this Court likewise only requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The same quantum of evidence applies to cases where the defense of state of necessity is invoked. Likewise, proof of other exempting circumstances only requires clear and convincing evidence.

(People v. Lito Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020; Dear PAO - March 29, 2024 Entry)

Question 12

What is the quantum of evidence required in conviction for the crime of theft?

Answer 12

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Accordingly, he may pursue filing a complaint against the suspect, whom he believes has stolen his laptop, provided that the pieces of evidence that he has gathered will clearly and convincingly demonstrate that said suspect is indeed the perpetrator of the crime. In addition, his evidence must also rule out the possibility that some other person may have stolen the item. This is in line with the ruling of the court in the same case:
“Moreover, in Lozano vs. People, this Court clarified the application of the circumstantial evidence rule:
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.

Kyle Anthony Zabala v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015; Dear PAO - August 11, 2023 Entry)

Question 13

What is the quantum of evidence required in proving the defense of insanity?

Answer 13

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Finally, the insanity must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and not by proof beyond reasonable doubt. As further discussed by the Supreme Court in the Paña case:

Verily, insanity is not an element of the crime that should be demonstrated with proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense only bears the burden of disputing the presumption of sanity. Ultimately, the defense must proffer evidence of insanity sufficient to overcome the presumption. This quantum of evidence is not necessarily proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to acquit the accused. For instance, defendants interposing self-defense are only required to demonstrate self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. In cases where the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers is invoked, this Court likewise only requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The same quantum of evidence applies to cases where the defense of state of necessity is invoked. Likewise, proof of other exempting circumstances only requires clear and convincing evidence.

(People v. Lito Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020; Dear PAO - March 29, 2024 Entry)

Question 14

What is the quantum of evidence required in proving the defense of state of necessity?

Answer 14

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In criminal cases involving pleas in the nature of confession and avoidance, clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to acquit the accused. For instance, defendants interposing self-defense are only required to demonstrate self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. In cases where the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers is invoked, this Court likewise only requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. The same quantum of evidence applies to cases where the defense of state of necessity is invoked. Likewise, proof of other exempting circumstances only requires clear and convincing evidence.

(People v. Lito Paña, G.R. No. 214444, November 17, 2020; Dear PAO - March 29, 2024 Entry)

Question 15

What is the quantum of evidence required in a labor case wherein a resignation needs to be proven as a product of coercion or intimidation, and is not voluntary?

Answer 15

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Since petitioner submitted his resignation letter on several occasions, it is incumbent upon him to prove with clear, positive, and convincing evidence that his resignation was not voluntary, but was actually a case of constructive dismissal or that it is a product of coercion or intimidation. He has to prove his allegations with particularity.
In Pascua vs. Bank Wise, Inc., the Court held that an unconditional and categorical letter of resignation cannot be considered indicative of constructive dismissal if it is submitted by an employee fully aware of its effects and implications.

(Arvin A. Pascual v. Sitel Philippines Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 240484, March 9, 2020; Dear PAO - November 17, 2023 Entry)

Question 16

For actions involving land registration and reconstitution of a certificate of title, what quantum of proof is needed?

Answer 16

Clear and Convincing Evidence
(GR 241890)

Question 17

For an imputation of bias or partiality (and possible extrinsic evidence of malice and bad faith) against a judge, what quantum of proof is needed?

Answer 17

Clear and Convincing Evidence (AM RTJ-16-2455)

Question 18

What does preponderance of evidence mean?

Answer 18

Most civil lawsuits require plaintiffs to demonstrate to the judge or jury that the defendant is more than 50% responsible for their suffering and losses. Plaintiffs will often sue defendants to recover financial compensation for damages such as medical bills, lost wages, or property damage.

Question 19

For ordinary civil cases, what is the quantum of proof needed?

Answer 19

Preponderance of Evidence
(GR 102358, 172532, 172544-45)

Question 20

What is the quantum of evidence required in claims of rights of accretion?

Answer 20

Preponderance of Evidence

One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law.

(New Regent Sources, Inc. v. Tanjuatco, Jr., G.R. No. 168800, April 16, 2009)

Question 21

What is the quantum of evidence required in medical negligence cases?

Answer 21

Preponderance of Evidence

To successfully pursue a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that:

(1) the physician either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonable prudent provider would not have done; and

(2) the failure of action caused injury to the patient.

(Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007; Spouses Flores v. Spouses Pineda, et al., G.R. No. 158996, November 14, 2008)

Question 22

What is the quantum of evidence required in establishing there is no negligence or fault from an innocent owner of a property, which was fraudulently mortgaged by a relative to a mortgagee in good faith?

Answer 22

Preponderance of Evidence

It is clear that T enjoys a better right, being an innocent owner, versus that third person who claims to be an innocent mortgagee in good faith. To prove that T is an innocent owner, T has to establish, by preponderance of evidence, that insofar as the issuance of title to her former common-law husband is concerned, there is no fault or negligence on her part, nor did she lead the third person-mortgagee to believe, let alone, rely on the title of her former common-law husband.

(Merlinda Plana v. Chua and Chiang, G.R. No. 250636, January 10, 2023; Dear PAO - November 30, 2023 Entry)

Question 23

What is the quantum of evidence required in civil liability cases, especially medical negligence cases?

Answer 23

Preponderance of Evidence

The Court has consistently held that there are two kinds of acquittal:
(1) that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complaint of; and
(2) that the prosecutor failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Although they have the same effect on the acquittal of the accused, their effects differ as to the accused civil liability. The Court held in Manantan v. Court of Appeals:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused.

First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complaint of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict; civil liability ex delicto is out of the question; and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

The present case falls under the first kind of acquittal, i.e. the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. In its Decision, the RTC clearly and categorically found that ‘Dr. Daz could not be blamed on the mere fact that the hot water bag gave way or may have been ruptured.’ Worse, the prosecution miserably failed to offer any evidence that a hot water bag broke.

(Spouse Nuñez vs. Dr. Henry Daz, GR 246489, January 29, 2024)

Question 24

What is the quantum of evidence required in negligence cases involving collision of motor vehicles (quasi-delict)?

Answer 24

Preponderance of Evidence

The plaintiff (or claimants in this case) must prove by preponderance of evidence and sustain a claim based on
quasi-delict the concurrence of the following requisites:

(a) damage suffered by the plaintiff;

(b) fault or negligence of defendant; and

(c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.

These requisites must be proved by a
preponderance of evidence. The claimants, respondents in this case, must, therefore, establish their claim or cause of action by preponderance of evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.

(Tison v. Spouses Pomasin, G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011)

Question 25

What is the quantum of evidence required in labor cases?

Answer 25

Substantial Evidence

In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is “substantial evidence”, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

(Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017)

Question 26

What is the quantum of evidence required in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings?

Answer 26

Substantial Evidence

In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is “substantial evidence”, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

(Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017)

Question 27

For evidence adduced by the CTA, such as notice sent by the Commission on Internal Revenue (CIR) and the CTA’s factual findings, what quantum of proof is needed?

Answer 27

Substantial Evidence
(GR 232663 and 224327)

Question 28

What is the hierarchy of the Philippine legal framework (or the sources of Philippine laws)?

Answer 28

(1) 1987 Philippine Constitution
(2) National Laws and International Treatises/Agreements
(Republic Acts and Presidential Decrees)
(3) Special Laws
(Provisions of the Revised Penal Code)
(3) Administrative Issuances
(Presidential Proclamations, Executive Orders, Administrative Orders, Memoranda, Circulars)
(4) Ordinances