EVIDENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

A. What are the different sources of our rules on evidence?

1. The Principal Source: Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
 
a). Origin: The rules are patterned and based on the rules of evidence as developed, applied and interpreted in the English and
American  Courts. Thus the rules on the disqualification of witnesses are pattered from the rules applied in the State of
California. Our rules concerning confessions are patterned after American rules
 
b). Decisions of the English and American Courts, as well as opinions and works of English and American jurists, such as
Wigmore, Clark, Jones,   and others, are given great weight
 
2. The 1987 Philippine Constitution particularly, its provisions on the Bill of Rights and the Article on the Supreme Court
 
3. Special Laws passed by Congress which either create, amend or supplement existing rules of evidence. The most recent include (i) The
Electronic Evidence Act and the (ii) The Child Witness Law
 
4. Decisions of the Supreme Court
 
5. Circulars issued by the Supreme Court

B. Give 20 rules of evidence that are found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

C. Give ten rules of evidence that are found in substantive laws.

D. How should rules of evidence be construed?

 Rule 1, sec. 6: liberally construed
 Procedural rules must be liberally interpreted and applied so as not to frustrate substantial justice (Quiambao vs CA)

II. GENERAL CONCEPTS

A. What is evidence?
  Rule 128: means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.

B. What is proof?
 Effect when requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight

C. What are the differences between evidence and proof?

1. As to definition: EVID – The mode and manner of proving competent facts in judicial proceedings. PROOF - the effect when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact has been duly admitted and given weight.
2. As to nature: EVID – The means of proof. PROOF - the probative effect of evidence

D. What is the difference between factum probans and factum probandum?

 Factum probans (A fact or statement of facts)

o evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum will be proved.
o Examples: the written contract; the promissory note to prove the existence of an unpaid debt.

 Factum probandum (a fact that needs to be proved)

o the ultimate fact to be proven, or the proposition to be established. That, which a party wants to prove to the court.
o E.g.: guilt or innocence; existence of a breach of contract; existence of an obligation; the fact of payment; the injury or damage
incurred.

1. As to definition: factum probans is the evidentiary facts while factum probandum is the ultimate fact sought to be established

2. Factum probans – materials which establish the proposition| factum probandum - proposition to be established

3. Factum probans – existent | factum probandum – hypothetical

E. What is quantum of evidence? (Rule 133)

 Weight of evidence
 Probative value given by the court to particular evidence admitted to prove a fact in issue.

F. What is the quantum of evidence required in:

1. Criminal cases
 Rule 133: section 2: Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind

2. Contempt proceedings
 NOTE: True it is that generally, contempt proceedings are characterized as criminal in nature, but the more accurate
juridical concept is that contempt proceedings may actually be either civil or criminal, even if the distinction between
one and the other may be so thin as to be almost imperceptible. X X X It is criminal when the purpose is to vindicate
the authority of the court and protect its outraged dignity. It is civil when there is failure to do something ordered by a
court to be done for the benefit of a party

3. Civil cases
 Rule 133, section 1: Preponderance of evidence (superior weight of evidence) – greater weight/superior weight of
evidence than that which is offered in opposition to it.
 4. Disbarment proceedings
 substantial evidence and the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish the allegations in his complaint (see:
A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017)

5. Administrative cases
 substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
(Rule 133, section 6 OR DOH v. Gloria Aquintey)

6. Preliminary investigation
 such evidence sufficient to “engender a well founded belief” as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
respondent's probable guilt thereof.

7. Finding probable cause for a warrantless arrest

 Hot pursuit arrest rule (Rule 113, section 5, par. B): when an offense has been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

8. Finding probable cause for a warrantless search

G. What is burden of proof? – onus probandi

 Rule 131, section 1, par. 1: duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law.
 Never shifts
 Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat – he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove

H. What is burden of evidence?

 Rule 131, section 1, par. 2: duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case
(Evidence good and sufficient on its face).
 May shift from one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case.

 Distinctions:
1. As to definition: see above
2. WON it shifts: see above
3. As to what determines it: BP – generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party; and whoever asserts the affirmative of the
issue has the burden of proof. BE – generally determined by the developments at the trial, or by the provisions of the substantive law
or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact alleged.

4. As to the effect of a legal presumption: BP – it does not shift the burden of proof. However, the one who has the burden of proof is
relieved from the time being, from introducing evidence in support of his averment because the presumption stands in the place of
evidence. BE – creates prima facie case and thereby sustains the said burden of evidence on the point which it covers, shifting it to
the other party. It relieves those favoured thereby of the burden of proving the fact presumed.

Reference:
2019 Revised Rules on Evidence

 Far East Bank trust Company vs. Roberto Mar Chante (G.R. No. 170598 October 9, 2013)
o FACTS: Defendant is a current account depositor of the Petitioner. He was issued a Far East Card (Do-It-All) to handle his credit
card and ATM transactions and was tagged in his current account.
 ALLEGATION: After which, a civil case was filed against the respondent for the recovery of a principal sum of ₱770,488.30
representing the unpaid balance of the amount fraudulently withdrawn from Chan’s current account.

FEBTC added that at the time of the ATM withdrawal transactions, there was an error in its computer system known as "system
bug" whose nature had allowed Chan to successfully withdraw funds in excess of his current credit balance of ₱198,511.70; and
that Chan had taken advantage of the system bug to do the withdrawal transactions.

CHAN’S CONTENTION: denied making the ATM withdrawals totaling ₱967,000.00) and instead insisted that he had been
actually home at the time of the withdrawals (alibi). He alluded to a possible "inside job" as the cause of the supposed
withdrawals, citing a newspaper report to the effect that an employee of FEBTC’s had admitted having debited accounts of its
depositors by using his knowledge of computers as well as information available to him. Chan claimed that it would be
physically impossible for any human being like him to stand long hours in front of the ATM facility just to withdraw funds. He
contested the debiting of his account, stating that the debiting had affected his business and had caused him to suffer great
humiliation after the dishonor of his sufficiently-funded checks by FEBTC.

o ISSUE: WON Chan is liable for the alleged withdrawals made

o RULING: No. Although there was no question that Chan had the physical possession of Far East Card No. 05-01120-5-0 at the
time of the withdrawals, the exclusive possession of the card alone did not suffice to preponderantly establish that he had
himself made the withdrawals, or that he had caused the withdrawals to be made. 

o Edgar Munarriz, FEBTC’s very own Systems Analyst, admitted that the bug infecting the bank’s computer system had facilitated
the fraudulent withdrawals.

Burden of proof is a term that refers to two separate and quite different concepts, namely: (a) the risk of non-
persuasion, or the burden of persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and (b) the duty of producing evidence, or the
burden of going forward with the evidence, or simply the production burden or the burden of evidence. 10 In its first
concept, it is the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law
demands in the case at which the issue arises. 11 In its other concept, it is the duty of producing evidence at the
beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case. Generally speaking, burden of
proof in its second concept passes from party to party as the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests
throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of the issue. 12

The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not
evidence of it.13 Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. 14

In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. 15 This is
because our system frees the trier of facts from the responsibility of investigating and presenting the facts and
arguments, placing that responsibility entirely upon the respective parties. 16 The burden of proof, which may either be
on the plaintiff or the defendant, is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the
manner required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations
but raises an affirmative defense or defenses, that, if proved, would exculpate him from liability.

 Note: preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the
evidence offered in opposition to it. 18 It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested
fact is more probable than its nonexistence.1

 FEBTC did not present preponderant evidence proving Chan’s liability for the supposedly fraudulent withdrawals. It
thus failed in discharging its burden of persuasion.

I. What are the kinds of evidence according to:

1. Form

2. Relevancy
3. Probative value