ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

When is preponderance of evidence applicable?

Photo from Unsplash | Volodymyr Hryshchenko

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

 


AT A GLANCE:

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.Xxx In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues involved.


 

Evidence is central to legal proceedings, playing a crucial role in establishing the facts of a case. In legal contexts, the strength and nature of evidence vary, leading to different degrees of evidentiary standards.

Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must also be credible in itself. It must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe. (People v. Peruelo, G.R. No. 50631, 29 June 1981)

 

Different Quantum of Evidence

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies the requisite quantum of evidence in criminal cases:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

In the case of Nilo Macayan v. People (G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015), the Court held: 

This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” “Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution.” Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippines:

We ruled in People v. Ganguso:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produce 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.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence. 

 

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Clear and convincing evidence is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt but greater than preponderance of evidence. The degree of believability upon an imputation of fraud in a civil case is higher than that of an ordinary civil case, the latter generally requiring only a preponderance of evidence to meet the required burden of proof. (Pastora Ganancial v. Betty Cabugao, G.R. No. 203348, July 06, 2020)

 

Preponderance of Evidence

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

Case law has defined “burden of proof” as the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues involved. (Sps. Ramos v. Obispo, G.R. No. 193804,  February 27, 2013)

Understanding the different degrees of evidence is essential for navigating legal proceedings and ensuring justice. The varying standards—preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt—reflect the complexity and gravity of legal determinations. By comprehending these degrees and their applications, one gains insight into how evidence is assessed and weighed in achieving fair and just resolutions in the legal system.

 

Related Article/s:

The Supreme Court decides: The parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.

 

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

 

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share