Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a Section 36. Objection.
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must
witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to
testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
When is evidence to be offered?
It depends on the type of document to be offered.
A. If testimonial evidence
 Must be made at the time the witness is called to testify
 Why? To allow and enable to court or know whether or not
the same is indispensable or relevant to the case
B. If documentary or object evidence
 They are to be offered after the presentation of a part’s
testimonial evidence. The offer is made orally unless allowed
by the court to be in writing.
By reason of this clarification as to when evidence is formally offered in
evidence, the presentation of evidence for marking and identification during the
course of the trial is not the offer contemplated in the Rules.
 Hence, failure to object to evidence during the time of marking and
identification does not constitute a waiver of the right to object. Such is
not the proper time.
 Objections must be made after they had been offered and the offer of
such evidence shall be made after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence.
 Mere fact that the evidence has already been marked as an exhibit does
not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the
evidence of the party
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3)
days after notice of unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
How are Objections Done
A. While specifying the grounds for the objections, the objection
must be made
B. (temporal element)
A. if Offer of evidence is made orally— objection must be made
immediately right after the offer is made
B. for a question propounded during the examination of a
witness—must be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall
become reasonable apparent
C. if offer of evidence is made in writing—within three days from
notice unless a different period is allowed by the court
What does it mean that the grounds to the objection be specific?
 Objector cannot just simply manifest that he is interposing an objection,
he has to precisely state the exclusionary rule that would justify his
opposition to the proffered evidence.
When should the objection be done?
 Objection to evidence before it is presented or before the purpose is
given is premature
 Premature if made during the preparatory stages of identification and
marking
 It must be made at the proper time as specified by the rule,
otherwise, there is deemed a waiver of the objection and could
no longer raise such issue later on.
 Why? It enables the adverse party to meet the objection to his
evidence, as well as grants the trial court the opportunity to pass upon
the and rule on the objection.
1
 o To raise it only for the first time during the appeal 2. To protect the record—that is—to present the issue of inadmissibility
without allowing the lower court to rule on the matter of the offer evidence in a way that if the trial court truly erroneously,
is contrary to basic fairness and procedural orderliness. the error can be relied upon as a ground for future appeal
 If the counsel was not afforded the time to express his 3. To protect the witness from being embarrassed on a stand or from
objections to a question propounded to a witness, the counsel being harassed by the adverse counsel
may move to strike out the answer (see Section 39) 4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics (misleading and leading
questions)
What is the effect of belated objections? 5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors, and at
 Such constitutes waiver because there is failure to point out some the same time, warn the court of the ruling adverse to the objector may
defect, irregularity or wrong in the admission of exclusion of evidence supply a reason to invoke a higher court’s appellate jurisdiction; and
 failure to assert an objection promptly and specifically is a waiver. 6. To avoid a waiver of admissibility of an otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Unless a timely and sufficient objection is made to an evidence
introduced, the reviewing court will not ordinarily consider the question What are the types of objections?
of propriety of the admission of the evidence. It will not considered on
appeal because there is deemed to be a waiver. Objections may be formal or substantive
 It would also be as if the party who failed to object consented to the (1) Formal objection is one directed against the alleged defect in the
introduction of inadmissible evidence. formulation of the question
(2) Substantive objection is one made and directed against the very
Extent of the waiver: admissibility only and does not extend to the nature of the evidence i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is
judge’s discretion on giving it the weight irrelevant or incompetent or both (e.g., parol evidence rule; best
 Nevertheless, the fact that it was admitted and may be considered evidence; opinion, res inter alios acta)
validly by the court would mean that it would be given weight by the
court in arriving at its judgment.
 The evidence becomes admissible but the waiver involves no admission
that the evidence possesses the weight attributed to it by the offering
party
 Waiver should not be construed as an admission that the evidence is
credible. It also does not mean that the party waives his right to
present controverting evidence.
 It only refers to admissibility: competence and relevance
 Hence, for example, hearsay evidence was admitted as such was not
objected to during the trial. However, the judge will still give value to
what it’s worth—hearsay. No means of assuring credibility

Why are Objections necessary?

1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a client’s
cause.
 Since the (exclusionary) rules of evidence are not self-
operating, they would have to be invoked by way of objection

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 2

 Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it
becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the question being propounded are of the same class
as those to which objection has been made, whether such
objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to
record his continuing objection to such class of questions.
Hence, instead of repeating the objections to such class of objectionable
questions, it is sufficient for the objection to be recorded as a continuing
objection.
For example
(1) when questions calling for hearsay answers are repetitiously asked by
the adverse counsel, the recording of a continuing objection to such
questions would be in order after an initial objection had already been
made
(2) the court may treat an objection a continuing one and it it would be
unnecessary when the objection has once been distinctly made further
to vez the court with useless objections and exceptions.
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given
immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but
the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will
give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify
the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)
Ruling on Objections
GR: parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to
a ruling at the time the Objection is made
unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to
inform itself before making its ruling
 in that event, it is perfectly proper for the occur tto tak e a
reasonable time to study the question presented by the ibjection
But a ruling must always be made and that the same be made during
the trial.
Why? So that the party against whom it is made be given the
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling
 it shall be an error for the court to reserve (“the objection will be
taken into consideration”, without ruling as to whether or not it is
sustained or not) its decision upon an objection to evidence until
after the trial is closed.
Rejected evidence not to be considered by the trial court
 it is error for the court to take into consideration in making its
decision the evidence which it had ruled out as inadmissible
What could then be the remedy of the party?
 new trial
 the fact shall be brought to the attention of the trial court through
an appropriate motion and will ordinarily, not be considered if
urged for the first time on appeal.
3
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the
question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious,
the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be
stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
A motion to strike answer
A motion to strike may be availed of on the following isntances:
1. when the answer was premature;
2. when the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise
improper;
3. when the answer is unresponsive;
4. when the witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination through
no fault of the cross-examining party; or
5. when the testimony was allowed conditional and the condition of its
admissibility was not fulfilled.
Remedy for:
1. objectionable questions but the adverse party was not given the
opportunity to voice out its answers, by reason, for example, of the
answering right away;
2. or when an apparently unobjectionable question brings out an
objectionable and inadmissible response but the infirmity of the
response only becomes apparent after the answer has been completed
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things
offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded
is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony.
Why make a tender of excluded evidence?
First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial court judge to permit the evidence or testimony
Second, even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is
made to create and preserve the record for appeal.
How?
A. attach it and make it part of the record; identify, read, state the
contents of the documents; and
B. state the purpose for which the object or document sought to be
attached is offered and to as that it be marked for identification
and have it attached on the record
4
 Example of factors affecting the weight and value of certain evidence
RULE 133  Findings of fact of the trial court judge are given great weight
 Where irreconcilable conflict the testimony of witnesses exists, the
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the
 probability of truth evidence of the successful party suffice to sustain the judgment
appealed from
SECTION 1 – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED  Findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses will not be
disturbed unless such findings overlooked certain facts of substance and
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil value which, of considered, might affect the results of the case
cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a  Discrepancies relating to merely insubstantial matters lend weight rather
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance than detract from the credibility of the witness
or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court  Writing made contemporaneously with a transaction is ordinarily
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the regarded as a more reliable proof than the recollection of witnesses
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and
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.

What is preponderance of Evidence?

 Refers to the weight, credit, value, of the aggregate on either side, and
not the mere numerical army of witnesses.
 Means that the testimony [evidence] adduced by one side is more
credible and conclusive than that of the other.
 Usually referred to as one with greater weight of credible evidence
 Evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief that
that which is offered in opposition thereto

What should be considered in determining the preponderance of

evidence?
1. All the facts and circumstances of the ace
2. Witness’ manner of testifying , their intelligence either means and
opportunity in knowing the facts which they are testifying, the nature of
the facts to which they testify, the probability of improbability of their
testimony;
3. The witness’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial
4. Number of witnesses, although it does mean that the preponderance is
necessarily with the greater number

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 5

SECTION 2 – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
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.
Quantum of evidence in Criminal cases
 absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a
defendant of a criminal charge, but moral certainty is required to every
proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.
o Hence, a testimony of single witness if positive and credible is
sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder
What is Reasonable Doubt?
 Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere possible doubt.
Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a comparison of
all evidence, does not lead the judge to have in his mind, a moral
certainty of the truth of the charge.
 by reasonable doubt is not meant that doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and inability, after such investigation, to
let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt
 the doubt to the benefit of which accused persons are entitled in a
criminal trial is a reasonable doubt, and not a mere whimsical or fanciful
doubt, based on imagined but wholly improbable possibilities and
unsupported by evidence
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases
 in every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable
doubt, all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or
participation of the accused.
 Lies with the prosecution because of the presumption that the accused
is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
 The conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutor’s evidence
and not on the weakness of the defense
o Hence, the accused need not even offer evidence on his
behalf, and he would be entitled to acquittal if the prosecution
fails to discharge such burden of proof
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Quantum of Evidence, if met, is determined by the Courts
 The issue of whether the degree of proof has been met is left largely to
the trial courts to determine
Some guides in the appreciation of evidence
(1) Falsus In Uno Falsus in Omnibus
 Requisites:
 That the witness deliberately or intentionally falsified the truth
 That the other portions of the testimony which are to be
discredited, are not corroborated by circumstances or other
unimpeached evidence
 Note however, that this is not a mandatory rule in the Philippines and
not a positive rule of law in the Philippines. hence, if a part of a
testimony of the said witness is found true, it cannot be disregarded
completely
(2) Contradiction between witnesses
 If the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses are not
of serious nature, the witnesses may still be considered as
credible
(3) Testimony inherently improbable
 When the testimony of the witness is inherently improbable,
inconsistent with human experience, or against the natural
course of things, it will not be credited.
 Example: lapse of 4 years before the filing of the rape case
impairs the credibility of the complainant
(4) Demeanor of the Witness
 The demeanor of the witness on the stand is one of the
elements to be conserved in determining the weight of his
testimony
 The emphasis, gesture, and inflection of his voice are potent
aids in ascertaining his credibility
Cases:
Case 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio
Mindanao Network GR 147039, Jan 27, 2006
Facts:
6
 1. Respondent Radio Mindanao filed a complaint for recovery of insuarance
proceeds against the petitioner DBP Pool and Provident insurance
pursuant to the Fire Insurance policy issued by the latter to the former.
a. The claims were made due to the fire that ravaged the
respondent’s radio station in Bacolod City.
2. Duringt the trial, the insurance companies argued that the insurance
claims should be denied because it was caused by one of the excepted
risks as provided for the by insurance policy: due to mutiny, riot,
popular rising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or
usurped power.
a. The insurance company was trying to establish the fact
tha the said 20 men who caused the fire were members
of the CPP/NPA. Hence, it submitted the following
evidence for the consideration of the court:
i. Testimonies of Lt. Torres and SPO3 Rochar who
did the investigation. they have stated in their
testimonies that that they were informed by the
bystanders who saw the 20 heavily armed men who
caused the fire were members of the NPA because
the said perpetrators shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA!”
but the persons who actually saw the burning were
not called to the stand
ii. a letter released by the members of the NPA
which states that they were dissatisfied with the
actions of the media in Bacolod, to show that the NPA
takes credit over the burning of the station
iii. the police blotter
3. the RTC rendered a decision in favour of the respondent ruling
that the claims should be granted.
4. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC
ratiocinating that:
a. The insurance company failed to support its allegations that
the loss was caused by an excepted risk—that is—the
members of the CPP-NPA caused the fire.
b. That none of the evidence presented by the insurance
company categorically stated that indeed, the 20 men were
members. They were just “suspected” or “believed”
c. The letter admitting the participation of the CPP-NPA to the
burning is inadmissible in evidence as such is made by a third
person
d. That the utterances of the bystanders, as heard by the
investigation team could not be verified as res gestae
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Issue: Was the petitioner able to sufficiently prove that the burning was caused
by one of the excepted risks, specifically, the burning was caused by the CPP-
NPA?
Ruling: No.
Not only are the evidence submitted by the petitioner inadmissible as evidence,
assuming arguendo that they are indeed admissible, they were insufficient to
prove the fact that the 20 armed men who burned the station were indeed
members of the CPP-NPA.
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and
sufficiency. Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and
competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already
admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
Even assuming that the declaration of the alleged 20 armed men as heard by the
bystanders may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow that such
declarations are sufficient proof. These declarations should be calibrated visàvis
the other evidence on record. And the trial court aptly noted that there is a need
for additional convincing proof to establish that the cause of the fire was the
intentional burning of the radio facilities by the rebels or an act of insurrection,
rebellion or usurped power. Evidence that persons who burned the radio facilities
shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA” does not furnish logical conclusion that they are
member of the NPA or that their act was an act of rebellion or insurrection.
Additional convincing proof need be submitted.
Defendants failed to discharge their responsibility to present adequate
proof that the loss was due to a risk excluded.
Further, when supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial
court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, which this
Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances. There are no
exceptional circumstances in this case that would have impelled the Court to
depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA.
Case 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November
19, 2004
7
The issue before this Court is whether petitioners were able to discharge their
burden of proving the superiority of their title over the title of respondent. The
Court of Appeals upheld the initial Decision of the RTC and found the quantum of
evidence presented by petitioners insufficient. A review of the evidence reveals
no compelling reason to reverse the appellate court’s ruling.
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
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 which,
in the last analysis, means probability of the truth.
It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Respondent as plaintiff was able to overcome the burden of proof and prove by
preponderant evidence that it has a superior right and title to the subject
property. In contrast, petitioners as defendants seem to rely only on the alleged
weakness of respondent’s evidence, without asserting any proof other than her
reconstituted title to the subject property.
From the evidence, respondent derived its title from the title of its vendor, the
Heirs of Simeon Evangelista, via a deed of sale. The Heirs obtained their title
from their predecessorininterest Simeon Evangelista. Prior to the transfer of the
title to respondent, the Heirs had sold the subject property to the Paculdo
spouses in whose names another title was issued. All these transactions involving
the property are welldocumented.30 From the time respondent obtained the
property, it protected its interest therein by fencing off the property and
designating security guards around its perimeter.31 Respondent also exercised
its obligation as owner by paying real property taxes on the property it had
acquired, evidenced by tax declarations issued in its name by the Quezon City
Assessor’s Office.32
In contrast, petitioner Encinas asserts her right to the subject property via a
reconstituted title, also presented in evidence. However, other than the
allegation in her Answer to respondent’s Complaint (for quieting of title) that she
is the owner in fee simple of the subject property, petitioner Encinas failed to
disclose before any of the judicial levels how she was able to acquire title to the
property.
Case 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
(1) the Several accused were charged with the crime of murder of Haide
through shooting him treacherously. The RTC convicted them of
homicide and the CA convicted them of murder. Both courts gave full
credence to the positive identification of the several accused as
perpetrators of the crime.
(2) Among the contentions of the accused in the present cases is
that the Prosecution witnesses did not actually see who had
shot Haide; hence, their identification as the malefactors was
not positively and credibly made.
What is positive identity and how is it important in proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt?
 The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove
the identity of the criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can
be established, there can be no conviction without proof of the identity
of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.22 In that regard, an
identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake
cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.
 The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in
the identification simply means that the accused’s constitutional right of
presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome,
thereby warranting an acquittal, even if doubt may cloud his innocence.
How is positive identity proved (done? Haha)?
The Court has distinguished two types of positive identification, namely:
(a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very
commission of the act; and
(b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last
seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime.
In the second instance, although a witness may not have actually seen the very
act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect
or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the
person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and
right after the commission of the crime. This is the second type of positive
identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken
8
together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to
only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of
the crime to the exclusion of all others.
ISSUE: In view of this, were the witnesses able to positively identify the accused
so as to support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: Yes.
The established circumstances unerringly show that the four accused were the
perpetrators of the fatal shooting of Haide. Their identification as his assailants
by Remedios and Francisco was definitely positive and beyond reasonable doubt.
Specifically, Remedios saw all the four accused near the door to the kitchen
immediately before the shots were fired and recognized who they were. She
even supplied the detail that Gilberto, Jr. had trained his firearm towards her
once he had noticed her presence at the crime scene. On his part, Francisco
attested to seeing the accused near the door to the kitchen holding their firearms
right after he heard the gunshots, and also recognized them.
The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco about seeing the four
accused standing near the door to the kitchen immediately before and after the
shooting of Haide inside the kitchen were categorical enough, and warranted no
other logical inference than that the four accused were the persons who had just
shot Haide.
Indeed, neither Remedios nor Francisco needed to have actually seen who of the
accused had fired at Haide, for it was enough that they testified that the four
armed accused: (a) had strategically positioned themselves by the kitchen door
prior to the shooting of Haide; (b) had still been in the same positions after the
gunshots were fired; and (c) had continuously aimed their firearms at the kitchen
door even as they were leaving the crime scene.
The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim as well as their
familiarity with the accused who were their neighbors assured the certainty of
their identification as Haide’s assailants.
Case 4. People vs. Mejia – 55 S 453
Facts:
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
(1) Dominador Mejia, Rolando Echalar, Ricardo Garcia and Fidel Capili guilty
of the crime of murder and found them all guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The trial court found them all guilty of conspiring with each other
to kill Victoriano Dela Cruz.
(2) The appellant Mejia, thru counsel de oficio, seeks a reversal of the
judgment and a consequent declaration of his innocence on the ground
of reasonable doubt, stressing his alleged nonparticipation in the
conspiracy that resulted in the killing of Victoriano de la Cruz, the victim
named in the indictment upon which the appellant and his coaccused
were convicted.
How did the prosecution establish the presence of conspiracy during
the trial?
 The factual details inculpating the appellant Mejia were established
mainly by the testimony of eyewitnesses:
o Prosecution witness Aurelia de la Cruz who stated that she
heard one of the accused Echelar “Pasok, mga ulol,” which was
a command to his companions to hide; the remark was
intended not for Capili alone, as shown by the use of the plural
word “mga,” nor was the command intended to exclude the
appellant Mejia because he and Garcia were together near the
“talipapa.”
o The second remark of Rolando, “Iyan ang isa, tirahin mo na,”
demonstrates the unity of purpose of the four accused, as the
remark indicated that they finally had an intended quarry —
one whom they believed belonged to the enemy camp.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the
participation of the Mejia in the crime considering that no one has seen
him shoot the victim?
Ruling: Yes. By circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the Mejia was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
That the appellant Mejia did not participate in the shooting of the victim de la
Cruz does not make him any less a conspirator, because it has been proved that
he acted in concert with his coaccused. He posted himself at a vantage point, as
did his coaccused, as they prepared and waited for the moment to strike; he
fired at Pito just before Capili shot de la Cruz; and he fled tog ether with his co-
accused from the scene of the crime immediately upon its commission.
9
Conspiracy can seldom be proved except by circumstantial evidence. The
conduct of the appellant before, during and after the commission of the crime
demonstrates that he was part of the conspiracy,3 the degree of his participation
being of no consequence.
We hold that the crime was committed in pursuance of a proven conspiracy, and
that the appellant’s direct involvement in the said conspiracy was established
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case 5. People vs. Matrimonio – 215 S 613
Facts:
(1) Rowena Matrimonio is a 14 year old girl alleged to have been raped by
his natural father, herein accused Manuel Matrimonio.
(2) The first incident of rape led to Rowena’s pregnancy. It was only after
the second incident of rape that Rowena finally decided to report what
his father was doing to her.
(3) During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Rowena, the
policeman Martin, and the Medico Legal Officer.
 On the other hand, the defense presented the accused and
was trying to establish that Rowena consented to the sexual
intercourse saying that they were lovers.
 On rebuttal, Rowena vehemently denied the allegations of the
accused and that she had never lived together with him as
lovers as the accused is his father; and that the only reason
why he yielded to his carnal desires was the because of the
threats he made.
(4) The RTC rendered a decision finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Confronted with the foregoing diametrically opposed versions, the trial
court found no difficulty in giving full faith and credit to the story of
Rowena and in discrediting that of the appellant. The RTC stated in its
decision in the evaluation of the contending evidence presented by both
parties: (I think important to kaya copy past ko hehe)
“The evidence of the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the accused raped his own daughter, Rowena, on December 27,
1985 and April 5, 1986, intimidating her in both instances to submit to
his evil desire—the circumstances of the second rape, being almost
identical to those of the first rape.”
The court, in giving credence to Rowena’s testimony, it stated
that: Rowena appeared to the Court as one who has not overcome the
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
trauma of her misfortune—and would rather keep to herself the
ignominy of her sad experience. In fact, the records will show that she
first took the witness stand, the Court had to reset the reception of her
testimony as she was too reluctant to talk and that, when she decided
to testify, she cried in open Court— obviously ‘still possessed of the
traditional and proverbial modesty of the Filipina’ who would not have
filed this complaint against her own father and ‘suffered the torment, if
not ignominy, of having to testify in a court of justice about the wrong
done to her’ by her own father, if in truth she was not really raped.
Hence the present action of the appellant insisting that there was no
rape considering that Rowena consented to the intercourse and such is
implied by the fact that:
(1) Rowena was rather passive, if not submissive to his sexual advances;
(2) it was highly improbable that her brother and sister, who were lying
beside her, were not awakened by her supposed struggle when the
accused stayed on top of her for thirty (30) minutes
(3) there was any threat employed by him, the same was not sufficient to
prevent the complainant from resisting since he was unarmed
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of the appellant?
Ruling: Yes.
A finding of guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it should not be based
on a mere accusation for an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law,
synonymous with guilt.
In evaluating the evidence in cases of rape, this Court has consistently adhered
to the following principles: a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it
is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two
(2) persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and c) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
In most rape cases, however, the culpability of the offender invariably hinges on
the story of the complainant37 since the crime of rape is not normally committed
10
in the presence of witnesses. This Court is therefore duty bound to carefully
scrutinize and closely examine the complainant’s testimony that the accused
indeed committed the crime. Corollarily, conviction of the accused should not be
made to rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant unless the
latter’s story is impeccable and rings true throughout, or bears the stamp of
absolute truth and candor.
In view of the said principles, considering that the present case hinges
only on the credibility and believability of the private Complainant
Rowena, should Rowena’s testimony be given full credence and great
weight to support conviction of the appellant?
Ruling: Yes.
First Reason: the findings of the lower court as to the credibility of the
witness in rape should be given great deference.
in the appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court accords
due deference to the trial court’s views on who should be given
credence4 since the latter is in a better position to decide the
question of the credibility of witnesses, having seen and heard
these witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during trial.
Second Reason: Rowena is credible in view of the following
considerations:
In the instant case, We could hardly believe that Rowena would
fabricate a story of defloration and charge her father with two (2)
counts of rape unless these were true. At her tender age, she
needed the company, care and support of a father and mother.
She certainly realized that by her accusations, her father would
be deprived of his liberty and thrown into prison to serve a long
sentence. She was also aware that by testifying, she made public
a painful and humiliating secret which others would have simply
kept to themselves forever, jeopardized her chances of marriage
or foreclosed the possibility of a blissful married life56 as her
husband may not fully understand the excruciatingly painful
experience which would haunt her.
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Conclusion: this being so, the prosecution, through the testimony of
private complainant, was able to prove the elements of rape with
intimidation.
We sustain the trial court for the prosecution’s evidence proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intimidated Rowena
into consummating the sexual acts with him on 27 December
1985 and 5 April 1986. He conveniently availed of two (2) forms
of intimidation: threats and his overpowering moral influence.
With respect to the first incident, he craftily threatened her
during the initial stage by telling her not to shout or else she
would be killed; he also threatened the lives of her mother, sister
and brothers to force her to yield her honor and privacy when he
was already on top of her. To an innocent girl who was then
barely fourteen (14) years old, the threat engendered in her a
wellgrounded fear that if she dared resist or frustrate the bestial
desires of the appellant, she, her siblings and her mother would
be killed. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and
is, therefore, subjective. It must be viewed in the light of the
victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission
of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.
Case 6. People vs. Gondora – 265 S 408
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rendering a judgment of
conviction based on the biased and uncorroborated testimony of witness Edma
Malinao. We find the contention bereft of merit. The rule is to accord much
weight to the impressions of the trial judge, who had the opportunity to observe
the witnesses directly and to test their credibility by their demeanor on the stand.
Although the judgment of conviction was primarily based on the testimony of
Edma Malinao, we do not find any reversible error committed by the lower court
in arriving at its findings. The rule is that witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered. It has never been uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the
basis of the testimony of a single witness.
The inconsistency refers to minor details and has no bearing on the credibility of
the witness. It is rather immaterial to dwell exhaustively on whether the victim
was boxed first when the cause of the death of the victim is the multiple stab
wounds inflicted on his person. On this point, Edma Malinao consistently testified
and remained unwavering in her stand that appellant and Totoy Killer, repeatedly
stabbed the victim to death. A certain latitude must be given to whatever minor
11
mistake the witness might have said about the actual confrontation. For apart
from the shock and the numbing effect of the whole incident, the rapidity with
which the sequence of events took place must have taken its toll on the accuracy
of the witness' account
Malinao is the commonlaw wife of the deceased and her relationship, as such,
adds to the weight of her testimony since she would then be interested in seeing
the real killers brought to justice rather than falsely implicating innocent persons.
This Court has held that it is not to be lightly supposed that relatives of the
deceased would callously violate their conscience to avenge the death of a dear
one by blaming it on persons whom they believe to be innocent thereof.
Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of ulterior motive, nor
does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. It
has been correctly observed that the natural interest of witnesses who are
relatives of the victims in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them
from implicating persons other than the culprits, for, otherwise, the latter would
gain immunity. In the absence of illmotive on the part of the witness, and none
was shown, relationship between her and the victim does not undermine her
credibility and so [her] testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.
Case 7. People vs. Cabiles – 248 S 207
FACTS:
(1) The several accused (Cabiles, Rudy and Rogelio Esparraguerra), were
charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The victim is Violeta
Angustia, a fish vendor.
(2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the witness Salvacion, daughter
of the victim who was with her during the incident of the crime. She stated
during her testimony that:
 On that very night, she decided to accompany her mother on her
way home as she was tipsy that night.
 Suddenly, the three accused appeared from nowhere and
demanded money from Violeta. Rogelio forcibly took the money
from her then Cabiles took her mother’s arms. Rudy then drew a
bolo and hacked Violeta through her neck.
 She however, fearing for her life, ran to their home and locked
herself.
(3) On the other hand, the defense presented the three accused trying
to establish alibi.
(4) After trial, accusedappellants were found guilty as charged by the court a
quo . They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
heirs of the victim, Violeta Angustia, civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00.13
Hence, the present action by appellant. They argue that the prosecution’s
version of the crime at bar incredible. They aver that Salvacion’s allegation—that
she was with her mother during the hacking incident—does not inspire belief
because it would be unwise for them, as the alleged assailants, to leave her
unharmed if, indeed, she had witnessed the incident. Further, accusedappellants
fault Salvacion for her failure to report the crime to the authorities or seek help
from her neighbors that same evening. Accusedappellants, therefore, insist that
Salvacion was not around at the time of the incident.
Issue: Was the trial court correct in giving credence to the testimony of witness
Salvacion to support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: Yes.
Finding of credibility of trial Court is given weight. It is settled that the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed
because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having observed
the deportment of the witnesses and their manner of testifying during the trial,
unless certain facts of value have been plainly overlooked which, if considered,
might affect the outcome of the case.
 the trial court’s assessment on whose story should be believed goes
beyond what the witnesses declare at the trial—a privilege which the
appellate court does not usually enjoy. Absent any compelling reason to
overturn the trial court’s findings, the same must be respected.
Salvacion is credible. The probative value of Salvacion’s testimony is not
diminished by her failure to report the incident to the authorities that tragic
evening. What she did after the killing of her mother was an act of self-
preservation.
 Considering her relationship with the victim she would be more
interested in securing the conviction of the guilty, and that would deter
her from implicating persons other than the culprits, otherwise, the
latter would go free.
Accusedappellants’ defense of alibi is not worthy of belief. We have repeatedly
ruled that alibi is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and fabricate. It
becomes weaker in the face of the positive identification of an accused by an
eyewitness with no improper motive to falsely testify.
12

Case 8. People vs. Lorenzo – 240 S 624
Case 9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27
Case 10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594
Facts:
(1) the petitioner Tin was charged with the crime of Estafa for allegedly
defrauding Dr. Santiago who entrusted the several pieces of jewelry as
collateral for the loan, under the express obligation of returning the said
pieces of jewelry upon demand for redemption.
(2) During the trial, private complainant Dr. Francisca Santiago testified
that on February 8, 1980, she and Aurora Jose went to Mady’s
Pawnshop owned by petitioner to pawn some pieces of jewelry. A list of
the jewelries was typewritten by a helper of the petitioner. This list was
signed by petitioner as evidence of her receipt of the said jewelries. Dr.
Santiago also averred that from 1980 to 1982, she made payments of
various amounts totaling P95,600.00. She said that the loan was under
a “white paper” system where there is no maturity/expiration date and
where the jewelry can be redeemed anytime provided the interests
were paid.
 that when she returned to the pawnshop to redeem the
jewelries, Dra. Francisco was informed by the petitioner that
they were already sold.
(3) On the other hand, the petitioner testified and maintained that the
real parties to the loan were Dr. Santiago and her daughterinlaw, Mia
Chan. She merely introduced them to one another and it was Mia Chan
who signed the acknowledgment receipt and who actually received the
pieces of jewelry. Mia Chan, for her part, corroborated the testimony of
petitioner, her motherinlaw
(4) The RTC rendered a decision in convicting the herein petitioner. The
same was upheld by the CA. both courts ruled that:
 it was petitioner who extended the loan and who actually
received the jewelries from Dr. Santiago. Their conclusion
stemmed from the following circumstances:
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
a. In a letter she wrote to Fiscal Jumino, one Aurora Jose who
had allegedly introduced Dr. Santiago to Maria Tin and who
was present when the transaction took place, corroborated Dr.
Santiago’s testimony;
b. The signature of appellant [petitioner] appears on the
document16 acknowledging receipt of the pieces of jewelry;
c. Receipts evidencing payments made by Dr. Santiago and
which appeared to be signed by the petitioner were not denied
by the latter;
d. Petitioner did not deny that she sent a note (Exh. “M2”) to Dr.
Santiago reminding her to update her payments, or else she
would auction the pieces of jewelry.
Issue: was the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: No.
(1) A careful review of the records, however, reveals that, first, it was
erroneous for the Court of Appeals to consider in evidence the letter
which a certain Aurora Jose sent to Fiscal Jumino. Aurora Jose was
never presented to testify on the veracity of said letter, much less its
contents. A private certification is hearsay where the person who issued
the same was never presented as a witness.
(2) Second, the signature appearing in the receipt, Exhibit “A”, apparently
differs from the specimen signatures provided by petitioner Maria Tin in
open court. But it has striking and obvious similarities to Mia Chan’s
specimen signatures. The differences and similarities are so obvious to
the eye. They could not be casually disregarded. Expert handwriting
analysis is probably useful here, but it is not indispensable.
(3) Third, petitioner did not deny that she received payments and made
demands for payment from private complainant. They do not show,
however, that she was the one who extended the loan and accepted the
jewelries. Note that even Mia Chan received certain payments from Dr.
Santiago, as shown by Exhibits “8”, “8A”, “10” and “10A.” A certain
“Viring” also received payment from Dr. Santiago.24 These instances
only prove that a person who received payments from another is not
necessarily the person who extended the loan.
(4) Fourth, Exhibit “M2”25 which the Court of Appeals considered proof
that petitioner was in possession of the jewelry, deserves serious
scrutiny. Said exhibit was not properly identified or introduced as
13
 evidence at the trial. It was marked as an exhibit upon mere SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND
manifestation of counsel.26 It was not touched upon during the FOR CONVICTION
testimony of the private complainant nor listed in the list of exhibits for
the prosecution,27 hence deemed inadmissible in evidence. Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction.
(5) Fifth, Mia Chan’s admission, that she was the one who extended the — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground
loan and received the jewelries, deserves weighty consideration and for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
could not be ignored. That admission is one against selfinterest,
amounting to an incriminatory statement, which the witness could not Corpus Delicti
have volunteered if not the truth.  means the actual commission of the crime charged must also be
(6) Private complainant did not present evidence to substantiate her claim, proved, by evidence independent of the defendant’s confession
other than her self serving testimony. Private complainant relied on the  this does not mean however that every element of the crime must be
acknowledgment receipt allegedly signed by petitioner in the presence clearly established by independent evidence, apart from the confession.
of two witnesses. However, the prosecution did not present Aurora It only means that there should be some evidence tending to show the
Jose, who allegedly witnessed the transaction. Nor did it present Mrs. commission of a crime apart from the confession
Dava and Mrs. Zuñiga who allegedly accompanied Dr. Santiago when o Example: in homicide, aside from the confession of the
the latter tried to redeem her jewelries. While nonpresentation of defendant, there should be some independent proof of the (1)
certain witnesses is not a valid defense nor does it work against the death of the deceased which might have (2) resulted from
prosecution’s cause, this holds true only if the evidence of the some form of violence
prosecution is sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption of  It must be proven that indeed, a crime has been committed
innocence of the accused. If the prosecution evidence is not strong,
then it becomes mandatory for the prosecution to present evidence
which can help further its case, or explain why such evidence is not
presented. When the sole testimony of the complainant is met by an
equally credible evidence of the defense, then the prosecution must
present credible corroborative witnesses to buttress its case. Its failure
to present corroborative witnesses, without any explanation why they
were not produced, weakens the testimony of the witness who named
those corroborating witnesses in her testimony.30 In this case, the
prosecution’s failure to present the corroborative witnesses, without any
explanation for their nonappearance, makes private complainant’s
testimony weak.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 14

  RULE 133 SECTION 4 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
SUFFICIENT
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What is Direct Evidence?
 Evidence that proves a fact without a need to make an inference form
another fact
 Examples:
a. Testimony of the witness claiming that he personally saw the
accused when the latter drew his pistol and fired his pistol on
the victim
b. The witness testifying that he saw the accused set the nipa hut
on fire in a case for arson
c. Deed of sale as evidence of the sale
What is Circumstantial Evidence
 Which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the
fact finder draws form the evidence established
 Fact is established by making an inference from a previously established
fact
 Uses fact from which an assumption is drawn
 That which relates to a series of facts other that the fact in use, which
has been found by reason of common experience, to be so associated
with the facts in issue that, relative to the cause and effect, leads to a
satisfactory conclusion
 Is that indicia that are separately of little importance may, by their
concordant combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the legal
requirements on the guilt of an accused
 When no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved, it is
arrived
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
 Examples:
a. Fingerprints of the accused in the scene of the crime
b. Possession of the stolen property or weapon used
c. Opportunity
d. Motive
Conviction through circumstantial Evidence
 Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with
each other and the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the
exclusion of all other hypothesis that he is not.
o It is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many
cases, result in setting felons free and denying proper
protection to the community
Requisites to convict through circumstantial evidence
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
 the above circumstance shall constitute an unbroken chain which leads
to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused and to the
exclusion of all other, as the author of the crime.
 The totality of the circumstances must exclude each and every
hypothesis consistent with innocence. Hence if the totality of the
circumstances eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of
innocence, the conviction is proper.
 It is not a weaker defense, vis-à-vis direct evidence. As to probative
value, the Court considered circumstantial evidence of a nature identical
to direct evidence because no greater degree of certainty is required
when evidence is circumstantial as it is direct. In both types of
evidence, what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
15
  It ought to be noted that our rules “make no distinction between direct
evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the
existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is
required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for
in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused.”
 When the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two
inference, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence
whole the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court
must acquit the accused because the evidence is not sufficient to fulfill
the test of moral certainty and, therefore, is insufficient to support a
judgment of conviction
Guidelines:
(1) it should be acted upon with caution
(2) all the essential fact must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
(3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
(4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
Cases:
1. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011
2. People vs. Salvame – 270 S 766
3. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra)
Facts:
(1) Malimit was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide of Malaki,
a store owner.
(2) During the trial of the case, the prosecution presented as evidence the
following:
 Rondon, a farmer who arrived at the store of Malaki to buy
some chemical for his farm. In his testimony, he stated that he
saw the accused appellant rushing out of the door of the store
of the victim while holding a bolo with blood.
 Batin, the houseboy of Malaki, who testified that when he went
to ask Malaki to the store to ask him what he wanted for
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
dinner, he saw Malaki on the floor drenched in his own blood,
and saw the accused appellant also coming out of the store
with a bolo
 Both witnesses positively identified the accused appellant.
 The wallet, keys and IDs of the victim Malaki retrieved from
the accused appellant which were allegedly taken by him
(3) The accused appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with
homicide based on the abovementioned evidence submitted.
 Note that the conviction was based on the several
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
hence, the present action by the accused appellant, among all others,
that the evidence presented by the prosecution were insufficient.
Issue: Was the trial court correct in convicting the appellant despite the absence
of direct evidence, and sustaining such decision based on circumstantial
evidence?
Ruling: Yes. there can be a verdict if conviction based on circumstantial
evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to
a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused, to the exclusion of all
the others, as perpetrator of the crime.
Essential requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to
convict:
(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
in the present case, there were at least five (5) circumstances
constituting an unbroken chain of events which by their “concordant
combination and cumulative effect,” satisfy the requirements for the
conviction of the appellant. These are:
(1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin, whose credibilities were
untarnished, holding a bolo in his right hand and rushing out of Malaki’s
store seconds prior to their discovery of the crime;
(2) Malaki sustained multiple stab wounds and he died of “cardiac arrest,
secondary to severe external hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds”;
16
 (3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant on August 6, 1991,
accompanied by some policemen, retrieve Malaki’s wallet underneath a
stone at the seashore in Barangay Hingatungan;
(4) appellant himself admitted in his testimony that on August 6, 1991, he
accompanied several policemen to the seashore where he hid Malaki’s
wallet; and
(5) appellant’s flight and his subsequent disappearance from Hingatungan
immediately after the incident.
4. People vs. Ramos – 240 S 191
Facts:
(1) appellants ANGEL FERNANDEZ, MARCO FERNANDEZ, RODOLFO
TULAGAN, together with one ALEX RAMOS were charged with the crime
of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
(2) There was no eyewitness to the crime.
(3) The evidence for the prosecution was given by Patrolmen DANTE
ASEGURADO and GEMINIANO BAGSIK, DR. LEON RONDILLA, JR., and
PEDRO who responded to the call and report of a robbery-slaying
incidence in the residence of Aida Sison and her housemaid, Avelina
Hernandez. They were already lifeless when they arrived at their home.
However, they were also able to apprehend the suspects as they were
still in the premises of the residence of Aida. Crawling and/or hiding,
trying to flee. The said officers also was able to confiscate knives and
blades from the herein accused all covered in blood. The jewelries and
money were also retrieved from them.
(4) The RTC rendered a decision convicting all the herein accused.
(5) The CA upheld such decision.
Hence, the present action by the appellants arguing that the prosecution was not
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt their guilt there being no direct evidence.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using all
of the circumstantial evidence they have presented?
Ruling: Yes.
Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is that evidence
which proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being
drawn on the part of the factfinder. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The factfinder must draw an inference or
reason from circumstantial evidence.
Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
It ought to be noted that our rules “make no distinction between direct evidence
of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may
be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.”
In the case at bench, we are convinced that the totality of the circumstantial
evidence adduced by the People excludes any reasonable doubt that appellants
are innocent. The records indubitably show that appellants had the opportunity
to commit the crime at bench, They arrived together and immediately proceeded
to the store of victim Aida Sison in the afternoon of October 26, 1987. By their
own admission, they were at the locus criminis shortly before the tragic incident.
They also had the means to commit the crime. Soon after the killing, appellants
Marco and Angel were nabbed by the authorities within the compound of the
Sison residence. Pat. Crispin Reyes arrested Marco, while Geminiano Bagsik
collared Angel who was still holding the bladed weapon (Exhibit “H”) stained with
blood. Rodolfo Tulagan was arrested in the morning, the following day, near the
crime scene, also in possession of a knife. Significantly, appellants were fleeing
when the authorities apprehended them.
The timely apprehension of appellants Marco and Angel inside the compound,
Angel’s possession of the dagger stained with blood at the time of his arrest,
Rodolfo’s act of concealing himself from the arresting officers and his foiled
attempt to leave the locality the following day, are clear indicia of said appellants’
guilt.
5. People vs. Adofina – 239 S 67
17
RULE 133 SECTION 5 – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
When applicable?
 Degree of evidence applies to administrative cases, or those cases filed
before administrative and quasi- judicial bodies
What Constitutes Substantial Evidence?
 Is more than mere scintilla
 Relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, may
conceivable opine otherwise
Why the relaxation in administrative proceedings (not bound by the
strict rules of evidence and procedure)?
 To free the administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules
so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order
 But this assurance of desirable flexibility in administrative
procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a
basis in evidence have rational probative force. Mere
uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute
substantial evidence
1. Ang Tibay vs. CIR – 69 P 635
Facts:
(1) The present action is a petition for certiorari by the National Labor
Union for an action before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which
denied its motion for new trial. The CIR previously rendered a decision
ruling that Ang Tibay is not guilty of ULP on the ground of discriminately
dismissing the union members. The Union avers that:
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
 That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor
practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union,
Inc., and unjustly favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood.
 That it wishes to introduce newly discovered evidence
regarding the falsity of the defense of Ang Tibay that there
was indeed lack of supply of leather to justify the discharge of
the 89 union member employees
(the case focused on the issue of the motion of new trial. But for purposes of our
discussion, here is the issue, regarding the ruling of the CIR in finding that Ang
Tibay is not guilty of ULP)
Issue: Was the trial court correct in holding that Ang Tibay is not guilty
of ULP of discriminating against union members?
Ruling: Yes. The Union was not able to adduce substantial evidence to
prove the guilt of Ang Tibay for ULP.
We have found no substantial evidence to indicate that the exclusion of the 89
laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript
taken contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of a record of
contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing counsel, with sporadic
conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It is evident that these statements and
expressions of views of counsel have no evidentiary value.
The CIR is a quasi-judicial body and what the quantum of evidence
required as basis for its decision is substantial evidence only.
Nature of the Office of the CIR
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are
specifically stated in the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board
than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to
be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is
essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only
cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of
Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active,
affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasijudicial functions in
the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its
functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the
entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question,
matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers and
18
employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or f armlaborers, and regulate
the relations between them.
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR DECISIONS OF
THE ADMINSITRATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES?
There must be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the
evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion."
And in the present case: In the light of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is
sufficient to observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the
Ang Tibay and the National Workers' Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is
barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual ,basis upon which to
predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law.
2. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
3. Fabella vs. CA – 282 S 256
4. PAL vs. NLRC – 263 S 638
5. Villaflor vs. CA – 280 S 297
VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio
Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — 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. But this power should be exercised with caution.
Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence
 since, as a general rule, there is no logical requirements as to the
number and kind of witnesses to prove a material fact, the parties are
free to call as many witnesses as they may deem convenient to their
own interests
 it is however, well settled that the court may limit the number
of witnesses upon the main or collateral issue, but its discretion
must be exercised with caution considering the nature of the case, the
character of the witnesses, and the state of the proof
 it should be applied whenever the evidence is already full that more
witnesses to the same point could not be reasonable expected to be
more and additionally persuasive.
19
Section 7. Evidence on motion. — 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.

 this provision has reference to facts put in issue in a motion, but not to
facts alleged in the pleadings.

 Facts alleged in a motion may be proved by affidavits or depositions,

but the court in its discretion, may order that oral testimony be
presented before itself or before a Commissioner appointed in
accordance with the ROC.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 20