REM 6

• Factum probandum


  The ultimate fact or the proposition to be established
• Factum probans


  The evidentiary fact that establishes the proposition
• Ultimate facts


  The principal, determinative, and constitutive facts on whose existence the cause of action rests; they are also the essential and determining facts on which the court's conclusion rests and without which the judgment would lack support in essential particulars
• Evidentiary facts


  The facts that the evidence will prove at the trial or which the expected evidence will support; they are the facts supporting the existence of some other alleged and unproven fact; they are the premises that lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion
• An information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense; the evidentiary and other details (i.e., the facts supporting the ultimate facts) can be provided during the trial
• Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance
• The defending party's answer either admits or denies the allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
• The allegations of ultimate facts the answer admit, being undisputed, will not require evidence to establish the truth of such facts, but the allegations of ultimate facts the answer properly denies, being disputed, will require evidence
• Proof


  The outcome of adequate evidence; the end result of the conviction or persuasion produced by the evidence
• Evidence


  The means, sanctioned by the Revised Rules on Evidence, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
• Burden of proof


  The 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
• Burden of evidence


  The duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case
• The burden of evidence is determined by the progress of the trial and may shift from one party to the other depending on the exigencies of the case
• The defendant/respondent may successfully overthrow the complainant's prima facie case against the former, without necessarily proving his/her innocence
• In civil cases, once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor in the course of the trial, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case
• In criminal cases, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the Court of the truth of the allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him or her to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima facie case
• By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly
• Courts have wide latitude in assigning weight to the opinion of an expert witness
• In civil cases, the quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence, which means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other
• opinion does not in any way bind this Court to blindly adopt the same finding, especially in light of facts warranting a different conclusion
• Preponderance of evidence


  The evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other
• Preponderance of evidence means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto
• In determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number
• Even if a party was able to present more evidence than the other, it does not necessarily mean that the former has preponderant evidence. What is important is the relative weight or probative value of the evidence on record
• Forfeiture proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 are civil in nature. Thus, the quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence
• In civil cases where the success of the action rests on refuting a presumption, such as nullity of marriage cases, the quantum of proof required is clear and convincing evidence
• A duly executed contract or instrument carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its regularity has the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of irregularity
• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt


  The judge can conclude that all of the facts, as established during trial, lead to no other conclusion than the commission of the crime as prescribed in the law
• Reasonable doubt


  That state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge
• A confession made outside of court proceedings is not sufficient for conviction unless accompanied by evidence of the corpus delicti
• Corpus delicti


  The body, foundation or substance of a crime, and which refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical body of the deceased
• Direct evidence


  Proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference
• Circumstantial evidence


  Proves collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience
• Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden
• Requisites to make circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

  • There is more than one circumstance
  • The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
  • The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
• The prosecution's evidence showed that it may be possible that other persons, aside from accused-appellant, were present at the river considering that it is used as laundry area by the members of the community
• The horrific act of killing Krishna cannot solely be attributed to accused-appellant as its author
• The inference made by the trial court that accused-appellant whipped or slapped Krishna several times, as what Eufresina heard, which may have resulted to the death of Krishna, cannot be sustained
• When dealing with circumstantial evidence, an inference cannot be based on another inference
• Clear and convincing evidence


  The quantum of evidence required to prove that a valid waiver of the right to unreasonable searches and seizures has been made