11. ANÁLISIS Y PRESENTACIÓN DE RESULTADOS
11.2 EFECTIVIDAD DE LOS GUANTES ANTIVIBRATORIOS COMO TÉCNICA
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Applies to civil cases Applies to cases filed before
administrative or qua-judicial bodies
It means greater or superior weight of evidence. It is the more evidence that is more convincing and more credible than the one offered by the adverse party.
Requires that in order to establish a fact, the evidence should constitute the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
Quantum of evidence in a petition for a writ of amparo
Q: What is the quantum of evidence in a petition for a writ of amparo?
A: The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence (Sec. 17, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
Effect of Failure to prove administrative liability on the criminal case
Q: What is the effect of the failure to prove administrative liability on the criminal case?
A: The findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. The evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal case. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from, adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal case.
Also, the dismissal of the criminal case is not per se bar to administrative sanctions (Paredes v. CA, 2007).
Clear and convincing evidence Q: When is an evidence clear and convincing?
A: If it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.
Government of Hong Kong Special Admin. Region v.
Olalia, 2007
This standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.
Q: What is the quantum of evidence to prove allegations of bias?
A: Bare allegations of bias and partiality of the judge are mot enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purposes, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decisions of the decision or order itself (Rivera v. Mendoza, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2013, 2006.
Q: What should be the quantum in case of annulment or reconveyance of title?
A: A party seeking it should establish not merely by preponderance of evidence but by a clear and convincing that the land sought to be reconveyed is his.
Q: What should be the quantum in case of allegation of frame-up and extortion?
A: To substantiate the defense, including instigation, the evidence must be clear and convincing.
NOTE: Denial is a weak form of evidence, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
A notarized instrument enjoys the presumption of due execution. Only a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary can overcome this presumption (Viaje v. Pamintel, 2006).
A person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law presumes good faith.
Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence
Q: What factors should be considered in assessing the Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence?
A:
1. The reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or communicated
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified
3. The familiarity of the information and communication system
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system
6. Other factors which the court may consider (Sec.1, Rule 7, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Q: How may matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weigh of an electronic document be established?
A: By an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained.
C. PRESUMPTIONS
Q: What is a presumption?
A: It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts founded or otherwise established in the action.
It is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from proof of other facts.
Q: Is presumption an evidence?
A: No. They merely affect the burden of offering evidence.
NOTE: A presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted.
Q: Differentiate inference from a presumption.
A:
INFERENCE PRESUMPTION
It is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts
Mandated by law and establishes a legal relation between or among the facts One that is a result of the
reasoning process. It need not have a legal effect because it is mandated by law.
It is a conclusion which a rule directs shall be made from proof of certain facts
Kinds of presumption Q: What are the kinds of presumptions?
A:
1. Presumptions of law or presumption juris
a. Conclusive b. Disputable
2. Presumptions of fact or presumption hominis Q: When is a presumption one of law?
A: It is an assumption which the law requires to be made from a set of facts
Q: When is it one of fact?
A: When the assumption is made from the facts without any direction or positive requirement of law.
Q: How would you categorize the presumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty?
A: Presumption of law. It is one embodied in the Constitution
Sec. 14 [2], Art. III of the Constitution
Q: What is the effect of a presumption?
A: A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.
Presumptions under the Rules of Court Q: What are the presumptions under the Rules of Court?
A:
1. Conclusive or presumptions et de jure
2. Disputable or disputable presumptions or presumptions juris tantum
Q: When is a presumptive conclusive?
A: When the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible. This is a rule of substantive law.
It is an inference which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.
Q: When is a presumption disputable or rebuttable?
A: It may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence.
They are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
Q: What if the evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced?
A: The force of the presumption disappears.
Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court (Rule 131)
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a)Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:
(b)The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
Q: What is the basis of the Conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court?
A: They are based on the doctrine of estoppel. Under this doctrine, the person making the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he himself committed.
Q: What is the common term for the first conclusive presumption?
A: Estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct.
Estoppel Q: What is estoppel?
A: It is an equitable principle rooted upon natural justice, prevents persons from going back on their own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them.
The essential elements of Estoppel in pais may be considered in relation to the party sought to be estopped, and in relation to the party invoking the estoppel in his favor.
Q: What are the essential elements of estoppel?
A:
1. Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts; or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert;
2. Intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, of the real facts 3. Knowledge, actual or constructive of the real facts
Q: What are the elements in relation to the party claiming the estoppel?
A:
1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question
2. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped
3. Action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice (PNB v, Palma, 2005).
NOTE: In estoppel, it is important that the person invoking it has been influenced or relied on the representations or conduct of the person sought to be stopped (Kalalo v. Luz).
Q: What is the basis of the doctrine?
A: It is based on the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon (Harold v. Aliba, 2007).
Disputable presumptions
Example: The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. This includes the presumptions of regularity of service of summons.
Q: Does the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed applicable to a petition for a writ of amparo?
A: No. Under Rule 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the respondent public official cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
NOTE: The presumption of innocence of the accused prevails over the presumption that law enforcement agents were in the regular performance of their duty.
Examples of Disputable presumptions 1. That a person is innocent of a crime or a wrong 2. That an unlawful act was done with unlawful intent 3. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his business
5. The evidence willfully suppresses would be adverse if produced;
6. That money paid by one another was due to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the latter ones is produced
10. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
11. That official duty has been regularly performed;
12. That a court, or judge, acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
13. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
14. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
15. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract; ] 16. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration.
Disputable presumptions under Sec.3, Rule 131
Sec. 3.Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a)That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b)That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c)That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
(d)That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e)That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
(f)That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g)That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h)That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i)That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
(j)That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k)That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l)That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m)That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n)That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
(w)That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1)A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2)A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3)A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years;
(4)If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y)That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb)That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.chanrobles virtua law library
(dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:
(1)A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born usual with things of the nature;
(ff)That the law has been obeyed;
(gg)That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh)That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
(jj)That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1.If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2.If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4.If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
5.If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk)That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (5a)
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence is founded upon the first principles of justice. Its purpose is to balance the scales in what could otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the sources at their command. The accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. Accordingly, conflicts in evidence must be resolved
The presumption of innocence is founded upon the first principles of justice. Its purpose is to balance the scales in what could otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the sources at their command. The accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. Accordingly, conflicts in evidence must be resolved