Rule 133 outlines standards for evaluating different types of evidence in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence based on considering all relevant facts and circumstances. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, which means moral certainty rather than absolute certainty. An extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can also be sufficient if it establishes multiple proven facts that collectively produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt without inferences being based on other inferences. The weight given to expert opinions depends on factors like whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts and reliable methods.
Rule 133 outlines standards for evaluating different types of evidence in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence based on considering all relevant facts and circumstances. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, which means moral certainty rather than absolute certainty. An extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can also be sufficient if it establishes multiple proven facts that collectively produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt without inferences being based on other inferences. The weight given to expert opinions depends on factors like whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts and reliable methods.
Rule 133 outlines standards for evaluating different types of evidence in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence based on considering all relevant facts and circumstances. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, which means moral certainty rather than absolute certainty. An extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can also be sufficient if it establishes multiple proven facts that collectively produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt without inferences being based on other inferences. The weight given to expert opinions depends on factors like whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts and reliable methods.
Rule 133 outlines standards for evaluating different types of evidence in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence based on considering all relevant facts and circumstances. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, which means moral certainty rather than absolute certainty. An extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can also be sufficient if it establishes multiple proven facts that collectively produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt without inferences being based on other inferences. The weight given to expert opinions depends on factors like whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts and reliable methods.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
RULE 133
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In
civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his or her case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, 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, 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. (1a)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for
conviction. - An extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(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.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences. (4a)
Section 5. Weight to be given opinion of expert witness, how determined. - In any case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight to be given to such opinion, and for that purpose may consider the following:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case; and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem helpful to make such determination. (n)
Section 6. 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. (5)
Section 7. 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. This power shall be exercised with caution. (6a)
Section 8. 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. (7)
