Section 1, Rule 128 - Evidence Defined Flashcards
(18 cards)
What is an evidence?
Evidence is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact.
What is the ruling under Atienza v. Board of Medicine with respect to facts already established?
Evidence also provides for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary. Laws of nature, involving the physical sciences, specifically, biology, include the structural make-up and composition of living things such as human beings.
What is the rule regarding mere allegations?
The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. When the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
What are the six instances when evidence is not required to be presented?
- When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence.
- Presentation of evidence may likewise be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
- Evidence is not required on matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially admitted.
- Evidence is not required when the law presumes the truth of a fact.
- Evidence is dispensed with when a rule presumed the truth of a fact.
- Evidence is not required when a fact is judicially admitted by the adverse party. An admission made by the party in the court of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
In the case of Sofia v. Tabuada, what is the rule when it comes to the type of evidence?
Evidence may be object, documentary, or testimonial.
Although in this case, documentary evidence may be preferable as proof of a legal relationship, other evidence of the relationship that are competent and relevant may not be excluded. In short, the rule requires the consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the cases, regardless of whether they are object, documentary, or testimonial.
What is preponderance of evidence? When is it considered that there is preponderance of evidence?
The preponderance of evidence, the rule that is applicable in civil cases, is also known as the greater weight of evidence. There is a preponderance of evidence when the trier of facts is led to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.
What is the difference between the evidence of civil cases and of criminal cases based on its quantum of proof?
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the difference of civil cases and criminal cases in terms of compromise?
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses, or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
What is the difference of civil cases and criminal cases in terms of the application of presumption of innocence?
In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply, and generally, there is no presumption for or against a party except in certain cases provided by law.
In criminal case, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.
What is the difference of civil cases and criminal cases in terms of the evidence of the oral character?
In civil cases, evidence of the good or bad moral of a character as long as it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. In criminal prosecution is not allowed to prove the bad moral character of the accused even if it is pertinent to the moral trait involved.
What is the difference between “proof” and “evidence”?
Proof is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the evidence.
Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while evidence is the medium of proof.
What is the difference between factum probandium and factum probans?
Factum probandium is the fact or proposition to be established, while factum probans on the other hand, are the facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.
What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence?
Direct evidence proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, “indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact-finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.”
How do you define circumstantial evidence? When is it sufficient to sustain conviction?
Circumstantial evidence, known as indirect or presumptive evidence, refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven
3. The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What is cumulative evidence?
Refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given which tends to prove the same proposition.
What is corroborative evidence?
One that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen or confirm the cumulative evidence. It is additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
Is there a need for a party to always present corroborating evidence? When is corroborating evidence needed?
Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations are incorrect.
