Evidence Page 1 of 8

Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

Topic: Weight and aSufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

Welcome Notes:

WELCOME CRIMINOLOGY STUDENTS

I. INTRODUCTION:
This module introduces the discussion on Weight and Sufficiency Of Evidence. This includes the
following: circumstantial evidence, substantial evidence, clear and convincing evidence, hierarchy of
evidentiary values, and the equipoise rule.

II. OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. Determine ccircumstantial evidence, substantial evidence, clear and convincing evidence, hierarchy
of evidentiary values, and equipoise rule in different scenarios
2. Differentiate the topics included in this module
3. Explain when Circumstantial Evidence can be sufficient for conviction

III. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITY

Before you proceed to the main lesson, test yourself in this activity.

Direction/Instruction: Arrange the jumbled letters to form a word.

1. H I E R A C H Y R - ____________________________________________________________
Hint: a scheme of rank or order

2. C I R T A N C U M S T I A L - ____________________________________________________
Hint: marked by careful attention to detail: abounding in factual details.

GREAT!!!

You may now proceed to the main lesson.

 Evidence Page 2 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

IV. LESSON PROPER

LET’S BEGIN!

Based on the preliminary activities, what did you notice about it?

_______________________________________________

CONGRATULATIONS!

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (Part II)

Circumstantial Evidence
 Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which a court may draw its
finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. (Jose Espineli a.k.a. Danilo Espineli v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179535,
June 9, 2014)
 Circumstantial evidence (also known as Indirect Evidence or Presumptive Evidence) is that evidence
which indirectly proves a fact in issue. (People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302; People v. Andal, 279 SCRA
474)
 It refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience. (People v. Pabol, 603 SCRA 522)
 When there is no eyewitness to a crime, resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable. (People v.
Ragon, 272 SCRA 90)

When is Circumstantial Evidence 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.
(Rule 133, Sec. 4; People v. Cordova, 224 SCRA
319, People v. Songcuan, 176 SCRA 354) Figure 1 – Circumstantial Evidence
 The circumstances proven must form an unbroken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_Evidence_(1
929_American_film)
chain, which leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator of the crime.
(People v. Caparas, Jr., 290 SCRA 78)
 Evidence Page 3 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

Substantial Evidence
 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion (Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. NTC, 332 SCRA 819; Salazar v. De
Leon, 576 SCRA 447)
 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. (Rule 133, Sec. 5)

Clear and Convincing Evidence

 It is more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. (See Manalo
v. Roldan-Confesor, 215 SCRA 808)
NOTES: The standard to contradict a notarial document is clear and convincing evidence. (Jison v. CA,
286 SCRA 495) In other words, a notarized document may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary.
For the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity. (Vide: People v. Teodoro, 590 SCRA 494)
For alibi to be given evidentiary value, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that:
(1) He was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offense;
(2) It was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
(See People v. Dela Cnuz, 603 SCRA 455)

Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values

 In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed
by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence and lastly by substantial
evidence, in that order. (See Manalo v. Roldan-Confessor, G.R. No. 102358, November 19, 1992)

The Equipoise Rule

 When there are two or more circumstances, one consistent with the presumption of innocence, and
the other compatible with guilt, the first must prevail over the second, and the trial court must acquit
the accused, since ‘no crime is committed when the mind is innocent’ (Latin: actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea). [People v. Dimalantia, 440 SCRA 55] (2004)
 The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
inconsistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty, and is not
sufficient to support a conviction. (People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267)

 The rule is applicable only where the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly
balanced as to call for the tilting of the scales in favor of the accused who is presumed innocent under
the Bill of Rights. (People v. Ramilla, 227 SCRA 583)
 Evidence Page 4 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

 Under the equiponderance of evidence rule, even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than
that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient
in itself to establish his cause of action. (Yunchengco v. Sandiganbayan, 479 SCRA 1)

We had just finished the discussion on Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence

(Part II). Let’s move on to the next higher level of activity/ies or exercise/s
that demonstrate your potential skills/knowledge of what you have learned.

V. ANALYSIS, APPLICATION AND EXPLORATION

Activity 1
Name: _______________________________________ Course & Section: __________________
Direction: Put a (/) inside the box if the statement is correct and (X) if not.

1. Substantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue.

2. Circumstantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
3. Clear and convincing evidence is more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
inconsistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty, and is not
sufficient to support a conviction.
5. In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, clear and convincing evidence is at the highest level,
followed by proof beyond reasonable doubt, then by preponderance of evidence and lastly by
substantial evidence, in that order.

Activity 2
Direction: Differentiate the following. Choices are provided below.

Choices for Activity 2:

 It is an evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue.

 It is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
 This is more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 This rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other inconsistent
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty, and is not sufficient to support
 Evidence Page 5 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

a conviction.
 In this hierarchy, clear and proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by
convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence and lastly by substantial evidence, in that
order.

1. Hierarchy Of 2. Equipoise Rule 3. Clear and 4. Circumstantial 5. Substantial

Evidentiary Values Convincing Evidence Evidence
Evidence

Finally, let us summarize the lesson of what we had discussed today.

 Evidence Page 6 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

VI. GENERALIZATION

Name: _____________________________________ Course & Section: __________________

Directions: Answer the question in 2-3 sentences.
“When is Circumstantial Evidence can be sufficient for conviction?”

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Rubric:
Level Description Score
 Well written and very organized.
 Excellent grammar mechanics.
OUTSTANDING  Clear and concise statements. 9-10
 Excellent effort and presentation with detail.
 Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic.
 Writes fairly clear.
 Good grammar mechanics.
GOOD 7-8
 Good presentation and organization.
 Sufficient effort and detail
 Minimal effort.
 Good grammar mechanics.
FAIR 6
 Fair presentation.
 Few supporting details.
 Somewhat unclear.
 Shows little effort.
 Poor grammar mechanics.
POOR 5
 Confusing and choppy, incomplete sentences.
 No organization of thoughts.

KUDOS!
You have come to an end of Module 16.
OOPS! Don’t forget that you have still an assignment to do.
 Evidence Page 7 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

VII. ASSIGNMENT

Name: _____________________________________ Course & Section: __________________

Direction/Instruction: Determine the statement whether it is TRUE or FALSE.

_________________ 1.When there is no eyewitness to a crime, resort to circumstantial evidence is

inevitable.
_________________ 2.Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which a
court may draw its finding of guilt.
_________________ 3.A notarized document may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary.
_________________ 4. In Hierarchy Of Evedentiary Values, substantial evidence is the least in order.
_________________ 5.The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to
support its conclusion of guilt.

After your long journey of reading and accomplishing the module, let us
now challenge your mind by answering the evaluation part of this module.

VIII. EVALUATION

Name: _______________________________________ Course & Section: __________________

Direction/Instruction: Read each sentence/situation carefully and select the letter of the correct
answer among the choices.
1. It is also known as Indirect Evidence or Presumptive Evidence.
A. Proof beyond reasonable doubt C. Circumstantial evidence
B. Clear and convincing evidence D. Substantial evidence
2. All except one, are instances where circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.
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
D. All answers are correct
3. It refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience.
A. Circumstantial evidence C. Hierarchy of evidentiary values
B. Equipoise rule D. Substantial evidence
 Evidence Page 8 of 8
Module 16: Weight And Sufficiency Of Evidence (Part II)

4. In the Hierarchy of evidentiary values, it is an evidence next to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A. Substantial evidence C. Preponderance of evidence
B. Clear and convincing evidence D. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
5. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion
A. Hierarchy of evidentiary values C. Equipoise rule
B. Substantial evidence D. Preponderance of evidence
6. It is an evidence more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A. Preponderance of evidence C. Clear and convincing evidence
B. Circumstantial evidence D. Alibi
7. This rule is applicable only where the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly
balanced as to call for the tilting of the scales in favor of the accused who is presumed innocent under
the Bill of Rights.
A. Equipoise rule C. Bill of rights
B. Exclusionary rule D. Fruit of poisonous tree
8. In the Hierarchy of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear
and convincing evidence, then by ___________________ and lastly by substantial evidence, in that
order.
A. Preponderance of evidence C. Quantum of proof
B. Subtitionary evidence D. All answers are correct
9. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by ________________, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion
A. Secondary evidence C. Subtitionary evidence
B. Substantial evidence D. All answers are correct
10. In the Hierarchy of evidentiary values, it is an evidence at the highest level.
A. Proof of reasonable doubt C. Preponderance of evidence
B. Quantum of proof D. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

(This evaluation will be submitted on ________________.)

CONGRATULATIONS on reaching the end of this module!

You may now proceed to the next module.
Don’t forget to submit all the exercises, activities and portfolio
on ___________________.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Well Done!!!