WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

By Jorge D. Lomboy



For all intents and purposes, anything we call evidence has no market value and is worthless until the need for it arises. It doesn’t serve any purpose without controverted claims and conflicting rights. There must be conflict to appreciate the value and importance of evidence. In that conflict each party sets out their own version of facts in support of their claims backed up by self-sustaining and self serving authorities. The battle lines are delineated in two opposing sets of facts. Finding whose and which set of facts to believe requires analytical surgery in resolving contentious issues. The risks are great and the stakes are high in weighing the evidence.

It is easy to accuse, easy to blame, easy to find fault, easy to point the finger and easy to condemn. All these are as easy as drinking coffee. We see this everyday and we hear it everywhere. But it is hard to prove the truth. We have no control over what we see, we have no control over what we hear and we have no control over what others do.  All this is evidence from outside sources. We have control of what we do, what we fail to do, what we say and what we fail to say. All this is also evidence sourced from us and no one else.

In a nutshell, we are ambulatory sources of evidence in the totality of everything we say and do. It is not easy to distinguish between truth and lie in the forest of myriad tongues. Truth and lie are shuffled like playing cards in argument and in a forest of words and forensic articulation. Our task is to segregate fact from hindsight, separate reason from assumption and purge ideology from evidence. To remove the chaff from the grain, piece by piece, is a painstaking job. We need to be attached objectively and detached subjectively in determining someone’s credibility as opposed to someone who is faking the front. And this is what weighing the evidence entails in adjudicating disputes.

There are two accepted standards of proof employed in weighing the evidence. In civil cases, the standard is called preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases, the standard is called proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence is anybody’s game for the burden of proof shifts from one party to the other. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a burden that rests entirely on the accuser for the burden does not shift all throughout from inception to conclusion because the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence as well as the benefit of the doubt. Both standards require objectivity in weighing the evidence. But more often than not, the standards are mangled by subjective bias and subrogated prejudice.

Evidence broadly defined is the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact that of which makes evident or plain. Evidence is not something we put on a scale. It is something we weigh in our minds based on asserted truths and assorted lies. It includes testimony, documents and tangible things that tend to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. It is the demonstration of a fact. It signifies that which it demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point at issue either on one side or the other. Weighing the evidence is a life-changing undertaking for it concludes a man’s guilt or innocence and decides a man’s rights. It is evidence that decides whether or not one violated the law. It is evidence that decides who will prevail in a civil action. It is evidence that decides which party meets the applicable standard of proof. Any blunder committed in weighing the evidence will perforce produce partial justice, selective justice or miscarriage of justice.

The process of weighing the evidence is spoiled when we don’t have an open mind. There are many reasons why our minds are plastered. Our morals, our beliefs, our personal loyalties, our ideologies, and our likes and dislikes make us opinionated with closed minds. These attributes are what we are made of. They enslave and imprison our minds. They are fences and fetters that keep the mind in bondage. These attributes are the reason we are of a mindset toward prejudgment. Perhaps I could illustrate my point more clearly, more forcefully and more plainly by saying that not every boy will fall in love with the same girl and not every girl will fall in love with the same boy. Truth to tell, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The conduct in weighing the evidence is dabbling for no one in his right mind will defy his loyalties. We cannot spurn our ideologies and morals.  We cannot renounce our likes and dislikes. We cannot rebel against our beliefs and values in weighing the evidence. When evidence doesn’t conform to our values we are inclined to rationalizing, discreetly avenging ourselves. We are sold to our values and by all means we downplay evidence that contradicts our values. Our values are paramount to evidence and cannot be submerged in weighing the evidence. Rationalizing the untenable in weighing the evidence is latent evidence of dabbling, a faulty wiring in our minds amounting to intellectual dishonesty.

The laws and rules in weighing the evidence are laid in words easily understood yet convoluted by different meanings. The laws and rules have become a playground for interpretation where each party’s interpretation supports its own position.  

A word, a phrase or a rule is made to swing and sway with disagreeing interpretations. Disagreement in interpreting laws and rules is the match point in weighing the evidence. Weighing the evidence is further complicated by a war of interpretations to a point that justice is the victim and not the victor. Life, liberty and property conjure with interpretation. Laws and rules dwindle in weighing the evidence.

Just like any game, parties in a dispute will strive to win, fair or foul. Supporting their claims are a lengthy table of citations and authorities dealing with case laws, precedents and rulings in the same or other jurisdictions. Amid conflicting citations and authorities, preponderance of evidence becomes blurred and messy. Proof beyond reasonable doubt becomes murky and fishy. At this stage, weighing the evidence appears tumultuous and perplexing. Turned off by a convoluted war of cited authorities, decision makers avail of rationalizing a configuration of x-factors as the guiding standard in weighing the evidence in lieu of standards of proof set by law. The substitution of subjectivity in dealing with x-factors over objectivity with standards of proof reflects an insidious mockery in weighing the evidence.

Preponderance of evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are thrown overboard in the skirmishes of real life. Questions dealing with right and wrong are addressed by the moral values of everyone. Issues dealing with just and unjust are charged to one’s biases and prejudices. What is lawful and what is unlawful is flexibly decided by ever-evolving interpretation. Matters dealing with good and bad appeal to everyone’s level of sensitivity. These x-factors influence the outcome of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. To this day, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence weigh less heavily in weighing the evidence.