Clear and convincing evidence

Clear and convincing evidence is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases)
but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases). The degree of believability is higher
than that of an ordinary civil case (Riguer v. Mateo, G.R. No. 222538, June 21, 2017).

The questioned deeds, being public documents, retain the presumption of validity in the absence
of a full, clear and convincing evidence to overcome such presumption. Merely preponderant
evidence may not destroy such presumption because strong evidence is required to prove a defect
of a public instrument. In this case, the petitioners never questioned the authenticity of the
signature of Igarta on the documents. Their due execution has been amply proved. The testimony
of Rosal who prepared them, was corroborated by Atty. Yalao who notarized all three
documents. Hence, no clear and convincing evidence had been adduced by petitioners to impugn
the validity of the documents executed by Igarta. Consequently, the validity of the said
documents must be upheld (Agdeppa v. Ibe, G.R. No. 96770, March 30, 1993).

To be clear and convincing, evidence should “clear” in the sense that it is certain, plain to
understand, unambiguous, and “convincing” in the sense that it is so reasonable and persuasive
as to cause you to believe it (In re B.D.-Y, 286 Kan. 686, 693 [Kan. 2008])

The common definition of clear and convincing is one where the witnesses to a fact must be
found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the
details in connection with the transaction must be narrated exactly and in order; the testimony
must be clear, direct, and weighty; and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts
at issue (Newell v. Krause, 239 Kan. 550, 557, 722 P.2d 530 [1986]).