ALL INSIGHT

not criminally liable, how can he be civilly liable?” Hence, they will be appealing the decision and assailing the court’s order to return the monies.

I believe both sides are wrong. The quantum of evidence that is required for a criminal conviction should be “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Meaning, the law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt. In other words, the evidence should meet or hurdle the test of moral certainty. On the one hand, mere “preponderance of evidence” is required for civil liability to arise. Meaning, the proof should just be convincing enough to sustain guilt.

Criminal and civil liabilities are not always taken and adjudged together. One may have a criminal liability but have no civil liability. One may not be criminally liable but will still have civil liability. It does not follow that if one is not found to be criminally guilty, then he will no longer have civil liability or vice versa.

I do not personally know Senator Revilla. The only time that I met him was during the 2010 joint presidential and vice-presidential canvassing in Congress. I was a technical consultant then of the former House speaker. I am neither for him nor against

the blood on the gloves were concluded to have come from both victims. Bloody shoe prints were likewise found in the scene of the crime. The shoe prints were the same size as Simpson’s.

Yet, Simpson’s very-high profile defense team was able to convince the jurors that there was reason to doubt the evidence provided by the state. There were

- ing Simpson the shoes and there wasn’t any receipts recovered that

must acquit.”