RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Q. Define Burden of Proof. It is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Q. Define Burden of Evidence. It is the duty resting upon a party by means of evidence to create or meet a prima facie case. Q. Distinguish Burden of Proof from Burden of Evidence. Burden of proof does not shift during the course of trial. It remains with the party upon whom the law cast it at the beginning of the trial. On the other hand, burden of evidence shifts or passes from side to side as the trial progresses and evidence is produced. Burden of Proof = risk of non-persuasion Burden of Evidence = duty of going forward with evidence PEOPLE vs. MANALO FACTS: A team of the Dangerous Drug Enforcement Division conducted an entrapment, with Police Officer Corpuz acting as poseur-buyer. The transaction yielded from the accused a deck of shabu, a sealed plastic bag containing an undetermined amount of suspected marijuana leaves, an improvised glass totter containing suspected shabu residue and a P100.00 marked bill used by the police officers in the entrapment operation. Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for selling shabu without authority. On appeal, accused-appellant in her assignment of errors, contends that there was no showing by the prosecution that she has no license or authority to sell shabu which is a regulated drug. Accused-appellant maintains that since the absence of a license or authority is an essential ingredient of the crime, proof of such negative allegation should have been presented by the prosecution. ISSUE: Who has the burden of proof in proving a negative allegation? HELD: The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of exceptions.

Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within the defendants knowledge and control. Q. What need not be proved? The following need not be proved: 1. Judicial notice; 2. Admissions; and 3. Presumptions. Q. What is a presumption? A presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known arising from its usual connection with another which is known. In a Philippine case, a presumption is defined as a conjecture based on past experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take. Q. What is the role of presumption in evidence? Presumptions do not constitute evidence. They have no value as such. They only determine who should present evidence. As a matter of fact, it need not be proved. Evidence displaces presumption. Presumptions merely aid in establishing a prima facie case and have no probative value. Thus, it is rebuttable. Q. What happens if there is collision between two presumptions? The weaker presumption must yield to the stronger one. In determining which is a weaker or a stronger presumption, one must look at the evidence. If the evidence leans towards a presumption which is backed up by evidence, it is the stronger evidence then. Example: Presumption #1: Every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent thereof. Presumption #2: Every person found in possession of stolen things is presumed guilty. The first presumption is rebutted by the second but evidence must be presented first in order to prove a crime of theft or robbery was committed. The 2nd presumption arises only upon presentation of evidence. So there is no conflict. Q. Kinds of presumptions. 1. Presumption of facts 2. Presumption of law

Q. Distinguish a presumption of fact from a presumption of law. The former is an inference which leaves the trial court at liberty to infer certain conclusions from a certain set of circumstances. This is actually not a mandatory deduction. It stands more on logic or human experience. On the other hand, the latter is a presumption which the law allows to be drawn from ascertained state of facts. This is mandatory. The main difference between the two is that the former is no more than a permissible deduction which the law allows but the law does not require it. A presumption of law is a mandatory deduction which the law commands to be done. Types of presumptions of law: 1. Conclusive presumptions = presumption juris et de jure 2. Disputable presumptions = presumptions juris tantum Q. Define Conclusive Presumptions. Conclusive presumptions are presumptions which the law does not allow to be contradicted. They are unrebuttable and admit of no proof to the contrary. In effect, conclusive presumptions belong to the branch of the rule of substantive law because they are final. The following are the instances of conclusive presumptions: 1. Estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. 2. Estoppel against tenant a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Q. Define Disputable Presumptions. Disputable presumptions are presumptions which are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. See Sec. 3, Rule 131 Instances of Disputable Presumptions. Q. What is the concept of Presumption of Fabrication of Evidence? This presumption arises if the case is groundless and it affects the whole mass of evidence presented by the party. Meaning, this will work against the person who fabricated his evidence. All other evidence presented in court by him for his defense will be tainted. There is presumption that he fabricated his evidence because his case is groundless.

Q. What is Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts? It is a presumption that a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it and that an official duty has been regularly performed. NOTE: This presumption is usually applied in buy-bust operations. The defense sometimes assails the validity of the operation by alleging that the evidence was planted. But between the story of the arresting officers and that of the accused, the Supreme Court leans towards that of the former because of the presumption of regularity of duty. However, it may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty and said evidence against it should be clear and strong. Q. What is Presumption of Survivorship? It is a presumption that in case two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes. Q. What is Presumption of Simultaneous Death? It is presumption that in case there is doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same. In the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. Q. Distinguish Presumption of Survivorship from Presumption of Simultaneous Death. 1. The former pertains to death in calamity; while the latter is silent as to how the parties died, whether in a calamity or whatever way. 2. The former may be invoked only if facts on which they are based are known or knowable such as age, sex or physical condition; while the latter applies only if there is doubt as to who of several persons who are called to succeed each other died first.