BOR_PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

Question 1

Provision on the Presumption of Innocence

Answer 1

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
(Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)

Question 2

Section 14, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law provides that an accused’s presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation. Does this provision violate the constitutional presumption of innocence?

Answer 2

Summ:
1. (disputable presumptions)
2. The existence of a disputable presumption does not preclude the presentation of contrary evidence.
3. AHL does not do away with the requirement that the prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the hazing beyond reasonable doubt

NO. This Court has upheld the constitutionality of disputable presumptions in criminal laws.

The constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.

When such prima facie evidence is unexplained or not contradicted by the accused, the conviction founded on such evidence will be valid.

However, the prosecution must still prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The existence of a disputable presumption does not preclude the presentation of contrary evidence. Here, petitioner fails to show that a logical relation between the fact proved—presence of a person during the hazing—and the ultimate fact presumed—their participation in the hazing as a principal—is lacking.
3. Neither has it been shown how Section 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law does away with the requirement that the prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the hazing beyond reasonable doubt. (Fuertes v. Senate, G.R. No. 208162, 07 Jan. 2020)