RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS DEFINITIONS/REQUISITES/EXCEPTIONS

Question 1

1. Presumptions of law

Answer 1

a. May be conclusive or absolute, or disputable or rebuttable
b. A certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference
c. Reduced to fix rules and form a part of the system of jurisprudence

Question 2

Presumptions of fact

Answer 2

a. A discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference
b. Derived wholly and directly from the circs of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind

Question 3

Burden of proof

Onus probandi

ELABORATE

Answer 3

 Obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish the same by the requisite presentation of evidence

 In civil cases, it is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side; in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

 Does not shift; remains on party upon whom it is imposed
 Determined by pleadings filed by party

Question 4

Burden of evidence

ELABORATE

Answer 4

Lies with party asserting affirmative allegations

 Shifts during trial, depending on exigencies of the case

 Determined by developments at trial or by provisions of law (presumptions, judicial notice, admissions)

 In criminal cases, a negative fact must be proven if it is an essential element of the crime.

Question 5

 People vs. Macagaling

DISCUSS

Answer 5

– in a charge of illegal possession of firearms, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had no license to possess the same.

Question 6

People vs. Manalo

DISCUSS

Answer 6

in a charge for selling regulated drugs without authority, it was held that although the prosecution has the burden of proving a negative averment which is an essential element of the crime (i.e. lack of license to sell), the prosecution, in view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, need only establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. In this case, the lack of license was held to have been established by the circumstances that the sale of the drug was consummated not in a drug store or hospital, and that it was made at 10:00 PM.