Burden of proof 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. (1a, 2a)
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of Proof or “onus probandi”, defined: 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 quantum of evidence.
Proof, defined: The establishment of a requisite degree of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the fact in issue.
Quantum of Evidence Required:
Civil Cases Preponderance of Evidence Charges of Misconduct
Against Judges
Clear and Convincing Evidence
*For Removal: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Administrative,
Quasi-Judicial and Agrarian Cases
Substantial Evidence: Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion
Hierarchy of Evidence
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt 2. Clear and convincing evidence 3. Preponderance of evidence 4. Substantial evidence
2 Separate Burdens in Burden of Proof
1. Burden of Going Forward: Burden of Producing evidence
2. Burden of Persuasion: The burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail.
Upon Whom BURDEN OF PROOF Rests:
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
On the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.
The burden of proof is always with the prosecution.
Plaintiff Has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the
Note: It is required that courts determine first if the Criminal
Cases
To Sustain Conviction
Preliminary Investigation Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Proof
beyond reasonable doubt
Evidence as to “engender a well-founded belief” as to the fact of the commission of the crime and the respondent’s probable guilt
Probable Cause:
Reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offense .
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]45 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
defendant raises a negative defense.
(w/ respect to his complaint)
evidence of the prosecution has at least shown a prima facie case before considering the evidence of the defense.
*If established – then the burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise Defendant Has the burden of proof if he raises
an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff.
(w/ respect to his counterclaim) Cross
Claimant w/ respect to his cross claim
Burden of Evidence, defined: The logical necessity on a party during a particular time of the trial to create a prima facie case in its favor or to destroy that created against him by presenting evidence.
In BOTH civil and criminal cases: The BURDEN OF EVIDENCE lies w/ the party who asserts an affirmative allegation.
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Plaintiff Must prove the affirmative allegations in his complaint
Prosecution Must prove the its affirmative allegations in the indictments (elements of the crime and the attending circumstances)
Defendant In his counterclaim and in his
affirmative defenses
Defense As to the justifying, exempting, mitigating, and absolutory circumstances Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Does not shift and remains throughout the entire case exactly where the original pleadings placed it.
Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial
Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party.
Generally determined by the developments of the trial, or by the provisions of substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the facts alleged.
(ex. Presumptions, judicial notice) Principle of Negative Averments (NA)
- GR: NAs need not be proved (whether in civil or criminal action) - EXC: It has to be proved when such negative allegations are:
o The essential parts of the cause of action (civil case) or
o The essential ingredients of the offense of the defense (criminal case). Only needs to establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable
Example: In breach of contract, non-performance must be proven. In illegal possession of firearms, the lack of license must be proved.
- EXC to the EXC: In civil cases, even if the NA is an essential part of the cause of action or defense, it does not need to be proved:
o IF it is only for the purpose of denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
Note: It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a NA the truth of which is indicated by established circumstances and which if untrue could readily be disproved by documents or other evidence w/in the knowledge or control of the accused. When the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof or when the facts are more immediately w/in the knowledge of the accused – the onus rests on the accused.
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
The Following Facts Need Not be Proved:
1. Facts which are presumed (Rule 131) 2. Facts which are of judicial notice (Rule 129) 3. Facts which are judicially admitted (Rule 129)
PRESUMPTIONS
Presumption, defined: An inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
Note: A presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence.
It imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to meet or rebut the presumption.
Presumptions Judicial Admission and Judicial Notice
The proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption
The proponent does not have to introduce any evidence
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]46 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
(evidence of the existence and non-existence of the facts from which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue Classifications of Presumptions
Presumptions of Law (praesumptiones juris)
Presumptions of Fact (praesumptiones hominis) Definition: A deduction which the
law expressly directs to be made from particular facts.
Definition: A deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect
A certain inference must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis of the inference
Discretion is vested in the tribunal as to drawing the inference.
Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the system of jurisprudence
Derived wholly and directly from the
circumstances of the particular case by means of the common experience of mankind Presumptions of Law Can Be:
a. Conclusive or Absolute (juris et de jure) - A presumption of law that is not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary
b. Disputable, Rebuttable or Prima Facie (juris tantum) - is that which the law permits to be overcome or contradicted by proofs to the contrary;
otherwise the same remains satisfactory.
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions.
The ff are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a)Whenever a party has by his own declaration, act, or omission:
- intentionally and deliberately led another:
o to believe a particular thing true, and o to act upon such belief,
he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(b)The 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. (3a)
Notes:
Classes of Conclusive Presumptions
1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131, Sec. 2(a)) – The fact which the party in estoppel has represented to be true is conclusively presumed as against him to be true
Requisites as to the Party Estopped Requisites as to the Party Claiming Estoppel
a. Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment
b. Intent or at least expectation that the conduct shall be acted upon
c. Knowledge, actual or constructive of the real facts
a. Lack of knowledge of truth as to the facts in question
b. Reliance in good faith upon the conduct or statements of the party to be stopped
c. Action or inaction based thereon to his detriment or prejudice.
Note: Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest
2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131, Sec. 2 (b)) – The ownership of the landlord at the start of the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as against the tenant.
Note: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions.
The ff presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
Presumption of Innocence (A)
• Applies to both civil and criminal cases
• The legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt:
- Provided: There be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.
• This presumption accompanies the accused throughout the trial down to the moment of conviction. This presumption disappears after conviction and the appellate court then will presume the accused guilty.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]47 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
• An accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his behalf for his freedom is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence.
Basis: founded on the principles of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Presumption That a Person Takes Ordinary Care of his Concerns (D) All men are presumed to be sane and normal and subject to be moved by substantially the same motives.
When of age and sane, they must take care of themselves. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. There must be a violation of law, the commission of what the law known as an actionable wrong before the courts is authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it.
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
Presumption of Suppression of Evidence (E) Ratio: The natural conclusion is that the proof if produced, instead of rebutting would support the inference against him and the court is justified in acting upon that conclusion
Requisites for Presumption (e) to Apply:
1. That the evidence is material
2. That the party had the opportunity to produce the same 3. That the said evidence is available only to said party When Presumption (e) Will Not Apply:
1. When the evidence in question is equally available to both parties
2. When the evidence is merely corroborative or merely cumulative, or is unnecessary
3. When the suppression of evidence is not willful 4. When the suppression is an exercise of privilege
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act:
- otherwise, that things which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
Presumption from Possession of Stolen Goods (J)
This is not in conflict with the presumption of innocence. At the start of the criminal case, the court will apply the presumption of innocence. But once the prosecution is able to prove that a certain object has been unlawfully taken, that there is a crime of theft committed and that the prosecution has also proven that the accused is in possession of this object unlawfully taken, then the presumption of innocence disappears. The new presumption of guilt takes place.
Facts to Be Proved By the Prosecution for Presumption (J) to Apply:
1. The crime was actually committed 2. The crime was committed recently
3. The stolen property was found in possession of the accused and 4. The accused is unable to satisfactorily explain his possession there To Conclusively Prove Possession, It is Necessary That:
1. The possession must be unexplained by any innocent origin 2. The possession must be fairly recent and
3. The possession must be exclusive
Note: Convictions in these cases are not sustained upon a presumption of law but rest wholly upon an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused.
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]48 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for:- the payment of the money, or - the delivery of anything,
has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;
Presumption that a Person in a Public office was Regularly Appointed or Elected to it: (L)
Ratio: It would cause great inconvenience if in the first instance strict proof were required of appointment or election to office in all cases where it might be collaterally in issue.
Burden of Proof: Is on the adverse party to show that he was not appointed or designated.
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
Presumption that an Official Duty has been Regularly Performed (M) Ratio:
1. Innocence and not the wrongdoing is to be presumed 2. An official oath will not be violated
3. A republican form of government cannot survive unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each government, department, or agent at least to the extent of such presumption.
Note: This presumption applies to both civil and criminal cases
This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. It has been extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to a local or special statute to act in quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to professional men like surgeons and lawyers.
Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium – all things are presumed to have been done regularly and with due formality until the contrary is proved.
While ordinarily, irregularity will not be presumed, an adverse assumption may arise when the official act in question appears to be irregular upon its face.
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
Presumption of Regularity of Judicial Proceedings (N) The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect.
- Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases, be it superior or inferior court.
- However, jurisdiction may not be presumed when the record itself shows that jurisdiction has not been acquired or there was something on the record showing the absence of jurisdiction.
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case:
- were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and
in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration:
- were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular;
Presumption that Private Transactions have Been done Fairly and Regular (P)
An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only what he has the right to do.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act fairly honestly, and in good faith.
(q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]49 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
Those who were engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to beacquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the business.
(r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t)That an endorsement of a negotiable instrument was made:
- before the instrument was overdue and - at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u)That a writing is truly dated;
(v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
Presumption in Paragraph (V)
For the Presumption in Par (V) to Arise, It Must Be Proved:
- That the letter was properly addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually mailed
- IF the said letter was not returned to the sender: It is presumed that it was received by the addressee
Service of Pleadings By Mail (Sec 10, Rule 13)
- Service is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing UNLESS the court otherwise provides
- If by registered mail: The service is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee (If he fails to claim his mail from the post w/in 5 days from date of 1st notice – service is complete from the expiration of such time)
(w)That after an absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives:
- he is considered dead for all purposes, - EXCEPT for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession:
- till after an absence of 10 years.
IF he disappeared after the age of 75 years:
- an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board
- a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or - an aircraft which is missing,
who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who:
- has taken part in armed hostilities, and - has been missing for 4 years;
(3) A person who:
- has been in danger of death under other circumstances and - whose existence has not been known for 4 years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for 4 consecutive years, the spouse present may:
- contract a subsequent marriage IF he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death.
In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided:
Evidence | Judge Bonifacio | 3B 2009-2010
[This reviewer is lifted from the book of regalado and Beda– not plagiarized you fuckers!]50 | P a t i ñ o , E r i c a
- an absence of only 2 years shall be sufficient for the purpose ofcontracting a subsequent marriage.
However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must:
- institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, - without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
Ordinary But Continued Absence: (First 2 subpars) The absentee is presumed to have died at the end of the said period
Qualified Absence: (In danger of death under the 3 instances contemplated) The absentee is presumed to have died at the time he was exposed to such danger or peril, at the start of the period.
Note: Distinction is important for successional rights
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
(z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have