Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

Facie Evidence Against Him (Bautista V Sarmiento) - Relating This To Burden of Proof, Dean Riano Says "The

The document discusses the concepts of burden of proof and burden of evidence. It notes that the 1997 rules stated the burden of proof never shifts, while the 2019 amendment clarifies that burden of evidence can shift between parties depending on the case. It explains that burden of proof refers to persuading the court one is entitled to relief by proving allegations, while burden of evidence is the duty to rebut a prima facie case with sufficient evidence. Extrajudicial confessions alone are not enough to convict without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction if multiple circumstances are proven and collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without relying on inferences based on other inferences.

Uploaded by

Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

Facie Evidence Against Him (Bautista V Sarmiento) - Relating This To Burden of Proof, Dean Riano Says "The

The document discusses the concepts of burden of proof and burden of evidence. It notes that the 1997 rules stated the burden of proof never shifts, while the 2019 amendment clarifies that burden of evidence can shift between parties depending on the case. It explains that burden of proof refers to persuading the court one is entitled to relief by proving allegations, while burden of evidence is the duty to rebut a prima facie case with sufficient evidence. Extrajudicial confessions alone are not enough to convict without corroborating evidence of a crime. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction if multiple circumstances are proven and collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without relying on inferences based on other inferences.

Uploaded by

Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A.

Burden of Proof [R131 S1]

1997 Provision 2019 Amendment


Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence. —
a party to present evidence on the facts in issue Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
amount of evidence required by law. establish his or her claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law. Burden of
proof never shifts.

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to


present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a
fact in issue to establish a prima facie case.
Burden of evidence may shift from one party to
the other in the course of the proceedings,
depending on the exigencies of the case.

B. Concept of Burden of Proof

The burden of proof, or “onus probandi”, traditionally refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to
persuade the court the he is entitled to relief. To persuade the court, one has to prove what he alleges.
It is well-settled that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving the same. As jurisprudence puts it:
“A mere allegation is not evidence”. (Tze Sun Wong v Wong, cited in p. 49 of Riano Evidence [2016]) It is
inaccurate to state that the burden of proof rests solely on the shoulders of the plaintiff.

C. Burden of Proof vs Burden of Evidence

The burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the primaa
facie evidence against him (Bautista v Sarmiento). Relating this to burden of proof, Dean Riano says “the
burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than
upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. If the accused, however, admits killing the victim, but
pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him…”

D. Equipoise Doctrine

Also referred to as the equiponderance doctrine. The doctrine refers to a situation where the evidence of
the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs
more heavily). In this case, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof (Pg.54,
Riano Evidence [2016]). It is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law (Sec.1, Art.III, Constitution). It is not applicable where the evidence
presented is not equally weighty (Malana v People).

E. Burden of Proof in Civil Cases


In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by
preponderance of evidence (Alana v Magud-Lagmao). By preponderance of evidence is meant that the
evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the other side (NFF Industrial v G & L
Assoc.)

F. Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is
demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction
except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which
he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal (People v
Ganguso).

G. Extrajudicial Confession, Not Sufficient Ground for Conviction [R133 S3]

1997 Provision 2019 Amendment


Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by
an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti.

H. Circumstantial Evidence [R133 S4]

1997 Provision 2019 Amendment


Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. —
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance; (a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are (b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is (c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt reasonable doubt

Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.

You might also like