ii.

Burden of Proof and Presumptions ( Rule 131 )

1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence( sec 1 )

Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to 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.

Proof-The end result of conviction or persuasion produced by the evidence.

Burden of Proof or “Onus Probandi” - the obligation of the party to a litigation to persuade the court
that he is entitled to relief. To persuade the court, he must prove what he alleges.

● It is the duty of the party to present evidence not only to establish a claim but also a defense.
● If a party alleges the existence of a fact, that party has the burden of proof whether that party be
the plaintiff or defendant.
● The duty of the party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

Two types of Burden:

1. Burden of producing evidence satisfactory to the judge, of a particular fact in issue.
2. Burden of persuading the trier of fact that the alleged fact is true.

Test for determining where the BOP lies

● Ask which party to an action will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred
as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.
● BOP rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor.

When BOP is fixed

● BOP is fixed by the pleadings.
● The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in his complaint. The defendant’s
defenses, which he must prove,, are found in his answer to the complaint.
● The burdens of proof of both parties does not shift during the course of the trial.

Burden of Evidence - The duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie
evidence against him.

● Once certain facts are proven, from which a disputable presumption arises against the adverse
party, the burden of evidence to overcome the presumption shifts to the latter.

Prima facie Evidence - Evidence good and sufficient on its face. Evidence which, if unexplained or
uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain judgement in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be
contradicted by other evidence.

Prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counter-balance the general
presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by evidence
tending to contradict it, and render it improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the
establishment of a prima facie case does not take away the presumption of innocence which may in the
opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control it.
Preponderance of Evidence - is meant simply evidence, which is of greater weight, or more convincing
than that which is offered in opposition to it

Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

(Burden of Persuasion) (Burden of going forward with evidence)

● It is the burden of persuading the trier of fact ● It is the burden to come forward with evidence
of the elements of a claim or a defense in to avoid an adverse resolution by the judge that
accordance with the degree of proof would preempt consideration by the trier of fact
mandated by substantive law. of the issue.

● Does not shift as it remains throughout the ● Shifts from party to party depending upon the
trial with the party upon whom it is imposed; exigencies of the case in the course of the trial;

● Generally determined by the pleadings filed ● Determined by the developments at the trial, or
by the party. by the provisions of the substantive law or
procedural rules which may relieve the party
from presenting evidence on the facts alleged.

● *The prosecution’s burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution
throughout the trial, except, in case of self-defense.

When the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence
sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the information or established a
prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to
adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify the prima facie case.

IN CIVIL CASE

Burden of Proof: is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. Such party
must establish his case by preponderance of evidence, which means that the evidence as a whole
adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.

Plaintiff - has the initial obligation to present evidence on the facts in issue involved in a civil case.

● The party having a burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.
● The party who after trial turns out to have succeeded in satisfying his burden of proof is the party
in whose favor a judgement shall be rendered.
● He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. (Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat)
● If the plaintiff fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the
defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.
● GR: One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.

Defendant - it is incumbent upon him to present evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
claim, or third-party complaint.

● The defendant must show that he is within the purview of the statute if relied upon as a defense.
● If a cause of action or defense relied upon is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.
● Generally, the defendant has no burden except to produce evidence sufficient to create equipoise
between his proof and that of the plaintiff to defeat the latter.

IN CRIMINAL CASE
Burden of proof: Always on the prosecution.

Prosecution - must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a speck of reasonable doubt to ensure
conviction for the felony or offense.

Reasonable doubt - that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the
evidence, leaves the minds of jurors that they cannot say in abiding conviction, to a moral certainty of the
truth charged.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt - the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and
oral certainty - a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and
judgement.

Negative allegation

GR: if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or if a negative averment is an essential

element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge.

XPN:
1. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative
averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances;
2. That which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other
evidence within the defendant’s knowledge.

Affirmative defense - the burden of proving affirmative defense is upon the defendant. When a
defendant relies upon a distinct substantive matter to exempt him from punishment and absolve him from
liability, he has the burden of proving the fact of exculpation. (Ex. Self-defense, Proof of provocation)

IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES

● Only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion will suffice.

1. Bautista vs. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 - September 23, 1985

2. ACDC vs. Tulabot, 457 SCRA 317 - April 26, 2005

3. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc., 191 SCRA 411 -
June 20, 2006

4. BPI vs. Sps. Royeca, 559 SCRA 207 - July 21, 2008

Equipoise Rule - 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.

● ER is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law.
● In civil cases, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the evidence does not suggest that
the scale of justice should weigh in his favor, the court should render a verdict for the defendant.
● In criminal cases, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.

5. Rivera vs. CA, 284 SCRA 673 - January 23, 1998

6. People vs. Saturno, 355 SCRA 578 - March 28, 2001

7. People v Urzais, GRNo. 207662 - April 13, 2016

Presumption - is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be
assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.

● A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which the courts are
permitted to draw from proof of other facts.
● Presumption is not evidence. They merely affect the burden of offering evidence.
● Presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted.

Presumption Inference

● An assumption of fact resulting from a rule of
law which requires such fact to be assumed
from another fact or group of facts found or
otherwise established in the action.
● A rule of law directing that if a party proves
certain facts at a trial or hearing, the fact
finder must also accept an additional fact as
proven unless sufficient evidence is
introduced tending to rebut the presumed
fact.
● It is an inference which is mandatory unless
rebutted.
● A permissible deduction or induction that the
trier of fact may draw from facts that are
established according to the rules of evidence.
● A factual conclusion that can rationally be
drawn from other facts. One that is the result of
reasoning.
● It need not have a legal effect because it is not
mandated by law.
● The fact finder is free to accept or reject the
inference.

Kinds of Presumption:

1. Presumption of Law

a. Conclusive presumption - inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will
not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.

b. Disputable presumption - those presumptions which may be disputed,opposed, or

refuted or rebutted. Such presumptions continue until overcome by proof to the contrary
or by some stronger presumption.

c. Rebuttable presumption - An inference that the law requires the trier of fact to make
where the prerequisite base facts have been established and where no contrary evidence
has been produced.

2. Presumption of Fact

Purpose of Presumption: Presumptions are aids to reasoning and argumentation, which assume the
truth of certain matters for the purpose of some given inquiry.

Effect of Presumption - A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such
legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a
presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.

1. Thayer’s view or Bursting Bubble Theory - When presumption arises after the establishment
of the basic facts, it's only procedural effect is to shift the burden of producing evidence to the
opponent. The opponent must meet the shifted burden of producing evidence, but he does not
bear the ultimate burden of convincing the trier of fact of the non-existence of the presumed fact.
 2. Morgan’s view or Pennsylvania Rule - Treats the presumption as placing upon the opponent
not only the burden of meeting the risk of a direct verdict against him by introducing evidence to
rebut presumption, but in addition, the burden of persuasion to overcome it with the quality of
proof which the situation requires.

3. Jone’s view - The distinction between presumptions of fact and presumptions of law is scarcely a
valid one as there is in truth but one kind of presumption.It is neither wholly factual nor wholly a
matter of law. It iis both.

Collusion of presumptions- If the presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption founded upon
weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither
presumption applies.

Bursting bubble Theory - A presumption disappears where sufficient counterproof is introduced.

● In case of conflicting presumptions, it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption
and determine what logical or social basis exists for each presumption, and then determine which
should be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail over the other.

2. Conclusive presumptions ( sec. 2 )

Section 2. Conclusive presumptions.

The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such
belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
be permitted to falsify it; and

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (2a)

Conclusive Presumption (Absolute presumptions of law)- when the presumption becomes

irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is
not admissible.

● Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory(not open to appeal
or challenge; final) that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however
strong.

● CP is not a presumption at all; it is a substantive rule of law directing that proof of certain basic
facts conclusively proves an additional fact which cannot be rebutted.

Estoppel - A bar which precludes a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that
which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or
legislative officers or kby his own deed or representation, either express or implied.

● It concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud and falsehood, and imposes silence on a party
only when in conscience and honesty he should not be allowed to speak.

Doctrine of Estoppel- an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it,
and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
 ● It prevents a party from going back upon his own acts and representation to the prejudice of other
party who relied upon them. But a party who had no knowledge of nor gave consent to a
transaction may not be estopped by it.

● The person making the representation cannot claim benefit from the wrong he himself committed.

● It is based upon the ground of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is
to forbid one to speak against his own act or representation to the injury of one to whom they
were directed.

Elements of Estoppel:

As related to the party to be estopped

1. conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated

to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the
party subsequently attempts to assert;
2. intent, or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the
other party; and
3. knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.

As related to the party claiming the estoppel

1. lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question;
2. reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped;
3. action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party
claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice.

Estoppel in pais or Estoppel by Conduct

● The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein one, by his acts, representations or admissions,
or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence,
induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such
belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.

8. Kalado vs. Luz, 145 Phil Report 152 - July 31, 1970

9. PNB vs. Palma, G.R. No. 157279 - August 9, 2005

Estoppel against tenant

● A person who rents a property from another is not permitted to deny the latter’s title at the time
the lease begun.
● As a tenant, he knows fully well that the land or property he rents is not his.

10. Tamio vs. Ticson, 443 SCRA 44 - November 18, 2004

11. Consumido vs. Ros G.R. No. 166875 - July 31, 2007

12. Samelo vs. Manotok Services GR no 170509 - June 27, 2012

3. Disputable presumptions ( secs. 3, 4, 5 ) -are presumptions which can be contradicted or

overcome by other evidence. When evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced the force of the
presumption disappears.
Effect of Disputable Presumption- The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the
need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created by the presumption. If no contrary
proof is offered, the presumption will prevail.

Disputable Presumptions:

1. Presumption of innocence
2. Presumption of unlawful intent from an unlawful act
3. Presumed intention of consequences from a voluntary act
4. Presumed exercise of care
5. Obstinate suppression of evidence
6. Payment of money, delivery of a thing or obligation, and production of latest receipt
7. Presumed doer of the thing and assumption of ownership
8. Presumption of regularity
9. Presumption of absence and death as against continuity of life or existing state of a thing
10. Acquiescence – cannot arise unless the party against whom it is set up is aware of his rights
11. Ordinary course of nature and habits of life
12. Presumed co-partnership
13. Presumptions involving marital relation and cohabitation
14. Presumption on property system of unions without marriage
15. Presumption over a child in successive marriages
16. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy
17. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases

Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. – There is no presumption of legitimacy or

illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred [(300)] days following the dissolution of the marriage or the
separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such a child must prove his or
her allegation. (4a)

Section 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions and proceedings not
otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is
directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.

If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy
shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies. (n)

Section 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a presumed fact that establishes
guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable
doubt. (n)

13. People vs. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195 - Dec. 10, 2008

14. Maliwat vs. CA, 256 SCRA 718 - May 15, 1996

15. Feria vs. CA, 325 SCRA 525 - February 15, 2000

16. In the Matter of Estate of Delgado vs. Heirs of Vda De Damian, G.R. No. 155733-January 27,
2006

17. Blue Cross Health Care, Inc. vs. Olivares, G.R.No. 169737 - February 12, 2008

Doctrine of processual presumption

● In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
the burden of proving the foreign law.
 If the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the
foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law.

18. Del Socorro v Van Wilsem, Gr No. 193707 - Dec 10, 2014