Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Law On Evidence by Francisco (Part 3)

    Uploaded by

    monay
    73 views128 pages

    Original Title

    Law on Evidence by Francisco (Part 3)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    73 views128 pages

    Law On Evidence by Francisco (Part 3)

    Uploaded by

    monay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 128
    uss on oor sxe. RUE ‘that of unfair surprise and that of confusion of issues; for the evidencing tf aloged specific bad acts inthe accused's prior fe would not nly find teed wh eg sf yt wala td iets tse ol ahs th ata he ak "Ths, pether by cling ote witness, nor by erescxamiaton of the atc ins Ui eke te avd way te psa sees SB cece pe eae ott ee eae beh el rn sorr toh et wen Se QUESTION 12, — May, character be the fact in isswe? ANSWER. — Chere may lon bo afc. umeres ett Uyak nc alta eed bi ea ae he character of a person may be an element, in. the offense. ‘hehe th and Gamat or roel tare depends a cea an ce ts re et (1) Theotfease of tepng «hour for pstton ofr wt will depend upon the character and habits of the inmates. bine (2) The offen ofsofaing4'wman may nv te chaeler et the Meoan's shat or nc Taman may ave QUESTION 15. — May the good or bad moral character of the offenidod ‘party in eriminal eases be given in evidence? ANSWER. — The good or bad moral character of the, offended party may be proved if it tends to establish In any reasonable degree the ‘probability or improbability of the offense chargod.* tettis 7 18 aopled with frequeny in cases of homiide and sex QUESTION 14. — In 2 proseetin for fope, is thé woman's char- acteran to oheatity admissible th evidence? "ANSWER, — In auy prosecution invelving the unchaste act bya aman against a woman, where the williggness of the woman le materia, Such ae rape and acls of laselviousness, thé woman's character” as 10 hastily i aimissble {6 show whother of not she consented fo the mas cL Thug, io protecition for rape, or for enticement to prostitution, rin an action or procection for inherent assult-(aeta of lascivcusness), She womsat’s character as to chastity le adrsiley but not in 2 prose, tution for ape under the age of consent. ‘When the woman consents tothe act,-no rime of rape is committed; co sch ela hn the ma een whether the woman did consent. “Here the womat's dspostion fo unchastity would have proba tive value, and would be admissible on behalf of the seeused, But in a trial Yor sox offense where the woman's consent Is immaterial and not in issue, i follows that the woman's unckaslity would also be immaterial, ee TEER Be ee eee ee Ue a a SEG aes re PRE i ia oa ae SEC. 61, RULE 120 EVIDENCE, an i.e, a charge for rape of a woman under twelve years of age.” Tn cases af seduction, the good reputation of the complainant is, in fseue, sinee the Revised Penal Code, in its Article $88, provides: “the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over {twelve but under eighteen years of age committed by means of deceit shall bbe punished by arresto mayor.” ‘The burden of proof that the complainant {s a. woman of good repu- tation lies in the prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the complainant I a worban of bad reputation. QUESTION 15. — Is evidence of the character of the deceased. in 4 prosecution for homicide admissible? ANSWER. — On prosecution for homicide, evidence of the bad char- acter of the deceased is irrelevant, for, as frequently said, the law protects everyone from unlawful violenee, regardless of character, and the service ‘done the community in ridding it of a violent and dangerous man is, in the tyes of the law, no justification of the act. ‘To this rule, there are two exceptions, when the bad character of deceased may be offered in evidence: First, where the issue of self-defense is raised and the character of the slaying is doubtfal, evidence of the violent and dangerous character fof the deceased Is competent for the purpose of determining whether the Aeceased oF the accused was the aggressor. Second, where the evidence tends to prove that the accused acted in self-defense, evidence of the violent and dangerous charscter of ‘tho deceased, known to the defendant, is admissible as tending to characterize {the acts of the deceased, as bearing on the reasonableness of defendant's apprehension of danger at the time of the homicide.” Wigmore on Bvidence, (Stud. Text), 68 ‘Anvecental Cement of ie crite of wueton is thatthe female must be chase, rot fab by repstatony put aa a matter of fact up to the tne of the alleged Tebaclon. “i peie te thet imey she vluntarily had strual intaeource with any ‘thee man, the Befendant cannot be conve of aduction, US. oe, Sunn, 27 PA 12, "Euan if i were inte tht the gir) bed had amorous relations with, apy other pert ate at ad fll a vein of the acrucedy there being 9 proat hat auch peri ble ens Varhaate and that She name and fepeation of the nid gl ta 8 lain ed eee ke wea had autfred sy injury, the existence of sock prior Tue and on bons op abe uvtoed for bi defnce. U.S. ve. Sontagr, 41 PAL ‘Wharton’ Crane! Eedence, Ses. 240,24. When tbe defendant demanced fom the deceased yarment for the wore whi se ne, th teen far te ler for a period of five amd oneal days, the he fryer Be ere Sod the defendant bat struck te Tater cereal, ows ‘vith secresel TO Sscendant backed away from the continued arate of the Sneabed TRE {Suma ‘Rinote corered by. Pile of log the vings of which extended oat on ‘efor Seveclly preventing any forthe retreat. Seeing hula ot bay, Shestatllion drew hs bolo and inftted several owe on the decetsed ag rest ae ee the iter tied afta an bout. {a neqiling the defaboan, he Supreme Boor Side the eocaed was Bo'years of sgn when this came was, red, han 9 ‘ich of 8 feet and’ Tis incher, and's weight of 108 pounds, "he deceased appears [lave Beene taller, larger end eronger man, The evidence sows that th deseared elsoiee end in the tabit of making ieqoert (rocle by fighting in the Flees wore he happened so bo. present with cera. In the leal curt he bad Bite ‘convcied and setence toll for asault and batlery in two diffe Frvtncther case he wen convicted ofthe offense of inflicting minor paca tures, Sling sentenced to inpriormest for the tame period cf ore month and obey, ‘Ton’proct leave no recon to doubt that the deceagtd was hotempered and Phat Trehdd the reputation of beng a rou ker. Itt a safe inference from the me RULES oF couRT QUESTION 16. — Is the character of the deceased in a proseoution for murder admissible? ANSWER, — While the’ good or bad move! character of the victim may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or. improbability of the commission of an offense such ig not necessary in a erime of murder where the killing is committed with treachery or premeditation” ‘Thus, in a trial for.murder,.the defense tried to’ prove the violent, ‘quarrelsome ot provocative character of the. deceased, Upon objection uf the prosecution, the trial court disallowed the same. ‘The Supreme Court held: “While good or bad moral character may be-availed of 28 ‘an aid to determine the probability of the commission of an offense (ec. 15, Rule 123, now Sec. 51, Rule 180), such is not necessary in the crime of murder: where the kiling is. committed through treachery ot premeditation. ‘The proof, of such character may only be allowed ip homicide. cases to-show ‘that it has produced a reasonable. belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused. and a jastifiable éonviction {hat a prompt defensive action was nécessary’ Tis rule doesnot apply QUESTION 17, — Distinguish the rule-on character evidence in criminal ond ciil cases. ANSWER. — Tn criminal eats evidence ofthe good character of the aecaied is most property and ith good reason sai In erence, ieeaite there ioe far an jst pesmpton that porn of ool character woud not comm a sit but fo ch ese selene with equal god rent not ade, because no presumpin syd itt Bis inthe very sreat proyarton of such eases frm the good shoe tthe defendant, that be id not commit the breach af emtsee oof Sit duty alepe’ agains him = QUESTION 18, — te evidence ofthe moral character of «party én @ civil case admiasible? ae ANSWER. — As general rule the character of paty to eel acto isnt prope aul of Ingury, for, whe I fe pce Sat found for an infrone of some loi pribaive fre nfo whether OF nota peton dd a certain act may be Larished ty the fact iat ig characteris auch ab nigh osomatiy be expected Yo rode hin ward Of aghnst such an ace this consdcaton We eutwelghed Gy the msc cbjetions to opening the dor ths eas of evese* ‘This rule subject oan portant exception ineaeo Where, because Lam ere apg ten, — tte ea wn gaa Ant ryt te mt ws wn Th Ara a SA a re soa ay ee aa eh So Mae ee SBC. 81, RULE 130 ‘legeaiy commited ty the offended party ngunst tare person, a9 would show the Inprebabity'of the accortan Jn thls cave People te Ree CA-GR. Ne. is ‘Beep vs, Soliman, 68 0.6, ame, 1H Attorney General va. Raditf, 10 Exch 84, 97 ae cad S658 ‘SEO. 61, RULE 190 EVIDENCE, 30 of the nature of the actio, the charecter or reputation of a party becomes ‘a matter in issue, in such cases, evidence with reference to such party’s character or repttation is admissible. Usually, in actions of slander or libel, it is well-settled that the plaintiff's general-character is involved in issue thus making competent evidence relevant thereta> QUESTION 19. — What is meant by “putting eharacter in issue” or “charactor involved in the igrue”? ANSWER. — “Putting character in issue” or “character involved Im the issue” fs a 3 expression, which does not mean simply that the character may be affected hy the result, but that it is of particular portance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an setion of slander, or that of a wotnan in. an action on the ease for seduiction.™ {In an action against a surety upon a note, an auswer charging plain- tiffs agent with false representations, did nct put the character of the ‘agent in issue so as to justify the introduction of general evidence of his ‘g00d character. ‘The mere feet that there are cireumstances shown in evidence which tend to cast doubts upon the veracity of « party will not be sufficient to allow the party to Introduce evidence as to his reputation for truth and veracity. QUESTION 20. — Is evidence of the moral churacter of a third person admissible in civil ensea? ANSWER. — An issus in a civil case sometimes involves a third person's aet having a moral quality. On such an Issue; the third person's rmoral trait would have probative value, and there is no practical policy against it. Courts sometimes admit it and sometimes exclude it. Thus: (1) Action of P and against D for legal separation on the ground of adultery, P alleging that D committed adultery with M.. Here M's ‘good character for chastity should be admitted. (2) Action by P on D's policy of insurance against theft; defense, that the safe was robbed by complicity with B, an employee of D. M's character as a crook’ associate {s admissible. (@). Action by P to recover read property in D's possession, P's title depends on a deed by Ds defense, that D signed ro deed, and that the certificate’ of his purporting acknowledgment annexed to' the deed and made by a notary M, was a forgery. M's character as a forger is admissible 390 Aim on. 30990 replat wos dt Jory to hie sepatton o brings an suomi hs secsrery fe e's cure depedcl tn god characte, be biter hs character forthe nspcion ofthe eaurt ile makes ‘tas tase ithe fate, and be cannot complain if the detndant tae up the iso, and proved with ride to tow that ol, soa character ail ip fhe wecvery he tec” Meteo om Bellen 2 Ta iv procednen ules the Chracer of a party be drectiy put in sme ty the proctiogs Serene of i geval chats Seno adie” Word Sierkion, 6 Bort (Ala) si 2 ‘Porter vs. Sly 2 Pa. i24 480, 02 Am, D. 312 lan Bank ve, Richmond, 235 Mo, £9, 189 80. 952 MeCowen vs, Gal step, Ca (Tex Ci. App) 18 SW. 4 ‘Wigmore on Evidenee, (802, eat), a0 RULES OF couRT SEG, 61, RULE 190 _ QUESTION 21. — When may charactor be offered in evidence im tmitigation of damages or as on excuse or défense 10 the gation? ANSWER, — In some’ civil actions, the measure of compensation may be affected by the plaintiffs character. Thus: (1) Tn defamation, @ plainttt of poor reputed character words be entitled to less compensation for injury to his repute, provided the pleadings allow the issue to be raised With a view to mitigate the damages, the defendant may show that the plaiatif, although injured by the libel or slander, by resson of his previous chatacter was anly injured to an extent for which a small sum by way of damages will corapensate:? (2) In a woman's action for breach of mariage promis, te injury to the feelings of a dissolute woman might well be less than otherwise” () In an action for malicious prosecution, the injury to the play titt's reputed character would depend uper the quality of that repute Defore the prosecution was started * So, to, character may be an excuse or defense to the action, under ‘the substantive law. ‘Thus (1) In breach of marriage promise, the woman's disolute character, if unknown beforehand to the promisor, might be an excuse for non- performance:® 1m an action for breach of promise of inaviage the defendant may Justify the breach upon the ground that he discovered the plaintiff to be ‘of unchaste character, and therefore he refused to marry her. Where bad character is reli on ap a complete defense, and is pleaded It becames ope of the man Tren "nue As Soh, eidence must be allowed to Show its (2) In actions for indecent assault, by the great weight of authority evidence is admissible as to the general bad reputation of the plaintiff for chastity.” ‘The group advanced for the admissibility of such testimony is that it aids in determining the question of consent by the plaintiff, tnd that it alo bears upon the measure of damages, since the disgrace, humiliation, shame and mental suffering are naturally more acute if the plaintiff is'a virtuous woman than if she is a woman af bad character ‘Accordingly, by the great weight of authority, the character of the plain: litt as to chastity, isin issue in such actions, and evidence of general bad reputation in this regard is a leat relevant in mitigation of damages?” D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS QUESTION 22. — When is evidence of the good character of a witness admissible? ANSWER, — Evidence of the good character of a witness is not ‘admissible until such character has been impeached * Bia, 68 5 Scot vo MeKinnish 16 Ala 668; Fuller va. Dean, Ala, 664; Honrno vo, De Youeg fa Gace re on Bvidence, (Stud, Text), 68.60, ag ‘Stud, Tort), 6852 2 Mealvey on Bridens, 2nd ed 202 2 Sones tn Evidence, a2 Ser, Hale 18, ules of Court, as amended. Sec. 1, RULE In EVIDENCE aa ‘The character or reputation of a witness must be attacked or im- peached before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can be ‘mitted, but itis nof aecessary that character witnesses for impeachment arposes’ should first be introduced if the veracity or character of the ‘witness has been substantially impeached in other ways, especially if he ea stranger in the county where the trial is being conducted. Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness’ character or reputation has been assafled in order to diseredit him, or when the opposite party brings out matters which, if true, tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by Ais- paraging his character. tis not necessary that there shall be a successful impeachment of the ‘witness, but an attempt to impeach his charaeter, even though unsuccessful, warrants the introduction of testimony as to his good character. Evidence bof a good reputation for truth and veraelty is admissible where the veracity fof the witness has been attacked or impeached generally, or the other party has shown the witness to have a bad reputation for truth and Yeraeity, or a bad moral character generally. The admission of testimony 4s toa witness" reputation for truth and veracity is not justified, however, by attacks on his veracity in the argument of counsel Where a perly voluntarily introduces evidence tending to impeach his own witness, he cannot afterward introduce testimony to show that te reputation of his witness for truth and veracity is good;-and a party fennot pat his own character in issue by his own testimony in 2 civil ‘ease. and then offer in rebuttal proof of general good character and reputation.” BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS RULE 131 Section 1. Burden of proof, — Barden of proof is the duty of 2 party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his Gaim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. A. INTRODUCTORY portance of the rule Bees of pratt meaning. ace in lou Bare of evidences meaning. Burden of pronf'sad burden of evidence, Gtngsshnd, B, CIVIL, CASES Burden, of prot in vl cae, ‘iin asllaat ot under clgatin to prove is defen. ‘Te tor ntermining on yom borden of pro! les Beet a fepalpresmption spon Durden of prof and burden of evidence Hatare which etd not be proved IBteden of proof tn cil cae. a) Hecrery of 20m of oer. {8 Actions on contract (8) Iperanes eases (@) Powecdone {o) Goer nephews Ria deeper, dere, and wade inne i arene Beran Cine’ charged In cll caves rcanty inci wes. Ai) Statute’ of Hla. Hoe CFs, sets. om RULES OF coURT SEC. 1, RULE 131 (Action agsiat bats, (i) Aeon seu cern iy Actin agaist fnkeeper, (0) Abo of cretion in dimineing tase, 12, Agunet who ease must by decided hen evidence & eenty balanced. ©. CRIMINAL CASES 18, Burden of proot in erninal eae. 4H Ber of rat SRIF memati of sc, = fs ton erative fo alge by the ronan, 4S Durden of foot as ts fad peatiny withis dofndnnt Know. Brot in erininal cone Ps Se on a 4. nernopucron Question 1.— what te npr ef erat ANSWER. — Ths importance of this subject is often underestimated; xyet, the right to have the burden of proof properly placed is. valuable ight and to give force and effect to such right some courts have gone ‘even 50 far a to rule that failure goto place it over the request and proper exception of a party, constitutes a reversible error. ‘This rule is founded ‘upon the abvious purpose of facilitating justice by serving the convenience of the court? QUESTION 2. — What is meant by “burden of proof”? ANSWER. — By burden of proof is meant the obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosesution or defense of an-action to establish it by proof Under the rules [itis the duty of a party to present evidence-on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of ovidence rroquired by lawJ ° Tt means the burden_of establishing a case, whether by a prepon- erance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, or by su derance of yond a by substantial ‘The burden of proof exists only in connection with a fact in issue 22 Soveato a tye 2 3 Rie ig Drang, Prados, ‘onan om idence, By Sedge “™ Prethomme, § ta 68 PEE Doha iat ot cer and Ssenhsn, anna Panis of Bay, #31 C48. M11. “ eee RULE 1m EVIDENCE se QUESTION 3. — What are facts in issue referred to by the rude ANSWER. —[Facts in iseue arg those facts which a plaintitt must prove in order to establish his claim find those facts which the defendant oust prove in order to establish a ddfense set up by him, but only when the faet alleged by the one party is not admitted by the other party. Faets ‘which are admitted expresely or by implication, are not in issue! | To Uetermine the relevaney of the evidence, the pleadings of the parties must first be looked to for the purpose of ascertaining the issue.* For example, if A sues B for assault, A rust prove the assault. If B's defense is that ‘A was trespassing on B's land and B was efecting him with no more force than was reasonably neceseary, B must prove that A was trespassing and that no tnnecessary foree was’ Used to eject him, If there are no admis. sions, the facts in igsue are that B aacaulted A, that A was trespasser and 'B admits the assault, the sole fact at issue is whether the force used was reasonable in the eircumstan QUESTION 4. — What is meant by “burden of evidence”? ANSWER. — The phrase “burden of going foryard with the evi. dence,” sometimes shortened to “burden of evidence,” which is defined f5 “that logical necessity which rests on a party at any, particular time luring the trial{to ereate a prima facie case in his favor for to overthrow fone when ereated against him.” ‘This phrase is employed in contradistinetion to “burden of proof” in the primary sense, of, as Professor Wigmore ably states it, the “risk ‘of non-persuasion” upon the whole of the evidence In the ease ‘QUESTION. 5. — Whet és the main distinction between burden of proof and “burden of evidence”? ANSWER, — The main distinction between burden of proof and arden of evidence is that barden of proof never shifts. This remains ‘throughout the entire case exactly where the pleadings originally placed it, "The party whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue has this burden of proof, It is on him at the beginning of the eaze; i eontinues on him through the ease; and when the evidence, by whomsoover introduced, is all in if he has not, by pre- ponderance of evidence (or proof beyond reasonable doubt), established his Proposition or elaim, the decision of a tribunal must be adverse to such pleader. TFlipsfe Mansa ofthe Law of Evidence, p24, 12 Sones om Bidees, 2d By See 82 Stipes Mal of the Law’ of Eyieney py ‘The Edosstn by the explaper ofthe, existance af the poly ov vacation Jeane Slee doe tt mecca bse De complaint of tie enpeges wh erie Nantary,ihe amplyers algo of rir payment and eoyeen of ald pth caleyes ale the fesue an to Meher the tier are weil ated 0 El'enge whch they elim, On sis olnt, therefore, the cmos te on the partes {e'Salatn li repecvecobtentnr” url Bowe of Sa Bgl (Bohol, Fe. Notua Labor Easton Commie, 11 SCRA Btu ine eft of the ay i9 Pal 0) Hates Tnnaiento edablich' face im an njncion salt (Farber re. FU g ee hn ikea ge enya Be iprtance it deserves, {Smith "va, Delaware & Asae Slegregh Selene Gas As). Top Weld anafectorna, Is. ve. BCED, Sata sort tee, 0 fe vee “ene em Bridocy, Sex. 48 a4 RULES oF covRT Seo. 1, RULE I Burden of evidence on the other hand shifts to one party when the ther has produced rufiient evidence fo be entitled as a matter of law {oa ruling in is favor, It as no necessary connection wth the pleadings, bot is determined by the progress of the tral. (Guild vs. More, 82 ND: 452, 195 NW. 44) ‘To illtrale: A sues B ona contrac, aleing trench there. Nala rally, the burden of proof ison A to prove that a valid contract was made, ‘Suppose A testifies fo a conversation between hinself aod B in which A offered to sell and B agreed to buy a dogen bags of cement at Pi.00 per hag.” then subsequentiy proves this breach of the contract and the concomitant damage he suffered and having made outa prima fale eas, eats. The duty or the burden of evidence is now on, becauso itis neumbent upon him to go forward with evidence to controver A's prima facie case. Suppose B attempt to show that in the conversation referred {oy he had merely fold A that he woald be glad to have him submit samples ‘of cement at that price and no more evidence is introduced, the case is Submitied and unless in tho opinion of the coutt,-A has sustained, the ijurden of proof which he caried throughout the tal, verdet must be returned for B= B. CIVIL CASES QUESTION 6. — Who has the burden of proof in civil oases? ANSWER. — In civil cases, the specific rule as to the burden of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegs- tions of the complaint which are denied by the answer; and the defendant has the burdea of proving the material allegations in his answer, which sets up new matter.” QUESTION 7. — If the plaintiff fails to discharge his burden of proof is the defendant under obligation to prove his defense? fs an old and well-settled rule of the courts that n ‘of the action is upon the plaintiff, and that if he fails, satisfactorily to show the facts upon which he bases his claim, tha defen- ant is under no obligation to prove his excoptions or defense. QUESTION 8 — What is the test for determining on whom the burden of proof lies? ANSWER. — Ordinarily, the burden of proof is in the first instance with the party who initiated the action or proceeding, that is, the plaintiff. In other words, a plaintiff, by asserting in his complaint, petition, or declaration facts which, if proved, establish a lability due him on the part ‘of defendant, has the burden of proving these facts. But there is no on Rte om Bene 268 2 ne erinal caus She aclaved sented to asyutal if Ms gull 6 not ata Asked by"preat Berend rensonabie. doube But when the’ tral court denis the sccosedy mation to dome by way of Gemarzer "to evidene on the round tet the pessewton had ortabiahed «prima fase coco epsint Him, be assumes a definite tric. It, becomes, inembent pon the cused to aiddce evidence and Salty, At not overtrow, the prima acl Cae agnnet him. Tha a doe tothe wit of th burden’ of evidenes, ahd net of the burden of proof. awiate wx, Sormirnty 188 Buia ear Lacy, 168 NY. 418, 20, 61 NAB 286, Richardson, Cases on 2 gee Doheny ‘Path. 551,136 Pas, Been vs Been, 10 2, SEC. 1, RULE 131 BVIDENCE 385 strict and rigid rule that the primary burden of proof is on the party ‘who brings suit; rather, this is, generally speaking, taken for granted Decause of expediency and inherent justice, and not because of initiative ‘ction. Where the defendant, either in positive and express terms or by the character and nature of his pleadings, admits the cause of action, alleged by the plaintiff, ha thereby absolved the plaintiff from the neces. sity of making any proof in support of his claim; in sueh case the burden ‘of proof rests with the defendant, and resis with him until the isste ig met. However, when material allegations of the complaint are denied by tho answer, the burden will not be-shifted. unless subsequent affirma- tive allegations are pleaded in the answer so inconsistent with Its denials 1s t0. amount to an admission of all the material allegations of the complaint.” ‘The burden: of proof ‘is upon the defendant as to all affirmative defenses which he sets up-in answer to the plaintiff's claim or cause of faction, upon which issue is joined, whether they relate to the whole ease fr only to certain issues inf sometimes expressed, the burden is on the defendant to prov new mattet alleged as a defense. This rule does not involve a: shifting of ‘of proof, but merely means that feach party must establish his own ease. When the defendant comes in fand admits facts stated by the plaintiff to be truo and sets up malter in avoidance, he is the party who asserts the truth of the matter thas set up and the burden is upon him to establish the facts on which that Imatter is predicated; f he fails todo so, the plaintiff is entitled to verdict ‘or decision in his favor. QUESTION 9, — What i the offect of a legal: presumption upon ‘the burden of proof and burden of evidence? ANSWER. — The effoct of a logal presumption upon burden of proof is to ereate the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is offered, will prevall, Tt does not shit the burden of proof.** The burden of proof remains where it i but by the presumption the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of his laverment, beeause the presumption stands in the place of evidence." ‘The effect of legal. presumption on burden of evidence is that it creates a prima facie case and thereby sustains the said burden of evi- ‘denee on the point which it covers, shifting it to the other party. Tt rolieves those favored thereby of the burden of proving the fact presumed." ‘The same result is effected by any substitute for evidence much as judilal ‘admission, stipulations, rules. of substantive law, the rule of res ipsa Toquitur, statutory regulations preseribing prima facie evidence of specified ‘acts and judicial notice.” QUESTION 10. — What mattors need not be proved by the partioe to.an action? ANSWER. — Matters which need not be proved by a party to sn action are 5 Haig ve Caen ine. Coy 254 Ti 251, 8 NF, 597, 1 State‘, Lew, 69 Com, 184; Velanc va, Mass, 10° Ph. 272 13 Velaco vs Bias, 10 Phil 27. 181 Tones on Evidence, 24a, Sec. 208, 6 RULES OF COURT S01, RULE 181 he 2 Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to (2). Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they ave been sufficiently alleged. (8) ‘Those which are the subject of an agreed statement: of facts between the parties; as well as those edmitted by the party inthe course of foe procrags fa he same ea ns never im the ) Facts which are the subject. of judicial notice. @) Facts which are legally presumed. (6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite part or sample, wen the naive lation, thtgh fi an eet part ofthe satament of he right o leon why the cute faction or dteee is. i a denial of the existence of & document the custody of wl belongs to the opposite party: eaiy of whieh ‘Thus, the: affirmative fact that a certain municipality is within. a ‘certain province need not be proved because it comes within the Judicial hotice of courts? The affirmative allegation in an application for the probate of a will regarding the mental soundness of the testator, need fat be proved bei mental soundest presed an he bur on jecantestant of the will t prove lack of mental capacity When tho lait in possesion of he draenei ital ot prove non for itis presumed" ‘The presumption is that official duty has been regularly performed and the burden, therefore i on the eaimant to prove misdalivery of merchandise by the Collector of Custems.* When the defendant doos not deny specifically and under oath the ue execution and genuineness of a document copled in a. complaint, the vleintiff need not prove that fact, for itis deemed to be admitted by the defendant; and the plaintiff, furthermore, noed not introduce the dacament:as evidence” When the plaintiff avers that the defendant 1s in possession of a land, and the defendant admits that fact, there Is 20 necessity on the part of the former to prove his averment QUESTION 11: — Who has the burdex of proof (a) in suite to re- cover sum of money; (b) in action on contract (e) im snsurance eases; (4) im tort actions; (e) én contributory negligence; (f) in allegations of Froud, dishonesty, unfairness, duress, and wndue safluence; (9) of erime charged én civil cases; (h) of insanity én civil cases; (t) of statute of imitation; (j) in action against bailees (k) in detion against carriers (0) action against innkeeper; (m) in action for partition; (n) in disbar- ‘ment proceedings; () in-special evil actions ond proctedings; and (p) to ‘show abuse of diseretion im diomissing a ease? ANSWER. — They are a6 follows (ay Recovery of sum of money. — A plantitt-reitor, to be ented to recovery seuel prem eviance fo prove tat the promisory note upon Shieh hs cause of weft hott tow St et Siete ae WE coe mt ‘Veloso vs, Veloso, 8 Phil. 83. " - SASS Ml ot SAE Conia SRG. 1, RULE 181 EVIDENCE an action is priced hes not bee paid, Bat the Court, in the same ende, stashed {othe rales qunlficetiy that whe th ereditor ossetoes and presets i eviderice Sn instrument shoving the indetednem «presumption tat the creit hat at bon ‘Slated avnes in Ls favor (Se. 68; ule 193, nom See 1, Hote 131, Reveed Rules Gf Court); and i a, therfore, ineambeot fn sabe eape upoe te defendant to over- ‘She suid provption and prove the fact of payment in order tat Jodgment may ‘no be entered spain Him (W) Contract. — Tn en scion on a, gontract wen issue is joined, the pnt tt ‘bas {hd borden of slashing the execton sed the existence of he contract alles tae ee eceies “patton, Sr dlaration, saftlcntconlderation to. aapport the Sattece "Eb ows Derfrwance or willngeere to perform in compliance with the SRY ainged "afd Ge delendanee breach instar ap sock matters are in isos, ‘Phere We contact, entalny a ealon’peectdent, the pliniff must gaara Cho TaMts fp sof Se happming of the condton pon Pch Lb of the other party toe contract depend sch burden isis throughout Uo triak>> {@), Tnvuronce cece, — The general roles on the determination of, where rests the Sotaatat prot pefcaary dhe pertinent to actions in cotract, find frequent Spyuccon in Pitt the zecorery om inwurance polices therefore, the SPRaett as the true Borden of proving every fact that may be, ovental the Pee eStent of fhe insurer Unblity an determined by the terms ofthe polley {8 stack Entgrcoment 220" Gp toe other hand, again in barmeny withthe general rales as Kindo eta up an afhrnativedeteoe fo an action Yo a pole, thereby expresaly {naaner lly aduttng te allegations of Ue Plait pleading, haa the Durden of root etabih the defense av alleged? Paferchont vs, Interatlonad Bank, @ PA 854; Ramos ve, edema, 12 Phi (6, Pinon end Madalac ve, De Osorn, 80 Phil. 68, 2029 Am dor. 2d TEATS, ‘The iundon of pro of eBignton devolves upon the one who snka to enforce ‘heir peforsanc, a thar oftheir exineuonupan the ve oppeing Te (Art 1218, ha" Ee ‘Gade. it a the doty of the patty seeking to enforee & right to prove that to ight actually exist, Saxtioye Verpinia Teac Ploters Atsoy dns. we, Put Virgie: Tobocee Administration, 16 SCRA 228. i cene that the burden of showing the valty of the, romiory oote duly me ctr alec nti oh nT, ‘efendant” ‘The principal, Hapayon, and th other guarantor, Signin, defaulted ‘ve aot conpleat or meited the’ out ¢ th promisanry nate fr’ alleged Pilicratan, Defendant diy admifed In hi answer having executed Sh Gtontecoey mete in favor of paisit "so an accommodation guarantor”, Under ‘Rests Uecendant bay faled'to discharge Bw Barden of showing the nollky oF BEES?" cederatin ot te prominory nts duly eeeuted by bin tas an accom. ‘Piedmont, es Life Insurana Oo, vu, Ewing, 92 U.S, $77, Lawyers Ed 60. sires sory pte wll fh ec pole Eke cat by te insured over Ut mortgaged property. Neither 7 ah rope was analy sased by fife win the perio covered by the inrranse Tt Piven an affiatie dense of Ine of insurable, nerest on the part of 25 ‘Stunt caertgagsey aging hat before the occurrence of the perl inated apne, Insurer, having ed ney te burden ‘proc {2 thaw tate cant bad no insableinaret oer the neared property St Whe time the contingency tok pace The insurer, having farsct paley In fevor of clalmant) which policy was cof egal Tors and tfec fen the fie actred, ie bound iy Hts terma Bad cond ‘ons Upon ie filet peowe the llegabon af Tack of ngorale infers ot the ‘Re’ claimant, he faster ig angémuat be hv Table, Pal Tony Chucche Ceci: Tnnurence Commission, 158 SORA 368. jeneraliyy he burden of poo t upon, the insured to show that a ose soe from a cover par bat ande? an "all rs” plc, the burdan io not on the instead bre the price cause of los or darmee for which it seeks compensation. Tho FRabrel under nn “al rks ingerancepolcy” bas the initia burden of proving that 308 RULES OF COURT Bo. 1, RULE 131 (@) Tort actions, — In an action for tort, the burden ison the plain, inthe fet intanes-o prove the defendant's wrongfl conduct, a alleged by him, hin om Injury proximately caused thereby, andthe damages gaffered ty him Werefrom? nd thie burden rests onthe ‘plainttfthrooghat te the barden'of proving neeligtace in every action wkerin nepigees cones ‘etal clement ofthe caus of action and alse the burden of proving mallee wbare {Bis tacor isan eset clement of the eatne ef action or i ried Upon fo sagen tual demagee’® (0) Contributory negligence, — The grant majotity of cases bol that conte. 7 naglgence fam affirmative defense matin tad so by stats and that ‘the burden of proving Iu onthe defendant, and tat the plain! is under no Sh i fakin Tit Ot cours, wire appeary fe the lai own swing tate hat be anol npletce tick postr cnr foe nore etme neo Ses eer the nnces orm rane lansing, not of overcoming, (2) Brand aon, anny, dary, and nue nant, — The tm, in he absence of ‘tie enitena of any ilciary relation, ‘ever presen fre alent on te nt, prey a nk Sinpntens of bad fish dleaety, y fesod sy fo tne och ake {bez ves no abure of te coufidence, that be hon clod In peed fut and te act Ly"hlch he ip bonefited wag the fret, roluntaty, a Independent ac of the tbet ‘perky, done with Tall owedige of ts purpose thd affect Examples of tock Tela: {aie may be sera tp the cat of husband tnd wile, aorney ad lent, rectors Sarat ts fe cranny tr inp Of ann ed ‘aacary character ary et fs bya tranaction with the ove ‘ho cenfided inhi fas the batten of showing Dist be’ cammancael othe leer ot enly the fact of hr intren nthe teanaarin, oot a ingormation be had wich tras important for Ye other to knew in onder to eoable him to Judge the val of Be prperty (). Cri charged in vt cess — Whore crn isin insve in eri action, fhe cargo was In goed condition when the plley attache and that the cargo wat ‘Aemaged when Unloaded from the vec thereafter, the burden then shift to the Inaarer to thw the ception to the coverage The bsie rule fs hat Ue fvaranee fommpany has the borden of proving Wat the lea e"cauned hy the aka excopted ‘snd for want of such prot the company ia Uable Fulpine Merchants Tneuranee Ine. be Sour of Appeals, GR. Nes LASS, November 3, 1008; Hey of Tee: eto onan Sr ine Bee Geral inaeance Corporation, G8 Ne. Lott, SEL Fence an Bedence, 60 ed 370, ‘While fo the rule that in ear of non-contractaal negligence of cxipa aguian, te Burden’ pref fa on the plas to etabloh that the proxieateexuss of his Iniuey wae the negligence of the defendant, If la-alne a retognzed principe that ‘inhate the thing which eaueod the injury, witout fault ef the injored pert Is lubder the exlutve contra of tho defendant and te injury fa auth sein the een ours of things dec not cocur if he having ae, control sed prope caro, i a ensnable evidence inthe abvence of explanation, Oat th Inery stose from deen. dane want of care And the borden of avdenc iahifted to Rim to establish that hethas nerve due care and dligence.” Tu rale fr inown by the nani of resp peaks for ielf.Ajrce we, Calet, 16 SCRA 4 BP. A710, SEC. 1, RULE 131 EVIDENCE ry the bede of pron hr se wpn th psy wh etd ta rie wae oes sob naers hn ha proery as Noor ‘ommiied. ii rue i oped ag ‘len by crimlacd mcara and pledged without hi autbority, And itrhag alo bos Spied io a"pcting fp rere Pal otal fam ice fr alee. in ‘fice, the state beog Bld tn have tho burden of prot oh tim bat where ne ‘geo el a py mah et tt eae re are ea nATnr as SLAP cata a SS peal So it Sn it tin peg pane or LT be aS Sea ata 1 ay nyse tr pi ne re SERRA Fes ne RUE ee ce ‘andthe bailes’s breach, "And, where be has taade «prima faci case Ly his proof, SEMA A sieaekradon a Sn fa a Eabshae aoe ein. ee et et ne nel fone rir aa rers matte Be eiisiarie cae heelys Sie nee ete SEGRE SiN Sie Mies tenet etn as Be Ses ce Macrae chan aces ons Se alee es st ow “xpresed In che bil of lang or other {rom some cure crempled ot or iy wee made ip crea Indicating farses and good faith tif the carrer laine exe og Sr hubiy'by ite of ie problem of stat tat the ae Ws with Abe purview ef the enaeinent™| (0) Action apanat innkeeper, — One who, while a guettat-an nn ot tote, bay test is goods not bound, nan action tgnlagt tae nkewper, 1, prove negligence {ride per of the defendant or hla servants Protf of the Ing vaile to Tanke out in fale eas, and eats, upon the defendant the burden of shoving fais which fcenerne hip of Uahity. The tankeper is sid to be Gable at an intrer of The goods whch have been entrant to hin (ot) Action for partion — Inn ation fo the pation of an alleged wn ‘estate, hupponely a the preerion‘f the descendants ef one child of th common Shorslor ofthe partis, wbare Te appears that said child Nad feaived bls share, of ir Jasna father's exits the burden of prot leon the inti ta establish th the other chldsen had not recevod Saat Terpectve sharex Proof of the partion td delivery of the sare of one cld rises Ge Presumption that the other chil ‘Hot hare, mari, seceved Ce own shares, © presomption strengbaned Oy, the act that sald othe sd bad not mode any complaint for Derid of oer fifty jane " (0) Disberment.procmdingn, — Te tn a wellstted rule that in, albarment proctoings, the burden of prot rats upen We complainant and for the Court to TB Tones on Rvidane, th ed, 482.494, Me Bagle ve Doo, 47 Pail 76, 154. HY denen on Beene, ih ed, LAS, ‘ipa, aoe ibid, BE 8e soln, 41341 ‘1 Pascual ve, enases, 20 SCRA 210 ide ‘of catsin properties bat as the owner and Pottor thereat Tle all ber children to wecnod, fn equal share, tig fact, hepliog that her ‘aed bined sta Sandy oon perttnePatut st, Monet, 29 ‘a 280 RULES OF COURT ‘SEC. 1, RULE 151 ‘exercise its disciplinary the cate against the respondent ovust be extablished 1p eominag pnt (da bani AiR Cha Ne te, Ger #0 180 (©) Spec cit atone and'poedags ‘Coney sping spel sil sete angel potas ae Sage the ae an ary i nctene HSSar ge eta of wae eat eet nts fo nnn Spee Sip to injtave Talal log a beregiae ne wnt Ba Seiciea eae Se Ser eo ac pee oes as deg ee ASE a pn ie Tdi pein intent pnt nt 2 sey Ua be tea Meron sured by the act fatten og, bard or person tt elon fob cel re far HER he fey eats tal ties Se a, =a iy adie one ie anaes ‘One wb Whee hs Das Bendel cnet of cor tr ‘ef obey Fein! tee far, t's geet Tl the bude proving fet ‘tess li veny ele lla rsd gre be aed ch ‘inability. by way'of defense to.purge bimielf of the contempt Bet i te ga rane poeta erry rl st aren of pet ave eal ecb nas Spgs cael cos hae hdl Sache UTES ae minge see SIG ates 'stdoed'e Sper wise ae Soinals Hi ies ceding by hep fe he eeu ale tat Se Tila! et shige ugly he'll een n Sepndene Tts Dette Sel Ata Se sll le bret fo es Sih eedes tne atv heer "ato dered ad the Tt FESO‘ plage of er ede’ Neti whe be reed ‘e-on the relation of « person claiming ttl, the petitioner fas the burden of prooi ESAS Slee ice toned te he Degen te ales SoS the Sona pa of cht ie fe 0), Abe of tran te ding ext The Gil of an ci sora Saha Fab oe Bal at Sida ae op EU af Ghetateacs Sia Me ld ov app Bib atte af Sila RTT ee Tal fal Sac PD aoe wf esac ma Rater ae QUESTION 12. — Against whom is the ‘ase decided tohen the ‘evidence is evenly balanced? ANSWER. [Tf the evidence in a case is evenly balanced it must be decided againet the party who hag the burden. of proof, for the case is-then found in exactly the same position at the conclusion as it was at the beginning) C. CRIMINAL CASES QUESTION.18. — Iho has the burden.of proof in eriménal cases? ANSWER. — In a etiminal'case the burden is on the, prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential clements of the offense Rig shoe ie 84 ds tam, A tr TL ee SEEe Sia yo aria * sagt oe te 8 A ct 5 ad ae Se edeat Bn cls Br 5 Se Poa Ba aN. ‘84 Am: Dec, 242. ALR ca * Saletan os fo Til, App. 366. onenee ° ae SEG. 1, LULE 181 EVIDENCE aa with which the accused is charged; and if-the proof fails to establish ary: Wi the essential elements neceseary to constitute a: crime, the defendant {S ented to an acquittal. The burden of proof is never on the secused to eatablihed is inncomnce or digprove the facts necessary to estabist thecrime charged. although the accused i required to assume the burden of proving affirmative defenses upon which he eles, the burden of estab. ‘ting he ult rests on the progeetion from the beeining to the end cE the tra even ia a casein which the defendant offers an affirmative defense QUESTION 14. — Distinguish burden of proof from presuinption of-inwocenc. "ANSWER, — The principle that the accused i8 innocent until the court has promounced him guilty upon all the evidence, and the rule that feulates the burden of poof must be clearly distinguished. The presump- dm of innocence isa role of substantive law, existing before any evidence eodfered ad sesompanying the accused throughout the trial ‘The burden ‘Sr proof designed mainly as a rule of procedure, requires the prosection {he fist instance to make out « pHma face case proving the essential Fete embraced in the criminal trazsaction alleged, Induding the intent, Af thus s done, and the aceused offers no evidence, the cage as made out Uy the state mst go to the court. They are to consider i, but only.in Transetion with the presumption of innocence tO which the ooeised is Snags entiied, though he may have Invoduoad no evidence whatsoever, Sr'thus complying with the requirement that it shall sustain the burden, at proof, the ste must profuce such evidence as will overcome the ‘reeurption of innocence and convince the court ofthe guilt ofthe actused Peyond'a reasonable doubt, After the state has introduced all the proof Reh i regardo as sufficient to convict the prisoner, he may meet the ‘aue thus made out against him in three different ways, Firet, He may Geay the truth of all the evidence which may be offered agatnat him, 1229 Ar, Jor, 2418081 ‘esanln i bt ayn with ui Ti Incmbnt on the prweain manent tha capes Aessse' teed i faceted en i the requisite SaReRAN pte‘neury for conicion be In exes la gut Be Sere PI doubt uere feed fr the mont eral seriny ofthe tetieny 1S rl et een, ep of rer ene tere ‘he atesed. Ont if oe tral Jude andthe. “aie ata Mead Wat the ine had fact eomited. pec by the pera om Hl whet feck ne tancting tat shawl tg. sntence be ene af uricto: My “ ‘Babapisbegana70 Scleh toe: Poole Conv, Gat Nae Lshte, October 1800; People Calooerde 160 SCRA 555; Pople vw. Montealere, 101 SCRA 100; Peeps we Bet SC en RS in ‘ct to the normal procedure, the provection hed to prove Hitter go ehf Sind fetonsle duh end oie the

    You might also like