REASONABLE DOUBT OVERTURNS PRESUMPTION IN CRIMINAL CASE
When the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) office in Romblon was robbed, the only thing missing in the office was a Triumph brand typewriter. One day, Diana Malay saw Moody Mabunga, a suspect in the robbery incident, carrying a box which bore the marking “HOPE.” Malay, whose husband was a BFP employee, followed Moody, who was on his way to the pier. Malay also informed another BFP employee and the police about the sighting. Upon reaching the pier, Moody entrusted the box with the cashier. Police officers kept watch on the box until Moody boarded the ferry six hours later. When they opened it, they found the missing typewriter inside. Both the RTC and the CA convicted Moody, with the CA relying on Sec. 3(j), Rule 131 on disputable presumptions arising from being in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act. However, the SC overturned the lower courts, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove that Moody remained to be in exclusive possession of the recently stolen good after he left the box under the bench near the cashier. Hence, there was reasonable doubt as to whether he indeed possessed the stolen good and the disputable presumption could not apply.
DISCHARGING BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS RELIEVED FOR THE TIME-BEING
A presumption may operate against an adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut it. The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal presumption or the prima facie case created thereby, and which if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of the averment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted.