Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: VIII. BURDEN OF PROOF & PRESUMPTIONS - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 1. CIVIL CASES
        
        2. CRIMINAL CASES
        
        3. PRESUMPTIONS
        
        CONCLUSIVE
        
        DISPUTABLE
        
        DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS ARE SATISFACTORY IF UNCONTRADICTED, BUT MAY BE CONTRADICTED & OVERCOME BY OTHER EVIDENCE
        Section 3. Disputable presumptions. –
        The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
        
        1 more item...
        
        LAW MAY PRESCRIBE WHAT PROOF CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE
        EVIDENCE OF GUILT
        his Court has rejected this argument by holding that the state, having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well-defined limitations, has the right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention.
        (Hizon v. CA)
        
        1 more item...
        
        LIST OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
        Rule 131 Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. –
        The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
        
        FACTS BELIEVED TRUE BECAUSE OF:
        a. PARTY'S OWN ADO
        b. INTENTIONAL & DELIVERATELY
        c. LED ANOTHER TO:
        -i. BELIEVE A THING TRUE
        -ii. ACT UPON SUCH BELIEF
        (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
        
        TENANT CAN'T DENY TITLE OF LANDLORD
        a. UPON COMMENCEMENT OF RELATION OF LANDLORD & TENANT
        (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)
        
        "TENANT" COVERS SUB-LESSEES
        Sub-lesses cannot acquire better title than lessee. Regarding its title or better right of possession as lessor because having admitted the existence of a lessor-lessee relationship, the Sampaguita and Belgravia are barred from assailing Belgravia's title of better right of possession as their lessor.
        (Datalift Movers v. Belgravia)
        
        DEFINED AS "PEREMPTORY THAT LAW WILL NOT ALLOW THEIR BEING OVERTUNED BY ANY CONTRARY PROOF, HOWEVER STRONG
        Conclusive presumptions have been defined as "inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong."
      - "BURDEN OF PROOF" IS THE:
        
        DUTY OF A PARTY TO PRESENT EVID:
        a. ON FACTS IN IN ISSUE
        -i. NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH CLAIM/DEF
        -ii. AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE REQ BY LAW
        
        BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTS
        
        "BURDEN OF EVIDENCE" = DUTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO:
        a. ESTABLISH OR REBUT A FACT IN ISSUE
        b. SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH/REBUT A FACT IN ISSUE
        -i. TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE CASE
        
        BURDEN OF EVIDENCE SHIFTS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, DEPENDING ON EXIGENCIES
        
        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. (1a)
  - - - BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH PROSECUTION (CRIM CASE)
        When a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a criminal case, as in the case at bar, the burden of proof does not shift to the defense.
        o It remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed—the prosecution.
        o It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial.
        o This burden of going forward with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution.
        o Then the burden shifts back.
        
        BURDEN OF EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE COUNTERED BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE OR OF GREATER WEIGHT
        
        A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by evidence of greater weight.
        o Defendant’s evidence which equalizes the weight of plaintiff’s evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient.
        
        ONCE ACCUSED RAISES SUFFICIENT DOUBT ON ANY MATERIAL ELEMENT, PROSEC MUST OVERCOME THIS EVIDENCE
        If the accused raises a sufficient doubt as to any material element, and the prosecution is unable to overcome this evidence, the prosecution has failed to carry its burden of proof
      - 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.