5. Presumption Against Accused in Criminal Cases

Pre-trial admissions

Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings; Presumption against an accused in criminal cases

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. (Rule 130, Sec. 6)

NOTE: Establish basic fact first, then presumption may apply

Example: In theft, you must first prove beyond reasonable doubt the basic fact of taking, then the presumption of intent to gain may follow

Presumption of regularity cannot overcome presumption of innocence

It must also be emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot, by itself, overcome the presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and nothing else, is required to erase all doubts as to the culpability of the accused. (Riano, 74 citing Zafra v. People, 671 SCRA 396, 405, April 25, 2012)

Hence, in case of conflict between the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of police officers and the presumption of innocence of the accused, the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction. (Riano, 74 citing People v. Guinto, G.R. No. 198314, September 24, 2014)

It would be unconstitutional to place a higher value in the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties – a mere tool of evidence – than in the more substantial presumption of innocence favoring xxx an accused – a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. (Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017)

Because presumption in the regularity of the performance of duty is not sufficient for conviction, the Court, in a subsequent pronouncement, had the occasion to caution trial courts from judicially pronouncing an accused as guilty just because he could not impute any ill motives to arresting officers in arresting him and from presuming the regularity of the arrest on that basis alone. (Riano, 75 citing Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017)