F. Burden of Proof and Presumptions (Rule 131)

Burden of Proof

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. (Rule 131, Sec. 1)

Burden of Evidence

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. (Rule 131, Sec. 1)

Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow any prima facie presumption against him. (Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137, 1985)

Upon Whom the Burden of Proof Rests

CIVIL CASES - the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show the truth of his allegations if the defendant raises a negative defense.

The defendant has the burden of proof if he raises an affirmative defense on the complaint of the plaintiff. (Jimenez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116960, 1996)

NOTE: In a civil case, the plaintiff is always compelled to allege affirmative assertions in his complaint. When he alleges a cause of action, he must necessarily allege that he has a right and that such right was violated by the other party. Thus, he has the duty to prove the existence of this affirmative allegation. (see Vitarich Corp v. Locsin, G.R. No. 181500, 2010)

CRIMINAL CASES - The burden of proof is on the prosecution by reason of the presumption of innocence. (People v. Alicante, G.R. No. 182941, 2009)

In cases of self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was legally justified. (People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 2006

In both civil and criminal cases, the burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative allegation.

Inferences v. Presumption

Instances when the presumption of regularity cannot be invoked:

The respondent, who is a public officer or employee, in writ of Amparo cases, cannot invoke the presumption (The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 17)

In custodial investigations (People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 112262, 1996)

Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise (People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455, 2014)

When there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. (People v. Lagahit, G.R. No. 200877, 2014)

• The presumption of regularity and legality of official acts is applicable to criminal as well as civil cases.

This presumption of authority is not confined to official appointees. It has been extended to persons who have been appointed pursuant to a local or special statute to act in quasi-public or quasi-official capacities and to professional men like surgeons and lawyers.

While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. (People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, 2017)

• Regularity of judicial proceedings

The court rendering the judgment is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and to have rendered a judgment valid in every respect. Jurisdiction is presumed in all cases, be it of a superior or inferior court.

• Private transactions have been fair and regular

An individual intends to do right rather than wrong and intends to do only what he has the right to do. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there is a presumption that all men act fairly, honestly, and in good faith.

• Ordinary course of business has been followed

Those who were engaged in a given trade or business are presumed to be acquainted with the general customs and usages of the occupation and with such other facts as are necessarily incident to the proper conduct of the business.

• Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

The natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would support the inference against him and the court is justified in acting upon the conclusion.

No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy (Rule 131, Sec. 4)

A child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of a marriage or the separation of the spouses will not be presumed legitimate or illegitimate. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his or her allegation.

NOTE: Foundlings are presumed to be natural-born Filipinos and the presumption of natural-born status of a foundling may not be impugned in any proceeding unless substantial proof of foreign parentage is shown. The natural-born status of a foundling shall not also be affected by the fact that the birth certificate was simulated, or that there was absence of a legal adoption process, or that there was inaction or delay in reporting, documenting, or registering a foundling. (R.A. 11767, Sec. 5)

It is a generally accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as having been born of nationals of the country in which the foundling is found. (Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, 2016)

Presumption of regularity in a petition for Writ of Amparo

The presumption of regularity does not apply in a petition for a Writ of Amparo. Under Sec. 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the “respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.” (Riano, 75)