Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence (RULE 131) | EVIDENCE

Below is a comprehensive, structured discussion of the Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence under Philippine law, with special focus on Rule 131 of the Rules of Court (as amended by the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence). This write-up is designed to be as meticulous as possible. However, please note that this is for general reference only and should not be taken as legal advice. Always consult primary sources (the Rules of Court, Supreme Court decisions) and relevant statutory provisions.

I. OVERVIEW OF RULE 131 (BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS)

Under the Revised Rules on Evidence (Rule 131, Rules of Court), the concepts of burden of proof and burden of evidence are essential in determining which party must establish particular facts in litigation and how the court should evaluate the presentation of evidence.

Key Concepts:

  1. Burden of Proof (Onus Probandi): The duty resting upon a party to prove or establish facts in issue to the required degree of proof.
  2. Burden of Evidence (Burden of Going Forward with Evidence): The duty to present enough evidence to make a prima facie case or to meet or overcome the prima facie case of the opposing party. It shifts from one side to the other depending on the state of the evidence at various stages of the trial.

II. BURDEN OF PROOF

A. Definition and Purpose

  1. Definition: The burden of proof is the obligation imposed on a party who alleges a fact or claim. It requires that party to produce the degree of proof required by law—whether “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases, “clear and convincing evidence” in certain special civil actions, or “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.
  2. Purpose: Ensures that claims are not merely alleged but are substantiated by appropriate and sufficient evidence.

B. Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

  1. General Rule (Civil Cases): A party who alleges the affirmative of an issue bears the burden of proof. In practice, the plaintiff (or the party who asserts a claim) usually has the burden of proof to establish the cause of action.
  2. Criminal Cases: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, which is a fundamental constitutional right.

C. Degree or Quantum of Evidence Required

  1. Criminal Cases: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
    • Highest standard in law.
    • The prosecution must produce moral certainty of guilt.
    • Accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent demands that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in the accused’s favor.
  2. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence
    • Defined under the Rules as “the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side,” or the evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
  3. Administrative and Certain Special Proceedings: Substantial Evidence or Clear and Convincing Evidence
    • In certain administrative or quasi-judicial hearings, the standard may be “substantial evidence” (enough relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion).
    • “Clear and convincing evidence,” higher than preponderance but lower than beyond reasonable doubt, is sometimes prescribed by law or jurisprudence in particular cases (e.g., certain family law cases, reconstitution of titles, etc.).

III. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE (BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD)

A. Definition

  • The burden of evidence refers to the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence at different stages of the trial. It is often described as the “duty to produce evidence” to establish a prima facie case or to refute the opposing party’s prima facie case.

B. How It Shifts

  1. Establishing a Prima Facie Case:
    • Once the plaintiff (in a civil case) or the prosecution (in a criminal case) meets its initial burden (i.e., establishes a prima facie case), the burden of evidence shifts to the defending party to rebut the evidence.
  2. After Rebuttal:
    • If the defendant or accused effectively rebuts the prima facie case, the burden of evidence may shift back to the claimant or prosecution to refute the rebuttal.
  3. End Result:
    • Despite these shifts in the burden of evidence, the burden of proof (the overall duty to establish the case) remains with the party who initially carried it. In criminal cases, it never shifts from the prosecution; in civil cases, it generally stays with the plaintiff, except where the law or specific presumptions otherwise require the defendant to prove a fact (e.g., certain affirmative defenses).

IV. PRESUMPTIONS UNDER RULE 131

A. Conclusive Presumptions

  • Definition: Also known as “irrebuttable presumptions” or “presumptions of law.” When the law itself establishes a fact as conclusively proven, no contrary evidence is allowed to disprove it.
  • Examples in Philippine Law:
    • The presumption that a child born in lawful wedlock is the legitimate child of the husband (subject to very limited exceptions and governed by special rules under the Family Code).
    • Estoppel by deed or record (e.g., a party cannot deny his own representations if the other party has relied on them).

B. Disputable Presumptions

  • Definition: Those which the law recognizes as valid unless disproved by contrary evidence.
  • Purpose: They simplify the proceedings by shifting the burden of evidence to the opposing party to present evidence contradicting the presumption.
  • Common Disputable Presumptions (Enumerated under Section 3 of Rule 131):
    1. Presumption of innocence in criminal cases (reinforced by the Constitution).
    2. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
    3. Presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
    4. Presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
    5. Presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular.
    6. Presumption as to the identity and continuity of things or conditions (e.g., a person not heard from in a certain number of years is presumed dead).
    7. Others as listed in the Rule or recognized in jurisprudence.

C. Effect of Presumptions on Burden of Evidence

  • When a disputable presumption is established, the burden of evidence shifts to the party against whom the presumption operates. That party must introduce sufficient and competent evidence to overthrow or rebut the presumption.

V. APPLICATIONS IN PROCEDURE

A. Civil Actions

  1. Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof:
    • Must prove the material allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of evidence.
  2. Defendant’s Burden of Evidence (Rebuttal):
    • Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant has to adduce evidence to controvert such case or establish affirmative defenses.
  3. Counterclaims / Cross-claims / Third-Party Complaints:
    • A party alleging any claim or cause of action against another also bears the burden of proof for that claim.

B. Criminal Actions

  1. Prosecution’s Burden:
    • Always to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
    • Acquittal follows if the prosecution fails to meet this burden.
  2. Accused’s Burden of Evidence:
    • The accused may choose not to present evidence if the prosecution’s evidence is weak (motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rests).
    • If the accused does present evidence (e.g., alibi, self-defense), it is often regarded as shifting the burden of evidence to prove his affirmative defense with clear and convincing evidence (e.g., self-defense requires proof that there was unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, etc.).
    • However, it must be emphasized that the prosecution still retains the overall burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

C. Special Proceedings and Administrative Cases

  • Some special proceedings (e.g., probate of wills, petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, land registration cases) have specific rules on which party bears the burden of proof and how it shifts.
  • Administrative or quasi-judicial cases often use the “substantial evidence” test, meaning the evidence that a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The party seeking the administrative sanction or relief typically bears the burden of proving the charge or claim.

VI. LEGAL ETHICS IMPLICATIONS

  1. Candor and Fairness:
    • Lawyers have an ethical responsibility (under the Code of Professional Responsibility, soon to be superseded by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) to be candid, especially when dealing with the court on matters of evidence. Misrepresenting the burden of proof or burden of evidence could lead to sanctions.
  2. Effective Advocacy:
    • Counsel must know precisely when and how to move for a directed verdict (in civil cases), a demurrer to evidence (in criminal cases), or other procedural remedies tied to the status of the burdens of proof and evidence.
  3. Avoiding Dilatory Tactics:
    • Lawyers should not misuse or misstate burdens of proof to delay proceedings. Doing so may result in a violation of legal ethics and possible disciplinary action.

VII. PRACTICAL TIPS AND FORMS

  1. Drafting Pleadings:
    • Clearly identify the cause of action and the ultimate facts that must be established.
    • Cite relevant legal presumptions that may help your case.
  2. Motions and Objections:
    • Where a party fails to meet the prima facie standard, file the appropriate motion (e.g., demurrer to evidence in criminal actions or a motion for judgment on the pleadings / summary judgment in civil cases, if applicable).
  3. Order of Trial:
    • If you are the party bearing the burden of proof, be prepared with testimonial, documentary, and object evidence to satisfy your quantum of proof.
    • Anticipate common and special presumptions and either use them to your advantage or be ready to rebut them.
  4. Form Clauses for Complaints or Answers:
    • Complaint: “The plaintiff claims [describe factual allegations], and by a preponderance of evidence, intends to prove that [specific wrongdoing or cause of action].”
    • Answer: “Defendant specifically denies [factual allegation] and puts plaintiff to strict proof thereof. Defendant further alleges [affirmative defenses], and prays that [presumptions or defenses] be recognized by this Honorable Court.”
  5. Affidavits and Judicial Affidavit Rule:
    • In preparing affidavits, especially under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, ensure that the narrative meets each element required by law for the cause of action or defense.
  6. Pre-trial Briefs and Position Papers:
    • Use these to indicate which party holds the burden of proof on particular issues, which presumptions apply, and how you plan to discharge or shift such burdens.

VIII. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

While there are numerous cases clarifying the nuances of burdens of proof and evidence, a few illustrative doctrines include:

  1. People v. Ganguso, G.R. No. ___
    • Affirms that the burden in criminal cases never shifts to the accused and that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
  2. Heirs of Leonidas v. Court of Appeals
    • Illustrates how a presumption of regularity in official functions can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
  3. Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals
    • Discusses the difference between burden of proof and burden of evidence in a civil setting, especially regarding prima facie case and shifting burdens.
  4. Tan v. Court of Appeals
    • Emphasizes the effect of disputable presumptions in a civil proceeding, particularly on property ownership and possession.

(The specific docket numbers are omitted here for brevity, but each of these references typical lines of reasoning and principles laid down by the Supreme Court on burdens and presumptions.)

IX. CONCLUSION

  • The principles of burden of proof and burden of evidence are cornerstones in Philippine remedial law.
  • Rule 131 guides practitioners and litigants in navigating who must prove what, to what extent, and how presumptions operate in judicial proceedings.
  • Mastery of these concepts allows lawyers to effectively craft strategies, present evidence, and respond to adversaries’ claims or defenses.
  • Properly distinguishing between these burdens—and the interplay of conclusive and disputable presumptions—can decisively influence the outcome of both civil and criminal cases.

Always ensure that you consult the latest amendments, Supreme Court circulars, and jurisprudential developments to stay updated, as procedural and evidentiary rules occasionally undergo revision or clarification by the Court.

This discussion is intended as a comprehensive overview of Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence under Rule 131 of the Philippine Rules of Court. For specific factual scenarios or legal strategies, it is prudent to consult authoritative texts, updated rules, and controlling jurisprudence, or to engage professional legal counsel.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login