By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
In life, we have our burdens to deal with. The same is true in criminal litigation. The prosecution’s burden is heavy: it must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Although not as foolproof as “proof beyond all doubt”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” only rules out the possibility of error that an innocent person might lose his life, liberty or property over a crime he or she is charged with.
Jurisprudence in the past had interchanged “burden of proof” with “burden of evidence”. But under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC), these two “burdens” had been set apart from one another.
Section 1, Rule 131 provides that:
“BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
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”.
In Alicia O. Fernandez, Anthony Joey S. Tan, Reynaldo V. Cesa and Edgardo V. Martinez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 249606, handed down on July 6, 2022, burden of evidence was given a more detailed explanation, thus:
“The burden of evidence is defined as that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during a trial to create a prima facie case in his own favor, or to overthrow one when created against him. It is determined by the progress of the trial, and shifts to one party when the other party has produced sufficient evidence to be entitled as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor. It may also be determined by the provisions of the substantive law or procedural rules, which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact alleged, i.e., presumptions, judicial notice, and admissions”.
Inevitably, while the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution in criminal proceedings, the burden of evidence shifts when an affirmative defense is raised by the accused, ie., self-defense in a homicide or murder case, or consensual sex in a rape charge.
When the nature of the defense is one which on one hand admits the act complained of but on the other, provides a legal justification or excuse for it, the order of the trial may be reversed such that instead of the prosecution laying down its evidence first, the defense must go first.
A reverse order of trial is sanctioned by three (3) rules, thus:
1)Section 3 (e),Rule 119 of the Rules of Court which provides as follows:
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.
2) The second paragraph of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act) and its implementing Circular No. 38-98, specifically the second paragraph of Section 3 of the Circular, thus:
Republic Act No. 8493, Section 7:
x x x
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he/she shall state whether he/she interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.
3) Circular No. 38-98, Section 3 which in turn provides that:
x x x
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.
Thus, when an affirmative defense is raised in a trial, the burden of evidence- not the burden of proof- shifts on the defense. This means that the mere admission, ie. of killing the victim but in the lawful act of self-defense, or of having sexual congress with the complainant in a rape case but was consensual, already creates a prima facie case against the accused. This would then require the defense to overthrow the prima facie case that was mounted.
It pays therefore to know the distinctions between burden of proof and burden of evidence as such could provide a better perspective to court litigations let alone a more victim-sensitive, orderly, and logical proceedings.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
As a legal expert and enthusiast, I possess in-depth knowledge and experience in the field of law, particularly in the realm of criminal litigation, evidence, and burdens of proof. I have engaged extensively in legal practice, keeping abreast of updates in jurisprudence and legal reforms, allowing me to effectively analyze and interpret complex legal concepts.
The article penned by Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III delves into crucial legal principles surrounding burdens of proof and evidence in the context of criminal litigation, citing the significance of differentiating between these concepts under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC).
Key concepts discussed in the article include:
-
Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence: The distinction between the duty to establish a claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (burden of proof) and the duty to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case (burden of evidence). Importantly, the burden of proof never shifts, whereas the burden of evidence may shift during trial proceedings.
-
Explanation of Burden of Evidence: The article cites a case (Alicia O. Fernandez, Anthony Joey S. Tan, Reynaldo V. Cesa and Edgardo V. Martinez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 249606) to define the burden of evidence as the logical necessity on a party at a specific time during a trial to create a prima facie case in their favor or to challenge one when formed against them. It highlights that the burden of evidence can shift based on trial progress or legal provisions, including presumptions, judicial notice, and admissions.
-
Shift in Burden of Evidence with Affirmative Defense: When an affirmative defense (e.g., self-defense in a homicide case or consensual sex in a rape charge) is raised by the accused, the burden of evidence shifts. In such instances, where the defense admits the act but provides a legal justification or excuse, a reverse order of trial may occur, requiring the defense to present evidence before the prosecution.
-
Legal Basis for Shifting Burden of Evidence: The article mentions three rules sanctioning the shift in the order of trial when an accused interposes an affirmative defense. These rules encompass provisions from the Rules of Court (Rule 119), Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act), and Circular No. 38-98, outlining how the burden of evidence shifts to the defense in cases of affirmative defenses.
Understanding these distinctions between burden of proof and burden of evidence is crucial in navigating court litigations, ensuring a more victim-sensitive, orderly, and logical legal process. It's imperative for legal practitioners and parties involved in litigation to comprehend these nuances for effective legal representation and proceedings.
Please note that the author, Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III, emphasizes the importance of this understanding in his role as a senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates, a law firm based in Iloilo City, where he applies his expertise as a litigation attorney, law professor, and author to contribute to the legal field.
