REPORTER:

LUZVIMINDA CORONG - HONTANOSAS

RULE 131 SECTION 1 BURDEN OF PROOF – Burden of proof is the duty of a

party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

DOCTRINE: EI INCUMBIT PROBATIO QUI DICIT, NO QUI NEGAT – He who

asserts, not he who denies, must prove.

LANDMARK CASE

G.R. No. 82248 January 30, 1992

ERNESTO MARTIN, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS:

Ernesto was the owner of a private car. At around 2 o'clock in the morning, while being
driven by Nestor, it crashed into a Meralco electric post. The car was wrecked and the
pole severely damaged. Meralco filed a case at the RTC. Its action was based on tort under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, providing in part that:

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.

Ernesto’s main defense was that Nestor was not his employee.

After MERALCO had rested, the Ernesto moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that no evidence had been adduced to show that Nestor was his employee. It noted that
although Ernesto alleged that he was not Nestor’s employer, "he did not present any
proof to substantiate his allegation."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Meralco has the burden of proof, or the duty "to present evidence on the
fact in issue necessary to establish his claim" as required by Rule 131, Section 1 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

HELD:

YES. As the employment relationship between Ernesto and Nestor could not be
presumed, it was necessary to MERALCO to establish it by evidence. Failure to do this
was fatal to its action.

It was enough for Ernesto to deny the alleged employment relationship, without more, for
he was not under obligation to prove this negative averment. Ei incumbit probation qui
dicit, non qui negat. This Court has consistently applied the ancient rule that "if the
plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a
satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no
obligation to prove his exception or defense."
LATEST CASE

G.R. No. 182941 July 3, 2009

ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Robert, a minor, 15 years old, undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her.
Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had sexual intercourse with her
by inserting his male organ into hers. Robert warned AAA not to tell anybody of what they
did.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it was incumbent for Robert, the defendant, to present his birth certificate
to invoke Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344.

HELD:

YES. Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence, refers to the
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue in order to establish his or her
claim or defense. In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the
accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential
ingredients of the crime. The prosecution completes its case as soon as it has presented
the evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements. At this point, the
burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the prosecution has shown by
evidence, or to prove by evidence the circumstances showing that the accused did not
commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be held liable therefor. In the present case,
the prosecution completed its evidence and had done everything that the law requires it
to do. The burden of evidence has now shifted to the defense which now claims, by an
affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty, should be exempt from criminal
liability because of his age when he committed the crime. The defense, therefore, not
the prosecution, has the burden of showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15
years old or less when he committed the rape charged.30

This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority and age are not
elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove these
circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the prosecution would make minority
and age integral elements of the crime when clearly they are not. 31 If the prosecution has
a burden related to age, this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as a
circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape.32