The New Rule on Presumptions in Criminal Cases

Presumption and inference in civil cases

To better understand the concept of a presumption in criminal cases, it is useful to look first at the technical meaning of an inference and a presumption in civil cases.

An inference is a conclusion of fact drawn from proof of a fact or group of facts.  A presumption is a legally mandated inference drawn from proof of a specified fact or group of facts (basic fact/s).  Proof of the basic fact is also proof of the existence of the presumed fact unless the presumed fact is rebutted or contradicted.

Example of an inference.  A witness testifies that the defendant received the letter. No rebuttal or contradictory evidence was presented by the defendant.  From such testimony, the court may but is not legally obligated to conclude or find that the defendant received the letter.  

Example of a presumption.  The plaintiff introduces evidence proving that a letter was duly directed and mailed to the defendant. This gives rise to the presumption that the letter was received by the defendant in the regular course of the mail (S3[v] R131).  If this presumption is not rebutted or contradicted by the defendant, the judge is legally obligated to conclude or find that the defendant received the letter.

New rule in 2019 Rules of Evidence on presumption against accused

The 2019 Rules of Evidence provides for a new rule on presumption against the accused in criminal cases.  Section 6 of Rule 131 reads as follows:

“Sec. 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. — If a presumed fact … 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.”

The phrase “the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt” means that not only must the judge be satisfied that the basic fact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt; the judge must also be convinced that the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt.[1]  

Section 6 of Rule 131 introduced two new important changes to the rule on presumptions in criminal cases:

1. The concept of “permissive presumptions” is adopted in criminal cases. A permissive presumption is one which establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense.[2] 

2. A permissive presumption does not shift the burden of evidence, much less the burden of proof, to the accused. 

Presumptions in criminal cases

In view of Section 6 of Rule 131, in criminal cases the term presumption insofar as it relates to an element of a charged offense takes on a different meaning.  In such a case, the presumption is actually an inference or what is sometimes referred to by the oxymoronic term “permissive presumption.”

Under Section 6, if the presumed fact is an element of the offense charged or negates a defense, the judge may but is not obligated to conclude or find that the presumed fact exists, even if the basic fact is proved beyond a reasonable doubt and even if the presumed fact is not contradicted or rebutted by the accused.  The judge must be satisfied or convinced from the evidence at hand that the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond a reasonable doubt.  In effect, a permissive presumption in a criminal case has the same meaning as an inference in a civil case.[3]

The rationale for Section 6 of Rule 131 is taken from the prevailing U.S. jurisprudence. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 [1970]). Winship was cited by our Supreme Court in People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 394 (1992) and in People v. Aguilar, 222 SCRA 394 (1993). Thus, even if the prosecution proves that the basic fact exists beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge is not obligated to conclude that the presumed fact also exists beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecution must still show that from all the evidence at hand, the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond a reasonable doubt.  U.S. case law, particularly County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979), and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 519 (1979), influenced the Supreme Court Committee and informed the drafting of Section 6 of Rule 131. Section 6 itself is modelled after Uniform Rule of Evidence 303(b) which however did not adopt the complex distinction between a “contextual” permissive presumption and a “non-contextual” mandatory presumption drawn in Allen.

In Sandstrom, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a presumption relating to an element of the offense charged (here, the presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her act) which shifts the burden of proof to the accused is violative of the Due Process Clause.  While the Court did not explicitly condemn a situation in which the presumption would shift the burden of evidence to the accused, a perusal of Sandstrom would show that the Court was highly skeptical or doubtful of such a result as well. Majority of U.S. courts as well as evidence scholars are of the view that shifting the burden of evidence to the accused would also violate the Due Process Clause.[4]  The revision committee appears to be of the same persuasion.[5]

Illustration.  Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes malversation of public funds or property provides in its last paragraph that “[t]he failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.”  Assume that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the basic fact provided for in the last paragraph of Article 217.  The accused then presented a character witness who testified that the accused has a reputation for honesty and integrity in his decades of government service. 

Even if the accused failed to contradict or rebut the presumed fact that he put the missing funds or property to personal use, the court is not obligated to conclude or find for the existence of such presumed fact.  The court must be satisfied or convinced from the evidence at hand that the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court may conclude that in light of the evidence, particularly the accused’s long record of honest service, there is reasonable doubt that he put the missing funds to personal use. 

Meaning of prima facie presumption. The term prima facie presumption has two meanings.  The first is that proof of the basic fact supports but does not require a finding of the existence of the presumed fact. Used in this way, a prima facie presumption is similar to an inference.

The other meaning is that proof of the basic fact obligates a court, in the absence of counterproof, to conclude or find that the presumed fact exists.  This is the meaning of presumption in civil cases.[6] 

Because of Section 6 of Rule 131 of the 2019 Rules, which bars in criminal cases a mandatory presumption of an element of the offense charged, the term “prima facie presumption” in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and in other criminal statutes should be read as providing only for an inference or permissive presumption. Hence, previous rulings of the Supreme Court which held that such prima facie presumptions will establish the presumed fact if unrebutted, in effect shifting the burden of evidence or proof to the accused, should be deemed abandoned.[7]

-oOo-

---

[1] SC Evidence Revision Committee Explanatory Notes 42, footnote no. 71.

[2] The term “permissive presumption” is a misnomer because a true presumption is mandatory, that is, it imposes an obligation upon the judge to conclude that the presumed fact exists in the absence of counterproof.  A permissive presumption is in reality not a presumption but an inference.  The use of the terms “permissive presumption” and “presumption” in criminal cases however have stuck.

[3] Mueller, Kirkpatrick, & Richter, Black Letter Outline on Evidence 473.

[4] Mueller, Kirkpatrick, & Richter, Evidence 148 (6^th ed.).

[5] SC Explanatory Notes 41, footnote no. 71.

[6] Mueller, Kirkpatrick, & Richter, Evidence 118 (6^th ed.).

[7] See for instance, Wa-acon v. People, G.R. No. 164575, 6 December 2006, which held that it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the presumption under Article 217 because the presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused.