Burden of Proof vs.

Burden of Evidence
DEFINITIONS
By burden of proof is meant the obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the existence of
a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action to establish it by proof. Under
the Rules, it 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. It means the burden of
establishing a case, whether by a preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt,
or by substantial evidence.
On the other hand, burden of evidence connotes the burden of going forward with the
evidence or that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to
create a prima facie case in his favor, or to overthrow one when created against him.
DISTINCTIONS
The main distinction between burden of proof and burden of evidence is that burden of proof
never shifts. This remains throughout the entire case exactly where the pleadings originally
placed it. The party whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of
the issue has this burden of proof. It is on him at the beginning of the case; it continues on him
through the case; and when the evidence, by whomsoever introduced, is all in if he has not, by
preponderance of evidence (or proof beyond reasonable doubt), established his proposition or
claim, the decision of a tribunal must be adverse to such pleader.
Burden of evidence on the other hand shifts to one party when the other has produced
sufficient evidence to be entitled as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor. It has no necessary
connection with the pleadings, but is determined by the progress of the tria

CONCEPTS
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
The concept of preponderance of the evidence can be visualized as a scale representing the
burden of proof, with the totality of evidence presented by each side resting on the respective
trays on either side of the scale. If the scale tips ever so slightly to one side or the other, the
weightier side will prevail. If the scale does not tip toward the side of the party bearing the
burden of proof, that party cannot prevail.

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no
other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the
crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. The
term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is
beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt
exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that noReasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence
presented.

SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
Substantive evidence refers to evidence introduced for what it helps to prove itself.
For example, computerized bank records in a credit card fraud case, e-mails in
a cyberstalking case, and image files in a child pornographycase are all substantive
evidence. Each has substantive value in helping to prove an issue in the case.
question #11 ans.
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court
may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
(1a)
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)
Section 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
#12. Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration in front
of Malacaang to express their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.

After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the
leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was
stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact an exercise of the laborers
inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of
grievances.
The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the normal course of their business which
may result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat of the possibility that the workers would lose
their jobs if they pushed through with the rally.
A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while the workers may be allowed to
participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate , otherwise, they would
be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the officers of the PBMEO were
eventually dismissed for a violation of the No Strike and No Lockout clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad
faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two
days late.
Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA.
Held: No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and
the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need
breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property
rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of
free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting
dubious intrusions."
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are
absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and
women by whom we shall be governed.

QUESTION # 9 1. More proof is required to find a person guilty of a crime in a criminal case than is required to return
a verdict for a plaintiff in a civil case. The crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order for a plaintiff to
win a civil case, it is typically only necessary to prove the case by a "preponderance of the evidence." Sometimes in a
civil case, a defendant will make a claim or claims, called a counter-claim against the original plaintiff, which like the
plaintiff's claim, requires a lower burden of proof than the criminal case.
2. In a civil case, three-fourths or more jurors may return a verdict, whereas in a criminal case the verdict must be
unanimous.

You may be called to serve on either a civil or a criminal case.

The Parties and Pleadings
In a civil case, the party filing a lawsuit is called a plaintiff. The party against whom the lawsuit is filed is called a
defendant. Notice of a suit is given to the defendant by service of a summons. The plaintiff's claim and demand are
stated in a petition. The defendant's response is stated in an answer. If the defendant makes a claim against the
plaintiff, such a claim is called a counterclaim. If a counterclaim is made, the plaintiff's answer is called a reply. These
papers, called pleadings, will have been exchanged between the parties some time before the actual trial begins. If
one party has more than one claim against the other party, each claim may be stated as a cause of action.
In a criminal case, the person charged with a crime is the defendant. The state is the prosecutor, and all crimes are
prosecuted in the name of the State of Missouri. This is because when a crime is committed, it is the laws of the state
that are broken, and the offense is against the people of the state. The lawyer who represents the state is called the
prosecuting attorney or the circuit attorney. The charge or complaint in a criminal case is made in writing. If made by a
grand jury, the charge or complaint is called an indictment. If made by the prosecuting attorney, it is called an
information. If more than one offense is charged, the charges may be combined, but they are separately stated and
each charge is called a count. For instance, an information may charge that the defendant (count 1) robbed the
prosecuting witness, and (count 2) that the defendant assaulted and beat the prosecuting witness. Usually, some time
before the case is called, the defendant is arraigned. This means that the defendant is brought before a judge and the
charge is read to him or her. For each offense, the defendant is asked "How do you plead?" and he or she pleads
"guilty" or "not guilty, " for example. If the defendant pleads not guilty, the case may be set for trial.
In a criminal case, the "plaintiff" is the state, and the "plaintiff's lawyer" is the prosecuting attorney.