This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| 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.[10] It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence.[11] Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove.[12] In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side.[13] The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.[14] | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, private respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove their lack of license to possess timber. They contended that since private respondent Rico is merely the owner of the pumpboat and was not present when the posts and firewood were seized, he could never be held liable for illegal possession of timber as he was never in possession of the round posts. Relying on People v. Macagaling,[9] private respondents asserted that constructive possession of forest products is no longer the rule in successfully prosecuting offenses for violation of the Forestry Code. | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's denial that he changed the procedure in the flow of money and that he returned the monies he audited to the tellers cannot prevail over the affirmative and categorical testimonies of Elsa A. Dantes, Merceditas S. Manio and Inocencia Sarmenta that they merely followed the procedure that was laid down by petitioner when he took over as Internal Auditor. Dantes and Manio positively testified that their collections were left with petitioner and that the same were not returned to them after petitioner audited the monies because the latter was the one who would turn them over to the Treasurer. Sarmenta was firm in saying she had not come across the CTOS involved and that the monies therein mentioned were not received by her from petitioner. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[62] Like alibi, denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses.[63] | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellants cannot feign denial of their right to counsel. We have held that there is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte, pursuant to the court's desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system.[74] | |||||