{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Thepnpwasheldresponsible for the enforced

Info icon This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA Facultad de Derecho Civil VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ 101 UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 74259, Feb. 14, 1991) Q: OZ lost five heads of cattle which he reported to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking for the missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found two heads in RR's farm. RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his farm. Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is another presumption of theft arising from his unexplained possession of stolen cattle under the penal law. Are the two presumptions capable of reconciliation in this case? If so, can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail? A: The two presumptions can be reconciled. The presumption of innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is logical, since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the presumption. The burden of evidence is shifted to RR, because how he came into possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his knowledge. (Dizon‐Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994) Q: The RTC QC rendered a decision convicting Judge Angeles of violation of R.A. 7610. The criminal cases are now on appeal before the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Senior Sate Prosecutor Velasco (SSP Velasco) suggested the immediate suspension of Angeles. SSP Velasco posited th...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}