Dear PAO,
The celebration of the holiday season was not good for our family because a member of the family was arrested for allegedly committing a certain crime. When we conferred with the lawyer assisting our relative, he asked if we have proofs to support the defense of our relative. Unfortunately, we do not have any proof. He then informed us to still not worry because our relative is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and the burden rests on the complainant to prove his accusation. I am just curious, what is the purpose of this presumption and does my relative need to do anything to maintain this presumption?
Aswilaine
Dear Aswilaine,
The rights of a person arrested for alleged commission of a crime is particularly enshrined under Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that:
“Section 14. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”
Correlative thereto, Section 3 (a), Rule 131 of A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC or the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, issued on 9 October 2019, also states that:
“Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
"(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; xxx”
This presumption of innocence prevails if not contradicted or if the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of said presumption was expounded in People of the Philippines vs. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995, where the Supreme Court, through Honorable Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado, stated that:
“The presumption of innocence, on the other hand, is founded upon the first principles of justice, and is not a mere form but a substantial part of the law. It is not overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture; a probability that the defendant committed the crime; nor by the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. Its purpose is to balance the scales in what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the resources at their command. Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the prosecution, the accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. This is in consonance with the rule that conflicts in evidence must be resolved upon the theory of innocence rather than upon a theory of guilt when it is possible to do so.” (Emphasis ours)
In Polancos vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 239866, September 11, 2019, the Supreme Court, through Honorable Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, further fortified the presumption of innocence as follows:
“To recall, the defense was not able to present any evidence, not even the testimony of the accused. Despite this, the Court still acquits Polangcos for failure of the prosecution to offer proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is the essence of the presumption of innocence; the accused need not even do anything to establish his innocence as it is already presumed. The burden to overcome this presumption rests solely on the prosecution, which, in this particular case, clearly failed to discharge said burden as it essentially had no evidence against the accused with the ruling on the inadmissibility of the corpus delicti of the crime.” (Emphasis ours)
Applying the above-quoted jurisprudence to your situation, the presumption of innocence will prevail if the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of your relative. As stated earlier, this is to balance the scales in what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the State and all the resources at its command and your relative. He need not do anything to establish his innocence since it is already presumed, and only proof beyond reasonable doubt can overturn this presumption.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
