Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Tan v. Barrios Digest

    Uploaded by

    ayhen01
    1. The defendant, a customs officer, was accused of soliciting a bribe of 100 pesos in exchange for allowing the importation of opium hidden in paper rolls. 2. The defendant argued that a law shifting the burden of proof to the accused is unconstitutional. 3. The court ruled that while the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the state, the state has the right to declare certain acts as crimes and to specify what constitutes prima facie evidence of guilt, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to prove their innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan v. Barrios Digest

    Uploaded by

    ayhen01
    80 views2 pages
    1. The defendant, a customs officer, was accused of soliciting a bribe of 100 pesos in exchange for allowing the importation of opium hidden in paper rolls. 2. The defendant argued that a law shifting the burden of proof to the accused is unconstitutional. 3. The court ruled that while the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the state, the state has the right to declare certain acts as crimes and to specify what constitutes prima facie evidence of guilt, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to prove their innocence.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    2. Tan v. Barrios Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The defendant, a customs officer, was accused of soliciting a bribe of 100 pesos in exchange for allowing the importation of opium hidden in paper rolls. 2. The defendant argued that a law shifting the burden of proof to the accused is unconstitutional. 3. The court ruled that while the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the state, the state has the right to declare certain acts as crimes and to specify what constitutes prima facie evidence of guilt, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to prove their innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Tan v. Barrios Digest

    Uploaded by

    ayhen01
    1. The defendant, a customs officer, was accused of soliciting a bribe of 100 pesos in exchange for allowing the importation of opium hidden in paper rolls. 2. The defendant argued that a law shifting the burden of proof to the accused is unconstitutional. 3. The court ruled that while the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the state, the state has the right to declare certain acts as crimes and to specify what constitutes prima facie evidence of guilt, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to prove their innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    United States v. Luling, 324 PHIL.

    725

    TITLE THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. F. LULING,


    defendant-appellant.

    GR NUMBER G.R. No. L-11162

    DATE August 12, 1916

    PONENTE

    NATURE/ Presumption of Innocence/Prima Facie Evidence


    KEYWORDS/
    DIVISION

    FACTS The accused was a employed as a customs officer of the


    Government of the Phil. Islands.
    Using such capacity, he solicited from one Rufino Elord
    the sum of 100 pesos in order to secure the importation
    of certain rolls of paper in which a large quantity of
    opium was hidden.
    The defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found
    guilty, and convicted by the lower court in violation of
    Sec. 316 of Act No. 355 of the United States Philippine
    Commission.
    In his appeal, the appellant contended that Sec. 316 of
    the said act was unconstitutional in that the State is
    without right or authority to enact a law by virtue of
    which certain facts only shall constitute prima facie proof
    of guilt.
    The said provision provides in part:
    “… And evidence of such soliciting, demanding, exacting,
    or receiving, satisfactory to the court in which such trial
    is had, shall be regarded as prima facie evidence that
    such soliciting, demanding, exacting, or receiving was
    contrary to law, and shall put upon the accused the
    burden of proving that such act was innocent and not
    with unlawful intention. The reception of gift by any
    officer or employee in the Philippine customs service
    from any importer or exporter, either directly or
    indirectly, shall prima facie be deemed to be a violation
    of the provisions of this section.”

    ISSUE(S) 1. W/N presumption of innocence precludes the State


    from enacting laws that shift the burden of proof to
    the accused?

    RULING(S) 1. No. The state having the right to declare what acts are
    criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a
    right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a
    crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima
    facie evidence of guilt, and then put upon the
    defendant the burden of showing that such act/s are
    innocent and are committed without any criminal
    intent.
    Notes No rule has been better established in criminal law that
    every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is
    proved beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal
    prosecution, therefore, the burden is upon the state to
    prove every fact and circumstance constituting the crime
    charged, for the purpose of showing the guilt of the
    accused.

    While that is the rule, many of the States have


    established a different rule and have provided that
    certain facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt,
    and that then the burden is put upon the defendant to
    show or to explain that such facts or acts are not
    criminal.

    You might also like