Scribd
Upload
765 views2 pages

People V Manalo

This case discusses the rule regarding the prosecution's burden to prove a negative allegation that is an essential element of a crime. Generally, the prosecution must prove the negative allegation. However, there are exceptions. If proving the negative does not allow for direct proof, or if the facts are more within the knowledge of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused. Here, the accused was charged with selling a regulated drug without authority. The court found that the prosecution established circumstances indicating the accused did not have authority, including that the sale occurred at night near a restaurant rather than a medical facility. The burden then shifted to the accused to prove they did have authority to sell the drug, but the accused failed to do so. The court

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
765 views2 pages

People V Manalo

This case discusses the rule regarding the prosecution's burden to prove a negative allegation that is an essential element of a crime. Generally, the prosecution must prove the negative allegation. However, there are exceptions. If proving the negative does not allow for direct proof, or if the facts are more within the knowledge of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused. Here, the accused was charged with selling a regulated drug without authority. The court found that the prosecution established circumstances indicating the accused did not have authority, including that the sale occurred at night near a restaurant rather than a medical facility. The burden then shifted to the accused to prove they did have authority to sell the drug, but the accused failed to do so. The court

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

People vs.

Manalo
230 SCRA 309, G.R. No. 107623 February 23, 1994
PUNO, J.:

Doctrine: The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or a negative
averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge.
However, this rule admits of exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof,
or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests
upon him.

Facts: The accused-appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation and was charged with violation of
Section 15, Article III for sale of regulated drugs without authority.

Accused-appellant underscores the fact that there was no showing by the prosecution that he had no
license or authority to sell “shabu” which is a regulated drug. Citing the case of People v. Pajenado,
accused-appellant maintains that since the absence of a license or authority is an essential ingredient of
the crime, proof of such negative allegation should have been presented by the prosecution.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime.

Ruling: The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or a negative
averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge.
However, this rule admits of exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof,
or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests
upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to
support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and
which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within
the defendant’s knowledge or control. For example, where a charge is made that a defendant carried
on a certain business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the accused is charged with the sale
of a regulated drug without authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarly
within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction. Even in the case of Pajenado,
this Court categorically ruled that although the prosecution has the burden of proving a negative
averment which is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution, in view of the difficulty of proving a
negative allegation, “need only establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable.” In fact,
Pajenado was acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearm for the Court found that, in said
case, the prosecution was not able to establish even a prima facie case upon which to hold him guilty of
the crime charged.

In the case at bar, the negative averment that the accused-appellant had no license or authority to sell
“shabu,” a regulated drug, has been fairly indicated by the following circumstances, deduced from and
established by the testimony of the arresting officers, viz: the accused was caught selling “shabu” not in
a hospital or pharmacy but near a hamburger store, along a bridge at barangay Caniogan, Pasig, at an
unholy hour of 10:00 o’clock in the evening. She delivered the drug to the poseur-buyer PO2 Corpuz and
accepted the buy-bust money. Proof of these circumstances thus shifted the onus on the accused. She
could have very easily disproved these damning circumstances by mere presentation of a copy of her
license or any other document evidencing her authority to sell a regulated drug. No such thing was done
during the trial. There is nothing now to exculpate the accused from liability.

You might also like