As public discussions center on having a more effective criminal justice system to prevent further flood control scandals, a suggestion was raised in an academic forum to change by legislation and rule amendment the standard required in proving guilt for crimes involving infrastructure corruption from the present burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence. Will such a change be valid? Explain.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Answer: No, such a change will not be valid. Legal Basis: Under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is an indispensable requirement of substantive due process. Moreover, under Article VIII, Section 5(5), rules of procedure cannot diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Application:
Unlock the full Political Law answers 365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
Quick check
Would changing the standard required to prove guilt in criminal cases involving infrastructure corruption from proof beyond reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence be constitutionally valid?
Under Article III, Section 14(2) in relation to Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, an accused in a criminal prosecution is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Overcoming this presumption requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Lowering the quantum of proof to preponderance of evidence—which is the standard applicable only to civil cases—dilutes the constitutional presumption of innocence and violates due process. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has exclusive rule-making power under Article VIII, Section 5(5), such rules cannot diminish, increase, or modify substantive constitutional rights.