EVID charged, the prosecution has the burden of proving the same, although in
[11] PEOPLE v PAJENADO view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, the prosecution,
GR No. L-27680-81 | February 27, 1970 | Dizon, J.
Joq | Group 4
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: The People of the Philippines
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Openiano Pajenado @ Peming
TOPIC: Burden of proof and Presumptions  Rule 131, Section 1  Criminal cases
CASE SUMMARY: The accused in this case was convicted in the CFI of murder and
illegal possession of a firearm. The SC upheld the conviction for murder but reversed
the conviction of illegal possession. The main issue in the case is which side
(prosecution or defense) has the burden of proving that the firearm used in killing the
victim was not licensed. The SC held that while it is true that it is incumbent upon a
person charged with illegal possession of a firearm to prove the issuance to him of a
license to possess the firearm, under Rule 131, Section 2 of the ROC, in criminal cases
the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution and that a
negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if “it is an essential
ingredient of the offense charged.”
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on
the prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if
“it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged.”
PRECEDENTS:
 US v Tria - the accused was charged with having criminally inscribed
himself as a voter knowing that he had none of the qualifications required to
be a voter. It was there held that the negative fact of lack of qualification to
be a voter was an essential element of the crime charged and should be
proved by the prosecution.
 People v Quebral - the accused was charged with illegal practice of medicine
because he had diagnosed, treated and prescribed for certain diseases
suffered by certain patients from whom he received monetary
compensation, without having previously obtained the proper certificate of
registration from the Board of Medical Examiners, the Court held that if the
subject of the negative averment like, for instance, the act of voting without
the qualifications provided by law is an essential ingredient of the offense
under such circumstance, need only establish a prima facie case from the
best evidence obtainable.
FACTS:
 In December 1965, prosecution witness Epifanio Cabe saw the accused holding
the now deceased Carlos Tapong by the neck in front of the house of one Pablo
Jazmines. As Tapong and the accused were wrestling with each other, the
accused’s cousin intervened and the two Pajenados were able to throw Tapong to
the ground. As they thus held Tapong helpless, appellant drew his gun and fired
at him. Thereupon, the cousin stood up and ran away, while accused remained at
the scene of the crime with his drawn gun until a policeman, another Pajenado
(Ernesto), arrived and took the firearm from him. Carlos Tapong, mortally
wounded, was thereafter carried home by his father and other relatives.
 Another prosecution witness, Pelagia Tapong, testified that on the same day,
while she was at the window of the house of brother, along the street where the
incident took place, she saw accused standing on the street; that when Carlos
Tapong appeared, accused immediately met him and held him by the neck; that
thereafter the cousin intervened and with his help appellant was able to fell
Carlos to the ground.
 The Municipal Health Officer testified on the nature of the gun-shot wound
being the cause of death after conducting a post mortem examination.
 Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty in both cases, and after a joint
trial thereof he was convicted and sentenced. He now contends that he should be
convicted merely of homicide committed with one aggravating circumstance
(abuse of superior strength) not offset by any mitigating circumstance, because
the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery alleged in
the information have not been proved (the SolGen agreed with him).
ISSUES and RULING: (Doctrine in bold letters)
 WON...evident premeditation and treachery were proven -- YES and NO,
respectively
o EVIDENT PREMEDITATION: Proved. The testimony of Pelagia Tapong
was held to be sufficient evidence of premeditation.
o TREACHERY: Not proved.
 WON...accused should be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm -- NO
o The SC said that ROC Section 2, Rule 131 provides that in criminal cases,
the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution and
 that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if “it is an
essential ingredient of the offense charged.”
o The burden of proof was with the prosecution in this case to prove that
the firearm used by appellant in committing the offense charged was not
properly licensed.
o In the present case, it cannot be denied that the lack or absence of a license
is an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a firearm.
The information filed against accused in the lower court specifically alleged
that he had no “license or permit to possess” the .45 caliber pistol mentioned
therein. Thus it seems clear that it was the prosecution’s duty not merely to
allege that negative fact but to prove it.
o See precedents.
o The ratio for this rule as stated by former Chief Justice Moran: “...a party
who alleges a fact must be assumed to have acquired some knowledge
thereof, otherwise he could not have alleged it. Familiar instance of this is
the -case of a person prosecuted for doing an act or carrying on a business,
such as, the sale of liquor without a license. How could the prosecution aver
the want of a license if it had acquired no knowledge of that fact?
Accordingly, although proof of the existence or non-existence of such license
can, with more facility, be adduced by the defendant, it is, nevertheless,
incumbent upon the party alleging the want of the license to prove the
allegation. Naturally, as the subject matter of the averment is one which lies
peculiarly within the control or knowledge of the accused prima facie
evidence thereof on the part of the prosecution shall suffice to cast the onus
upon him.”

DISPOSITIVE: MODIFIED AS ABOVE INDICATED, the appealed decision is

affirmed in all other respects, with costs.