Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

186080 August 14, 2009 JULIUS AMANQUITON, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE O T!E P!ILIPPINES, Respondent. D CORONA, J.: Petitioner "ulius #$an%uiton &as a purok leader of 'aran(a) *estern 'icutan, Ta(ui(, Metro Manila. #s a purok leader and baran(a) tanod, he &as responsible for the $aintenance of cleanliness, peace and order of the co$$unit). #t +,-./ p.$. on October 0,, 1,,+, petitioner heard an e2plosion. 3e, to(ether &ith t&o au2iliar) tanod, Do$inador #$ante+ and a certain !abisudo, proceeded to Sa$bon( Street &here the e2plosion too4 place. Thereafter, the) sa& co$plainant 5eoselie "ohn 'a6a(a bein( chased b) a certain 7il 7epulane. 8pon learnin( that 'a6a(a &as the one &ho thre& the pillbo21 that caused the e2plosion, petitioner and his co$panions also &ent after hi$. On reachin( 'a6a(a9s house, petitioner, !abisudo and #$ante 4noc4ed on the door. *hen no one ans&ered, the) decided to hide so$e distance a&a). #fter five $inutes, 'a6a(a ca$e out of the house. #t this :uncture, petitioner and his co$panions i$$ediatel) apprehended hi$. 'a6a(a;s aunt, Maril)n #li$pu)o, follo&ed the$ to the baran(a) hall. 'a6a(a &as later brou(ht to the police station. On the &a) to the police station, 7epulane suddenl) appeared fro$ no&here and bo2ed 'a6a(a in the face. This caused petitioner to order 7epulane9s apprehension alon( &ith 'a6a(a. #n incident report &as $ade.0 Durin( the investi(ation, petitioner learned 'a6a(a had been previousl) $auled b) a (roup $ade up of a certain Raul, 'o)et and !ris but failed to identif) t&o others. The $aulin( &as the result of (an( trouble in a certain residental co$pound in Ta(ui( !it). 'a6a(a9s $aulin( &as recorded in a baran(a) blotter &hich read+,<0,<1,+ Ti$e- +,<+/ p.$. R !ORD purposes !ISION

Du$atin( dito sa 'aran(a) 3ead =uarters si Dossen. 'a6a(a is #li$pu)o +> )ears old student na4atira sa +, ' ?alachuchi St. M.'.T. M.M. 8pan( ire4la$o )on( su$apa4 sa a4in sina Raul@,A 'o)et @atA !ris at )on( dala&an( su$apa4 a) hindi 4o 4ilala. Nan( )ari ito 4aninan( +,-p.$. ara& n( @MAartes taon( 4asalu4u)an at )on( labi 4o pu$uto4 at )on( 4abilan( $ata 4o a) na$a(a sa bandan( 4anan. #n( i)on( 4ali&an( $u4ha at pati )on( li4od 4o a) $a) ta$a sa sapa4. Patuna) dito an( a4in( la(da. Dossen 'ana(a Bs(d.C Thereafter, an Infor$ation for violation of Section +, BaC, #rticle VI, R#/ D+>,> in relation to Section / B:C of R.#. E0>F &as filed a(ainst petitioner, #$ante and 7epulane. The Infor$ation readThe undersi(ned 1nd #ssistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses "ulius #$an%uiton, Do$inador #$ante and 7il 7epulane of the cri$e of Violations of Section +, BaC #rticle VI, Republic #ct No. D>+, in relation to Section / B:C of R.#. No. E0>F co$$itted as follo&sThat on the 0,th da) of October, 1,,+, in the Municipalit) of Ta(ui(, Metro Manila, Philippines and &ithin the :urisdiction of this 3onorable !ourt, the above<na$ed accused in conspirac) &ith one another, ar$ed &ith ni(htstic4, did then and there &illfull), unla&full) and feloniousl) attac4, assault and use personal violence, a for$ of ph)sical abuse, upon the person of 5eoselie "ohn #. @'a6a(aA, seventeen B+DC )ears old, a $inor, b) then and there $anhandlin( hi$ and hittin( hi$ &ith their ni(htstic4s, thus, constitutin( other acts of child abuse, &hich is ini$ical or pre:udicial to child9s develop$ent, in violation of the above<$entioned la&. !ONTR#RG TO 5#*. On arrai(n$ent, petitioner and #$ante both pleaded not (uilt). 7epulane re$ains at< lar(e. Durin( the trial, the prosecution presented the follo&in( &itnesses- Dr. Paulito !ruH, $edico<le(al officer of the Ta(ui(<Pateros District 3ospital &ho attended to 'a6a(a on October 0,, 1,,+, 'a6a(a hi$self, #li$pu)o and Rachelle 'a6a(a Bco$plainant9s $otherC. The defense presented the testi$onies of petitioner, #$ante and 'riccio !u)os, then deput) chief baran(a) tanod of the sa$e baran(a). !u)os testified that the blotter notation entered b) 7epulane and 'a6a(a &as si(ned in his presence and that the) read the contents thereof before affi2in( their si(natures. On Ma) +,, 1,,/, the RT! found petitioner and #$ante (uilt) be)ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e char(ed.D The dispositive portion of the RT! decision read-

*3 R FOR , in vie& of the fore(oin(, this !ourt finds the accused "85I8S #M#N=8ITON and DOMIN#DOR #M#NT I78I5TGI be)ond reasonable doubt for violation of #rticle VI Sec. +, BaC of Republic #ct D>+, in relation to Section 0 B:C of Republic #ct E0>F, hereb) sentences accused "85I8S #M#N=8ITON and DOMIN#DOR #M#NT a strai(ht penalt) of thirt) B0,C da)s of Arresto Menor.1avvphi1 'oth accused "ulius #$an%uiton and Do$inador #$ante are hereb) directed to pa) 5eoselie "ohn #. 'ana(a the follo&in(+. #ctual da$a(es in the a$ount of P/,,,,.,,J 1. Moral Da$a(es in the a$ount of P 0,,,,,.,,J and 0. 2e$plar) da$a(es in the a$ount of P 1,,,,,.,,. The case a(ainst the accused 7il 7epulane is hereb) sent to the #R!3IV S to be revived upon the arrest of the accused. 5et @aA &arrant of arrest be issued a(ainst hi$. SO ORD R D. #$an%uiton9s $otion for reconsideration &as denied.E Petitioner filed a notice of appeal &hich &as (iven due course. On #u(ust 1E, 1,,E, the !# rendered a decisionF &hich affir$ed the conviction but increased the penalt). The dispositive portion of the assailed !# decision read*3 R FOR , in vie& of the fore(oin( the Decision appealed fro$ is A IRME" &ith MO"I ICATION. The accused<appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalt) of four B.C )ears, t&o B1C $onths and one B+C da) of prision correccional maximum up to ei(ht BEC )ears of prision mayor minimum as $a2i$u$. In addition to the da$a(es alread) a&arded, a fine of thirt) thousand pesos BP0,,,,,.,,C is hereb) solidaril) i$posed the proceeds of &hich shall be ad$inistered as a cash fund b) the DS*D. IT IS SO ORD R D. Petitioner9s $otion for reconsideration &as denied.+, 3ence, this petition. Petitioner principall) ar(ues that the facts of the case as established did not constitute a violation of Section +, BaC, #rticle VI of R# D+>, and definitel) did not prove the (uilt of petitioner be)ond reasonable doubt. The !onstitution itself provides that in all cri$inal prosecutions, the accused shall be presu$ed innocent until the contrar) is proved.++ #n accused is entitled to an ac%uittal unless his (uilt is sho&n be)ond reasonable doubt.+1 It is the pri$ordial dut) of the

prosecution to present its side &ith clarit) and persuasion, so that conviction beco$es the onl) lo(ical and inevitable conclusion, &ith $oral certaint).+0 The necessit) for proof be)ond reasonable doubt &as discussed in People v. Berroya-+. @Proof be)ond reasonable doubtA lies in the fact that in a cri$inal prosecution, the State is arra)ed a(ainst the sub:ectJ it enters the contest &ith a prior inculpator) findin( in its handsJ &ith unli$ited $eans of co$$andJ &ith counsel usuall) of authorit) and capacit), &ho are re(arded as public officers, as therefore as spea4in( se$i<:udiciall), and &ith an attitude of tran%uil $a:est) often in stri4in( contrast to that of defendant en(a(ed in a perturbed and distractin( stru((le for libert) if not for life. These ine%ualities of position, the la& strives to $eet b) the rule that there is to be no conviction &here there is reasonable doubt of (uilt. 3o&ever, proof be)ond reasonable doubt re%uires onl) $oral certaint) or that de(ree of proof &hich produces conviction in an unpre:udiced $ind. The RT! and !# hin(ed their findin( of petitioner9s (uilt be)ond reasonable doubt Bof the cri$e of child abuseC solel) on the supposed positive identification b) the co$plainant and his &itness B#li$pu)oC of petitioner and his co<accused as the perpetrators of the cri$e. *e note 'a6a(a9s state$ent that, &hen he &as apprehended b) petitioner and #$ante, there &ere $an) people around.+/ Get, the prosecution presented onl) 'a6a(a and his aunt, #li$pu)o, as &itnesses to the $aulin( incident itself. *here &ere the other people &ho could have testified, in an unbiased $anner, on the alle(ed $aulin( of 'a6a(a b) petitioner and #$ante, as supposedl) &itnessed b) #li$pu)oK+> The testi$onies of the t&o other prosecution &itnesses, Dr. Paulito !ruH and Rachelle 'a6a(a, did not fortif) 'a6a(a9s clai$ that petitioner $auled hi$, for the follo&in( reasons- Dr. !ruH $erel) attended to 'a6a(a9s in:uries, &hile Rachelle testified that she sa& 'a6a(a onl) after the in:uries have been inflicted on hi$. *e note further$ore that, 'a6a(a failed to controvert the validit) of the baran(a) blotter he si(ned re(ardin( the $aulin( incident &hich happened prior to his apprehension b) petitioner. Neither did he ever den) the alle(ation that he fi(ured in a prior batter) b) (an( $e$bers. #ll this raises serious doubt on &hether 'a6a(a9s in:uries &ere reall) inflicted b) petitioner, et al., to the e2clusion of other people. In fact, petitioner testified clearl) that 7epulane, &ho had been harborin( a (rud(e a(ainst 'a6a(a, ca$e out of no&here and punched 'a6a(a &hile the latter &as bein( brou(ht to the police station. 7epulane, not petitioner, could ver) &ell have caused 'a6a(a;s in:uries. #li$pu)o ad$itted that she did not see &ho actuall) caused the bloodied condition of 'a6a(a9s face because she had to first put do&n the bab) she &as then carr)in( &hen the $elee started.+D More i$portantl), #li$pu)o stated that she &as told b) 'a6a(a that, &hile he &as alle(edl) bein( held b) the nec4 b) petitioner, others &ere hittin( hi$. #li$pu)o &as obviousl) testif)in( not on &hat she personall) sa& but on &hat 'a6a(a told her.

*hile &e ordinaril) do not interfere &ith the findin(s of the lo&er courts on the trust&orthiness of &itnesses, &hen there appear in the records facts and circu$stances of real &ei(ht &hich $i(ht have been overloo4ed or $isapprehended, this !ourt cannot shir4 fro$ its dut) to sift fact fro$ fiction. *e appl) the pro reo principle and the e%uipoise rule in this case. *here the evidence on an issue of fact is in %uestion or there is doubt on &hich side the evidence &ei(hs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.+E If inculpator) facts and circu$stances are capable of t&o or $ore e2planations, one consistent &ith the innocence of the accused and the other consistent &ith his (uilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of $oral certaint) and &ill not :ustif) a conviction.+F Ti$e and a(ain, &e have held thatRepublic #ct No. D>+, is a $easure (eared to&ards the i$ple$entation of a national co$prehensive pro(ra$ for the survival of the $ost vulnerable $e$bers of the population, the Filipino children, in 4eepin( &ith the !onstitutional $andate under #rticle LV, Section 0, para(raph 1, that "T#$ St%t$ s#%&& '$($)' t#$ *+g#t o( t#$ ,#+&'*$) to %ss+st%),$, +),&u'+)g -*o-$* ,%*$ %)' )ut*+t+o), %)' s-$,+%& -*ot$,t+o) (*o. %&& (o*.s o( )$g&$,t, %/us$, ,*u$&t0, $1-&o+t%t+o), %)' ot#$* ,o)'+t+o)s -*$2u'+,+%& to t#$+* '$3$&o-.$)t.I This piece of le(islation supplies the inade%uacies of e2istin( la&s treatin( cri$es co$$itted a(ainst children, na$el), the Revised Penal !ode and Presidential Decree No. >,0 or the !hild and Gouth *elfare !ode. #s a statute that provides for a $echanis$ for stron( deterrence a(ainst the co$$ission of child abuse and e2ploitation, the la& has stiffer penalties for their co$$ission, and a $eans b) &hich child traffic4ers could easil) be prosecuted and penaliHed. #lso, the definition of child abuse is e2panded to enco$pass not onl) those specific acts of child abuse under e2istin( la&s but includes also Iother acts of ne(lect, abuse, cruelt) or e2ploitation and other conditions pre:udicial to the child9s develop$ent.I1, 3o&ever, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp s&ord, read) to be brandished a(ainst an accused even if there is a patent lac4 of proof to convict hi$ of the cri$e. The ri(ht of an accused to libert) is as i$portant as a $inor9s ri(ht not to be sub:ected to an) for$ of abuse. 'oth are enshrined in the !onstitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other. There is no dearth of la&, rules and re(ulations protectin( a child fro$ an) and all for$s of abuse. *hile unfortunatel), incidents of $altreat$ent of children abound a$idst social ills, care has to be li4e&ise ta4en that &a)&ard )ouths should not be cuddled b) a $isapplication of the la&. Societ), throu(h its la&s, should correct the deviant conduct of the )outh rather than ta4e the cud(els for the$. 5est &e re(ress to a culture of :uvenile delin%uenc) and errant behavior, la&s for the protection of children a(ainst abuse should be applied onl) and strictl) to actual abusers. The ob:ective of this see$in(l) catch<all provision on abuses a(ainst children &ill be best achieved if para$eters are set in the la& itself, if onl) to prevent baseless accusations a(ainst innocent individuals. Perhaps the ti$e has co$e for !on(ress to

revie& this $atter and institute the safe(uards necessar) for the attain$ent of its laudable ends. *e reiterate our rulin( in People v. Mamalias-1+ *e e$phasiHe that the (reat (oal of our cri$inal la& and procedure is not to send people to the (aol but to do :ustice. The prosecution9s :ob is to prove that the accused is (uilt) be)ond reasonable doubt. !onviction $ust be based on the stren(th of the prosecution and not on the &ea4ness of the defense. Thus, &hen the evidence of the prosecution is not enou(h to sustain a conviction, it $ust be re:ected and the accused absolved and released at once. 4!ERE ORE, the petition is hereb) GRANTE". The #u(ust 1E, 1,,E decision and "anuar) +/, 1,,F resolution of !ourt of #ppeals are *$3$*s$' and SET ASI"E. Petitioner "ulius #$an%uiton is hereb) ACQUITTE" of violation of Section +, BaC, #rticle VI of R# D+>,. SO ORD R D. RENATO C. CORONA #ssociate "ustice * !ON!8RRE5NATO S. PUNO !hief "ustice !hairperson ANTONIO T. CARPIO #ssociate "ustice TERESITA J. LEONAR"O6"E CASTRO #ssociate "ustice

LUCAS P. 7ERSAMIN #ssociate "ustice ! RTIFI!#TION

Pursuant to Section +0, #rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif) that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case &as assi(ned to the &riter of the opinion of the !ourt9s Division. RE5NATO S. PUNO !hief "ustice

oot)ot$s

!o<accused of petitioner in !ri$inal !ase No. +11FF>. #$ante opted to appl) for probation. Rollo, p. 0..
1

+1

R85 S OF !O8RT, Rule +00, Section 1. People v. Fernandez, .0. Phil. .0/, ../ B1,,1C. 0.D Phil. .+,, .10 B+FFDC. Rollo, p. F,. Id. Id., p. +>.

+0

#n i$provised e2plosive device.

+.

I+,<0,<1,+ Ti$e- +,<,> p.$. R !ORD purposes Na(sad)a si 7el Pulane G !astello 1/ )rs. Old 'inata $a) trabaho Tubon( 'acolod na4atira sa no.,0 Sa$bon( St., M.'.T. Mla. 8pan( ire4la$o si Neosen BsicC 'ana(a +. )rs old Dahil si)a an( na4ita<na$in( na na(ha(is n( pillbo2 sa harap n( tric)cle na na4aparada sa 4ahabaan n( sa$bon(. Patuna) dito an( 4an)an( la(da.I
1, +/

+>

+D

+E

People v. A ar!uez" 7.R. No. +/,D>1, 1, "anuar) 1,,>, .DF S!R# 11/, 10F.
+F

People v. #a$may" 0>/ Phil. >,>, >00 B+FFFC.

7el pulanes Bs(dC.I Rollo, p. E.

.

%onzalo Araneta v. People, 7.R. No. +D.1,/, 1D "une 1,,E, //> S!R# 010, 001.
1+

Dossen 'a6a(a is the sa$e person as 5eoselie "ohn #. 'a6a(a. Republic #ct.

People v. Mamalias, 0E/ Phil. .FF, /+0</+. B1,,,C.

The 5a&phil Pro:ect < #rellano 5a& Foundation

>

#n #ct Providin( for Stron(er Deterrence and Special Protection #(ainst !hild #buse, 2ploitation and Discri$ination, Providin( Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes.
D

Rollo, pp. /1<>D. Resolution dated "une 1F, 1,,>. Id., pp. D><DD. Id., pp. 0.</,. Resolution dated "anuar) +/, 1,,F. Id., p. /+. !ONSTIT8TION, #rticle III, Section +. B1C.

+,

++