EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence

(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)

Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
1) People of the Philippines v. Nestor Roxas y Castro

Facts: Nestor Roxas was charged with the crime of murder committed against
Severino Manalo y Atienza. Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant, duly assisted
by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Severino Manalo and Vicente
were talking to each other in front of the house of Alfredo Asi (Alfredo). Then,
Vicente saw Nestor from behind and suddenly stab the latter thrice with a white
sharp bladed weapon, Nestor allegedly stabbed Severino three times. For fear that
he might also be attacked, Vicente scampered away to a safer distance until he
reached his place where he called for help. Vicente, together with some people,
returned to the crime scene where they found Severino sprawled on the ground
already dead. Vicente volunteered to the responding officers that he witnessed
Nestor stab the victim three times with a bladed weapon. The version of the
defense however sand a different tune in that he aver principally that there was an
altercation when he confronted Severino as to why the former would want to hurt
him. Allegedly, Severino's answer was to pull a knife, and poke it at the accused-
appellant. This prompted the Nestor to grab the knife and while they grappled for its
possession, both Severino and the Nestorf ell and rolled on the ground. It was only
when he stood up that the Nestor noticed that he sustained stab wounds on his left
hand and saw Severino lying on the ground. The RTC ruled against Nestor and
found him guilty. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. The CA
agreed with the trial court's finding that the absence of the essential element of
unlawful aggression negates the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense.

Issue: Whether or not court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant
of murder despite his plea of self-defense

Ruling: The Court confirms the conviction of the accused. A careful perusal of the
facts would show that Nestor failed in discharging his duty to sufficiently prove the
elements of self defense were present in his case in as much as there was no
unlawful aggression. His self-serving testimony must fail when weighed against the
positive, straightforward and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. Only the
accused-appellant himself testified regarding his allegation that the incident started
with a sudden punch thrown at him by the victim. No other witnesses were
presented by the defense to bolster their theory of self-defense. Aside from being
uncorroborated, the trial court observed that the version of the accused-appellant is
doubtful. To the mind of the court, this is not the kind of evidence that will
substantiate the claim of self-defense. Likewise weakening accused-appellant's
contention that he acted in self-defense was his behavior immediately after the
incident. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant himself admitted that upon
seeing the victim lying on the ground, he boarded a jeep to go to his sister's place
in San Pascual, Batangas before moving to Bicol where he hid from the authorities
for several years. The accused-appellant's flight negates his plea of self-defense and
indicates his guilt.

Doctrine Ruling on Evidence:

Basic is the rule that in every criminal case, the burden of proving the guilt of the
accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty of establishing all the
essential elements of the crime. However, in cases where the accused interposes
the justifying circumstance of self-defense, this prosecutorial burden is shifted to the
accused who himself must prove all the indispensable ingredients of such defense,
to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
the part of the person defending himself. While the prosecution has the burden of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden is shifted to
the accused when he admits the commission of the crime but interposes self-
defense to justify his act.

2) RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO v. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES

Facts: Atienza and Castro are employees of the Court of Appeals who were charged
with robbery and falsification of public document. They worked at budget officer I
and utility worker I respectively. Together with them was Juanito Atibula Records
Officer I and Custodian of the CA Original Decisions in the CA Reporters Division,
who was invited by Castro to attend Atienzas birthday party somewhere along
Bocobo Street, Ermita, Manila. At the party, Atienza introduced Atibula to a certain
Dario and asked him to assist the latter in searching for the CA decision in a certain
case. Atibula, disturbed by the series of incidents that occurred thereafter
immediately reported the same to Atty. Macapagal. After a thorough investigation
by the NBI the following conclusions were reached: (a) Volume 266 had indeed been
altered; (b) the signatures of the CA Justices in the subject resolution and decision
(questioned signatures) and their standard/sample signatures were not written by
one and the same person. In his defense, Atienza denied having anything to do
with the questioned incidents as he was not even summoned by the CA Clerk of
Court or the Chief of the Reporters Division, and became aware of the incident only
when he and Castro were subpoenaed by the NBI Special Investigators. He
interposes the defense of an alibi by saying that he was reporting only to the said
office once a week as he was in other offices in the four days. After the trial in the
lower court Atienza and Castro were found guilty. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling in
toto. It held that while there is no direct evidence showing that the petitioners
committed the crimes charged, the testimonies of Atibula and NBI Agent Atty.
Daganzo with respect to what had transpired before and after Volume 266 was
taken from its shelf, when viewed together with the other circumstances in the
case, constitute circumstantial evidence which sufficiently point to the guilt of
petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not the conviction is correct in view of the fact that only
circumstantial evidence was offered to prove the same.

Ruling: The petition is meritorious. In so far as the guilt of the accused is

concerned there is no sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding Castros failure to refute the charges
against him, the Court finds no evidence to link him to the commission of the crimes
of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document, contrary to the conclusions reached
by the RTC and concurred in by the CA. To begin with, it is essential to note that
Castros purported possession and eventual return of Volume 266 was only
premised upon the statement of one Nelson de Castro. He was not even presented
during the trial. It is settled that while affidavits may be considered as public
documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer
authorized to administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon and the
adverse party is accorded the opportunity to crossexamine them. In the same vein
the guilt of Atienza was also not established beyond reasonable doubt. While
Atienza was positively identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to take
out Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions from the Reporters Division the fact of
the matter is the intercalation happened with a different volume. The discrepancy of
accounts on the very subject matter of the crimes charged dilutes the strength of
the evidence required to produce a conviction. At best, the bribery attempt may be
deemed as a demonstration of interest on the part of Atienza over said subject
matter and in this regard, constitutes proof of motive. However, it is well
established that mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to
support a conviction, most especially if there is no other reliable evidence from
which it may reasonably be deduced that the accused was the malefactor.

Doctrine Ruling on Evidence:

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption of innocence, failing which, the presumption of
innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted. This, despite the fact that
his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the
evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of defense. If
the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty
and is not sufficient to support a conviction, as in this case. Courts should be guided
by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably
guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from

which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common
experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is
essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused,
to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently, the test to
determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to
convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be
consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be
consistent with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A

3) GUILBEMER FRANCO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts: On November 3, 2004 at around 11:00 a.m., BJ Nakamoto (Nakamoto) went

to work out at the Body Shape Gym located at Malong Street, Tondo, Manila. After
he finished working out, he placed his Nokia 3660 cell phone worth PI8,500.00 on
the altar where gym users usually put their valuables and proceeded to the comfort
room to change his clothes. After ten minutes, he returned to get his cell phone, but
it was already missing. Arnie Rosario (Rosario), who was also working out, informed
him that he saw Franco get a cap and a cell phone from the altar. Nakamoto
requested everyone not to leave the gym, but upon verification from the logbook,
he found out that Franco had left within the time that he was in the shower. One
of the witness said that he saw Franco in the gym but he was not working out but
was mere skulking around the area. When Nakamoto announced that his cell phone
was missing and asked that nobody leaves the place, he put an asterisk opposite
the name of Franco in the logbook to indicate that he was the only one who left the
gym after the cell phone was declared lost. Another witness claimed that they saw
Franco along Coral Street holding a cell phone. The RTC convicted Franco of theft. In
affirming the RTC decision, the CA found the elements of theft to have been duly
established. It relied heavily on the "positive testimony" of Rosario who declared to
have seen Franco take a cap and a cell phone from the altar. The CA likewise gave
credence to the testimony of Ramos who confirmed that it was only Franco who left
the gym immediately before Nakamoto announced that his cell phone was missing.

Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict Franco of Theft.

Ruling: There is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of Franco. Taken as a

whole the evidence adduced does not meet the quantum of evidence required in
criminal cases. During the direct examination and cross examination there were
statements of the witnesses which were not appreciated by the Court a Quo thus a
perusal of the records would bear out that the prosecution's evidence does not rule
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
out the following possibilities: one, that what Franco took was his own cell phone;
two, even on the assumption that Franco stole a cell phone from the altar, that what
he feloniously took was Nakamoto's cell phone, considering the feet that at the time
Nakamoto was inside the changing room, other people may have placed their cell
phone on the same spot; and three, that some other person may have taken
Nakamoto's cell phone. Grave is the error also that the logbook which allegedly
contains a notation of the observation of the caretaker of the gym was not properly
identified, marked and offered into evidence and suffice to say it is a mere private
document in the eyes of our law.

Doctrine Ruling on Evidence:

The circumstantial evidence proven by the prosecution in this case failed to pass
the test of moral certainty necessary to warrant Franco's conviction. Accusation is
not synonymous with guilt. Not only that, where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations or interpretations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, then the evidence does not meet or hurdle the test of moral certainty
required for conviction.

Furthermore the Court pointed out that the lone testimony of a witness unless
corroborated by other evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt. A witness may
identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the crime as
an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct
evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a witness may not
have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to
positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance
when the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the second,
type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which,
when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain,
leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author
of the crime to the exclusion of all others. While he was able to identify Franco he
was not able to identify with certainty that the cell phone that was taken by Franco
belonged to Nakamoto.

It must also be noted that the evidence of the prosecution does not rule out the
other possibilities of how the crime happened. It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts
must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere
conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions." It is iniquitous to base Franco's guilt on
the presumptions of the prosecution's witnesses for the Court has, time and again,
declared that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
interpretations, one of which being consistent with the innocence of the accused
and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty
and is thus insufficient to support a conviction.
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A

4) AMADO I. SARAUM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts: The police received information that there were illegal drug activities afoot in
Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City. A buy-bust team was then formed
composed of PO3 Larrobis, PO1 Jumalon, PO2 Nathaniel Sta. Ana, PO1 Roy Cabahug,
and PO1 Julius Anion against a certain "Pata." PO2 Sta. Ana was designated as the
poseur-buyer accompanied by the informant, PO1 Jumalon as the back-up of PO2
Sta. Ana, and the rest of the team as the perimeter security. During the operation,
"Pata" eluded arrest as he tried to run towards his shanty. Inside the house, which
was divided with a curtain as partition, the buy-bust team also saw Saraum and
Peter Espcranza, who were holding drug paraphernalia apparently in preparation to
have a "shabu" pot session. They recovered from Saraum's possession a lighter,
rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil (tooter). PO3 Larrobis confiscated the
items, placed them in the plastic pack of misua wrapper, and made initial markings.
By way of defense, Saraum denied the commission of the alleged offense. He
testified that on the date and time in question, he was passing by Lorega Cemetery
on his way to the house of his parents-in-law when he was held by men with
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
firearms. They were already with "Antik" and "Pata," both of whom were his
neighbors. Believing that he had not committed anything illegal, he resisted the
arrest. He learned of the criminal charge only when he was brought to the court.
The RTC convicted Saraum for violating Section 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The
CA sustained the judgment on appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the conviction is proper.

Ruling: The conviction is proper. Saraum failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable
error, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, such
findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Saraum was
arrested during the commission of a crime, which instance does not require a
warrant in accordance with Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.

Doctrine Ruling on Evidence:

The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are:
(1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession
is not authorized by law. In this case Saraum was caught in flagrante delicto where:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such
overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Anent the claim on the identity of the narcotics found what can be said is this: the
chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of
the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the
accused until the time they are presented in court. As a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. There is no provision or
statement that makes non-compliance with Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
a fatal defect so as to render the seized items inadmissible.

Certainly, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation arc generally accorded full faith and credit in view of the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and especially so in the absence of ill-
motive that could be attributed to them, mere denial cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical identification and declarations of the police officers. The
defense of denial, frame-up or extortion, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by
the courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Settled then is the rule that, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and
influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted, the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of
 EVIDENCE-Quantum of Evidence
(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Somollo, Deanne Mitzi LLB 3A
witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed because it has the
advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their deportment and manner of
testifying