EVIDENCE

1) CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, and BREGIDO MALACAT, JR. vsPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
March 8, 2017 G.R. No. 205745

FACTS:

The Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 37 found petitioners guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated murder, ruling that petitioners, with evident premeditation and taking
advantage of their superior strength, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another
attacked and assaulted Rolando Bahian. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Following the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari where they insist on their version of events. They emphasize several factual details and
maintain that they did not initiate an assault on Bahian. They assert that Bahian sustained the injury on his
forehead through his own fault; thus, they could not be held liable for acting with intent to kill Bahian.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder.

RULING: No. A careful review of this case and of the body of evidence that was available for the
Regional Trial Court's perusal reveals that there has been a gross misapprehension of facts on the part of the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. Thus, we reverse and acquit petitioners Capistrano Daayata,
Dexter Salisi, and Bregido Malacat, Jr.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on relative
strength as against that of the defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must
follow as a matter of course.

The defense points out several facts, which lend greater plausibility to its claim that the possibly fatal
injury sustained by Bahian on his forehead was not inflicted by any of the petitioners, and that petitioners did
not initiate an assault against Bahian. Negating the fact of the alleged perpetrators' assault and infliction of a
potentially fatal injury negates the corpus delicti of the offense charged. Physical evidence is evidence of the
highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. They have been characterized as "that
mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."

First, it appears that the location where the altercation occurred between Bahian and Kagawad
Abalde, on the one hand, and petitioners, on the other, is not as plain and austere as the prosecution made it
seem.

Second, while the prosecution painted a picture of a relentless assault that lasted for as much as 30
minutes- with petitioners supposedly not content with Bahian falling onto a parked jeep, but even attacking
him until he lay on the pavement, and thereafter still continuing to punch and kick him. However, Bahian's
medical certificate showed no injury other than that on [his] forehead.
 Third, Bahian himself was noted to have admitted that his head injury was "caused by [him] hitting
the edge of the concrete pavement.

Finally, several witnesses - both from the defense and the prosecution - have belied the
prosecution's claim that petitioners Daayata, Malacat, and Salisi wielded a gun, a bolo and an iron bar,
respectively.

2) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GOLEM SOTA and AMIDAL GADJADLI

November 29, 2017 G.R. No. 203121

FACTS:

Sota and Gadjadli were found guilty of murder and arson by the RTC of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte. The
lower court ruled that the prosecutor established the aggravating circumstance of superior strength and the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the death of Artemio Eba and the burning of his
house by the accused in 1999.

The CA held that the requisites in order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction had
been satisfied in these cases and which proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sota and Gadjadli, together with three
other unidentified individuals, killed Artemio and burned his house. The CA however modified the decision of the
RTC as to the penalties to be imposed on Sota and Gadjadli, and the damages to be awarded.

Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: Yes. The Court did not find any compelling cause or impetus to disturb the findings of the CA
especially so that the accused-appellants failed to convincingly argue their claim that these cases fall within the
determined exclusions that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally
binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

Most significantly, in every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof
the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given,
there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. In these cases,
the prosecution had undoubtedly discharged its task in accordance with the required degree of proof.

Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for determining the weight of a particular
testimony. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible
in itself, such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances.
 3) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO ARPOSEPLE y SANCHEZ and JHUNREL SULOGAOL y DATU
November 22, 2017 G.R. No. 205787

FACTS:

Arposeple and Sulogaol were both charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC of Tagbilaran City, Bohol
found appellants guilty of illegal trafficking and possession of shabu in a buy-bust operation conducted by the PNP.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt for failure of the arresting team to comply with the requirements of the chain of
custody and the failure to present the informant. However, the CA ruled for the People, holding that the failure of
the buy-bust team in complying with Section (Sec.) 21, R.A. No. 9165 on chain of custody did not render the items
as inadmissible in evidence considering that what were essential and necessary in drug cases were preserved by the
arresting officers in compliance with the requirements of the law. On the one hand, the non-presentation of the
informant was ruled by the CA as dispensable for the successful prosecution of the cases because his testimony will
only be corroborative and cumulative.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.

RULING:

Yes. . Jurisprudence dictates that to secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art.
II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale, and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The essential
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. On the one hand, the elements of illegal possession of
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Sec. 12 are the following: (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.

The CA erred in ruling that all the elements of the offenses charged against appellants were established
with moral certainty.

Equally significant therefore as establishing all the elements of violations of R.A. No. 9165 is proving that there was
no hiatus in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia. It would be useless to still proceed to
determine the existence of the elements of the crime if the corpus delicti had not been proven beyond moral
certainty. Irrefragably, the prosecution cannot prove its case for violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 when
the seized items could not be accounted for or when there were significant breaks in their chain of custody that
would cast doubt as to whether those items presented in court were actually those that were seized. An enlightened
precedent provides for the meaning of chain of custody.

Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who
held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.80

Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties easily
disappeared before it could find significance in these cases. Continuing accretions of case law reiterate that a high
premium is accorded the presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty.

To recapitulate, the records of these cases were bereft of any showing that the prosecution had discharged
its burden to: (1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellants enjoy; (2) prove the corpus delicti of the
crime; (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and (4) offer any explanation why the
provisions of Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with.

Thus, the Court is constrained to acquit the appellants based on reasonable doubt.