Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEMORANDUM
ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, and before this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Memorandum in
support of his ACQUITTAL of the crimes for which he is charged, and
states, thus:
PREFATORY
1
convict a criminal charge, but moral certainty is required as to
every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.1
The presumption of innocence is a conclusion of law in
favor of the accused, whereby his innocence is not only
established but continues until sufficient evidence is introduced to
overcome the proof which the law created-namely, his innocence.
When a doubt is created, it is the result of proof and not the
proof itself. The courts will not impute a guilty construction or
inference to the facts when a construction or inference
compatible with innocence arises therefrom with equal force and
fairness. In fact, it is always the duty of a court to resolve the
circumstances of evidence UPON A THEORY OF INNOCENCE
rather than upon a theory of guilt where it is possible to do so.
The accused is not to be presumed guilty because the facts are
consistent with his guilt; this will be done only where the facts are
inconsistent with his innocence. 2
I.
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PORTRAY A BELIEVABLE PICTURE OF
THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
1 People v. Gerardo Orteza, G.R. No. 173051 [Formerly G.R. No. 161678], July 31, 2007.
2 I Whartons Criminal Evidence, 11thEd., Section 72; cited in Francisco, Criminal Procedure,
2nd Ed., 1969, p. 455.
3 G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400, citing People v. Villanueva, 536 Phil. 998, 1004
(2006).
2
collective testimonies in court vis--vis the other documents offered
in evidence by the Prosecution are inconsistent with their story of a
buy-bust.
The narration of events that supposedly transpired during their
execution of the entrapment of herein Accused is far from being a
straightforward testimony of the said arresting officers. It is mind-
boggling, to say the least, that the two (2) officers who supposedly
played key roles in the purported buy-bust would have extreme
inconsistencies in their testimonies on the sequence of events leading
to the drug-transaction and the actual exchange of the shabu and
marked-money between poseur-buyer, who was allegedly aided by a
civilian asset, and herein Accused, as seller.
3
A: No, Sir.
Q: A male?
A: MALE, SIR.
Q: A male. Now, the family name of this male is Elle?
A: I cannot answer that. Sir.
Q: Is it not Mr. Witness that there were two (2) civilian assets who
were with you during the operation?
A: Only one (1).
Q: Now, you said you went to this KTB Bar in Remolador Street near
Cogon, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Only together with this male civilian asset, correct?
A: Together with the team.
Q: And also this male civilian asset?
A: MALE.
Q: So, he was with you?
A: Yes, Sir. [Emphasis ours]
xxx
4
transaction with the Accused was supposedly set-up. In all
these confusion, however, the truth prevails.
4 G.R. No. 151205, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 516, citing People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 621 (1999).
5
SALE OF SHABU ACTUALLY
TOOK PLACE.
6
The table is not rectangular not square.
ATTY. LIM:
Wait its square, Your Honor.
COURT:
Not rectangular.
ATTY. LIM:
Not rectangular, Your Honor.
COURT:
They were seated opposite to each other?
ATTY. LIM:
Opposite each other. [Emphasis ours]
xxx
7
incident. Finally, it is a settled rule in our jurisprudence
that:
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. [Emphasis ours]
8
drug (shabu) to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the
marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapping officers and the Accused.7 Worth
citing is the high courts ruling in People v. Salcena,8 to wit:
II.
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTIONS
POLICE-WITNESSES TO COMPLY WITH THE
STRICTURES UNDER SEC. 21 OF R.A. 9165, IN
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF SEIZED DRUGS,
IS ENOUGH TO ENGENDER REASONABLE
DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF ACCUSED.
7 People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283.
8 G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011.
9
inconsistencies in the evidence presented, we are constrained
to reverse the finding of the court a quo. 9
"LAW ENFORCERS SHOULD NOT TRIFLE WITH THE LEGAL
REQUIREMENT TO ENSURE INTEGRITY IN THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS and drug
paraphernalia. Xxx." 10
10
labeled, nor given an identity when it came into the possession of
PO3 Serohijos, aggravated by the fact that said officer would
expose the said item to switching, whether inadvertently or
not, as he would later on seize another sachet of shabu of
the same quantity with identical packaging, again without
marking the second item and apparently getting the two sachets
mixed-up in the process, as established in the court testimonies of
PO3 Serohijos, as follows:
11
Q: SO WHO TOOK CUSTODY OF THE SAID ITEMS THAT YOU FOUND FROM
THE BODY OF THE ACCUSED?
A: I TOOK CUSTODY.
Q: And then when you proceeded at the Camp Francisco Dagohoy what
happened there if any?
A: When we arrived thereat we immediately contacted the barangay
official of the place and the representative of the PDEA and the media.
Q: And then after contacting them what happened next if any?
A: When the said persons arrived we began the inventory of the seized
items.
Q: Then who recorded the inventory of the seized items?
A: PO2 Macua Maam.
Q: So what evidence have you if any that the inventory was conducted?
A: The Seizure/Confiscation Receipt was filled up, Compliance of Inventory
was also filled up and pictures were taken.
xxx xxx
Q: In the Seizure/Confiscation Receipt it appears that the name of PO3 Ben
Gurion Serohijos is the Seizing Officer and above thereon is a signature,
do you know whose signature is it above the name?
A: This is my signature, Maam.
Q: Mentioned in this Seizure/Confiscation Receipt are two (2) pieces
medium sizes cellophane sachet with whit crystalline powder, I have
two (2) pieces of cellophane sachet with white crystalline substance
previously marked as Exhibits L and L-1 for the prosecution, kindly
examine this and tell this Honorable Court what relation has this if any
to the one you mentioned in Seizure/Confiscation Receipt?
A: These are the one Maam.
Q: In these two (2) sachets there are markings including the initial EBC 01
October 28, 2010 and the other sachet the marking in blue ink with
the initials EBC 02 October 28, 2010 and there is also a signature
appearing below said markings in blue ink, DO YOU KNOW WHO
MADE THIS MARKING?
A: PO2 MACUA, MAAM.
Q: YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE ONE (1) SACHET OF SHABU WAS
GIVEN TO YOU DURING THE TRANSACTION WHEREIN YOU BOUGHT A
SACHET OF SHABU FROM THE SUSPECT, CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH
AMONG THESE SACHETS WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF SALE?
A: I CANNOT IDENTIFY BECAUSE THEY LOOK THE SAME AND I FORGOT
BUT IT WAS REFLECTED IN OUR RECEIPT, BUT PHYSICAL I CANNOT
IDENTIFY BECAUSE THE TWO LOOK THE SAME, MAAM.
[Emphases added]
xxx xxx
12
sachets of shabu, the one which he purchased from the
Accused (subject of the sale), and which sachet was the one
he seized after conducting a body search on the Accused. The
high tribunals ruling in People v. Usman 1 2 requires the
identification of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, to wit:
13
for their arrival before an inventory and marking actually
commenced. PO3 Serohijos would eventually turn-over the two (2)
identical sachets to PO2 Maximo Macua who did the actual markings
on the two items. Apparently, PO3 Serohijos handed the two (2) drug
items all at the same time without a clear distinction as to which item
is subject of the sale, and which item was seized as a result of the
subsequent body-search of the Accused.
REASONABLE DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE IDENTITY OF
THE SHABU PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE, due to these series of
breaches in the custodial chain. Based on this alone, Accused
deserves an acquittal from the instant charges. The Supreme Court,
in People v. Partoza,14 declared the acquittal of the accused due to
failures committed by the officers involved in the post-seizure of
illegal drugs, to wit:
14
IMMEDIATE MARKING thereof upon seizure. [Emphases
supplied]
15
Q: THERE MUST BE IMMEDIATE MARKING ON THE DRUG OR SACHET
RECOVERED AFTER THAT THERE BE A LISTING OF ALL THOSE ITEMS
THAT WERE RECOVERED, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: And that you also aware of Section 21 a, Article 2 of Republic Act
9165?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And in that law its very clear there was immediate inventory on the
items seized, correct?
A: Yes. xxx xxx [Capitalization and underscoring for emphasis]
The preceding testimonies of the poseur-buyer who also
assumed the role of a seizing officer (PO3 Serohijos) is a clear
confession that the shabu subject of the sale, and the shabu
confiscated in a consequent body-search did not bear identifying
marks before these were turned over to PO2 Macua by PO3
Serohijos, the officer who had initial custody of said items. Evidently,
the markings on said items were only done during the inventory at
Camp Dagohoy together with all the other items that were allegedly
confiscated from Accused in a subsequent body-search. The Supreme
Courts ruling in People v. Orteza,16 finds applicability to the case at
bar, to wit:
16
seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, consistent with the chain of custody rule. IT
NEEDS NO ELABORATION THAT THE IMMEDIATE MARKING OF
THE ITEM SEIZED IN A BUY-BUST OPERATION IN THE PRESENCE
OF THE ACCUSED IS INDISPENSABLE TO ESTABLISH ITS IDENTITY
IN COURT. Here, none of the buy-bust team attested that they
saw P03 Sia take custody of the confiscated shabu, and later
mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office. EVEN GRANTING
THAT P03 SIA DID MARK THE SAME SACHET AT THE PRECINCT,
BREAKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY HAD ALREADY TAKEN
PLACE, FIRST, WHEN HE CONFISCATED IT FROM BERAN
WITHOUT ANYONE OBSERVING HIM DO SO AND WITHOUT
MARKING THE SUBJECT SACHET AT THE PLACE OF
APPREHENSION, AND THEN AS HE WAS TRANSPORTING IT TO
THE PRECINCT, THUS CASTING SERIOUS DOUBT UPON THE
VALUE OF THE SAID LINKS TO PROVE THE CORPUS DELICTI.
Moreover, the records also show that P03 Sia submitted the
sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without
explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof
overnight.
Xxx xxx .
The chain of custody rule requires that there be
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
object seized was picked up to the time it was offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the possession of the
witness, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain.
17
record of the custodial movements of the items
seized. The sachet of shabu supposedly purchased from
Accused and subject of the buy-bust (including the
marked-money) should have been recorded in a separate
custodial sheet or receipt as this item required distinct
recording procedures aside from the fact that this item
was purchased not seized, and more importantly, it
came into possession of the officer designated as poseur-
buyer before the rest of the items that were seized in a
subsequent body-search of the Accused. Therefore, said
item had a different starting point in the custodial
chain. Recording said item together with the other
seized evidence not subject of the buy-bust
generates a gap in the custodial chain. More so, that
the officers still had to wait for the inventory and marking
to take place until the arrival of civilian witnesses, adding
to the fact that PO3 Serohijos failed to mark either of the
two (2) sachets. On close inspection of the assailed
document, it is clear that the two (2) sachets of shabu
were even RECORDED AS ONE (1) SINGLE ENTRY,
clearly indicating that no distinction nor
distinguishing marks were ever made on these two
(2) items. The possibility that the two (2) sachets of
shabu seized may have been mixed-up, wrongly
attributed either as evidence of the buy-bust or of
the illegal possession charge, or even substituted,
altered, or tampered, either by accident or
otherwise, cannot be ruled out, notably because the
two (2) items have a similar description, the same
size, the same quantity with the same packaging.
As a result of which, the poseur-buyer/seizing
officer (PO3 Serohijos) could not identify in open
court which is which when asked by Prosecutor
Cristobal to pick-out which among the two (2)
sachets was the one that Accused allegedly sold to
him. Moreover, the name of the recording officer, PO2
Macua, is nowhere in said document, which is signed
instead by PO3 Serohijos when in truth and in fact, it was
PO2 Macua who made the markings on the items and he
was also the one who made its entry into the seizure
receipt. More importantly, the document would not prove
that there was a proper turn-over by the seizing officer
(PO3 Serohijos) to the recorder/custodian (PO2 Macua). In
fact, this document [Seizure and Confiscation Receipt ]
would establish the fact that there was only one
inventory and marking conducted, and it is clear
18
that this inventory and marking was inclusive of
whatever items were seized during the buy-bust
and the subsequent body-search. Regardless, this
inventory should be discredited as it is unreliable.
This alone should warrant the dismissal of the
instant charges against the Accused.
19
the two (2) sachets of shabu were again submitted
altogether for analysis without any clear distinction
as to its identity and that these were examined at the
same time and its results entered in one (1) single
chemistry report. For all intents and purposes, the
said document should be discredited for being
unreliable as it is inaccurate as to the identity of the
two (2) sachets/specimen examined, and later on
presented as evidence by the Prosecution.
20
the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly
seized: Marking of the seized drugs alone by the law
enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and
unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165.
The exactitude which the state requires in handling
seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is bolstered by the
amendments made to Section 21 by Republic Act No.
10640. Section 21(1), as amended, now includes the
following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent
than as originally worded:
Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
In People v. Nandi, this court explained that four (4)
links should be established in the chain of custody of the
confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.
In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how
the seized items were handled following the actual seizure
and, thereafter, turned over for examination, this court
held that the accused must be acquitted:
After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in
the chain of custody of the subject item were not clearly
established. As can be gleaned from his aforequoted
testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative
details on how the subject shabu was handled
immediately after the seizure. He just claimed that the
item was handed to him by the accused in the course of
the transaction and, thereafter, he handed it to the
investigator.
Xxx. Xxx. Xxx.
In this case, the defense points out that all that the
prosecution claimed, with respect to the handling of the
sachet supposedly handed by Misarez to PO1 Aure, was
21
that PO1 Aure supposedly marked it RH-PA at the scene
of the buy-bust operation.
While the buy-bust operation team allegedly
conducted an inventory of the seized items, it is unclear if
this inventory was limited to those seized pursuant to the
enforcement of the search warrant (i.e., after the conduct
of the buy-bust operation) or was inclusive of whatever
items seized during the buy-bust operation. In any case,
this inventory was discredited as Holgado was acquitted by
the Regional Trial Court of the charge of illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia because the inventory was found to
be unreliable vis-a-vis the testimony of PO2 Castulo. The
paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court
were different from those indicated in the inventory
supposedly made when the search warrant was
enforced.[Emphases added; Citations in the original]
22
sold at the buy-bust except by inference an exercise that
cannot be done in the absence of specific testimony
identifying the shabu sold. This evidentiary situation
effectively translates to the absence of proof of corpus
delicti, and cannot but lead us to conclude that no valid
conviction for the crime of illegal sale of shabu can result.
[Emphases, italics added; Citations in the original]
23
duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related
prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro,
we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after
they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the
prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable
doubt. These rulings are refinements of our
holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts
on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the
prosecutions failure to prove that the evidence submitted for
chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from the
accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.
[Emphases, italics added; citations in the original]
24
Cross-examination of PO3 Serohijos by Atty. Aleck Francis Lim
[TSN, 4/17/2013, pp. 31-32]:
xxx xxx
Q: Now, you will also confirm the fact that the no inventory was
conducted at the place where the alleged items were recovered?
A: Yes.
Q: No inventory was conducted?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: You were also confirm that fact that the lady or the manager or the
owner of the KTB bar did not prevent you from holding the Inventory
at the place were the accused was arrested, correct?
A: Yes, Sir did not prevent me.
Q: But no one prevented you from conducting an Inventory at the place
where the items was allegedly seized?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes, what, no one prevented you?
A: Yes, Sir no one prevented me.
Q: Of course you identified this Inventory Receipt and Compliance?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: All these according to you were done at the?
A: At the office.
Q: At the office of Camp Dagohoy, correct?
A: Yes, Sir. [Emphasis added]
xxx xxx
25
Cross-examination of PO3 Serohijos by Atty. Aleck Francis Lim
[TSN, 4/17/2013, pp. 33-35]:
xxx xxx
Q: Now, can you hold this. You were confirmed to me that in this particular
document Seizure/Confiscation Receipt which you marked as, its still
no marking Your Honor. But there is attached to the record of this case
you will confirm to me that the two (2) medium size cellophane sachets
does not bears any markings or initial?
A: No, Sir.
Q: No marking or no initial, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: You will also likewise confirm that in the other document Compliance
on Physical inventory after search and seizure in the two (2) medium
size sachet with white crystalline powder you would likewise confirm
that there is no marking or initial?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Mr. Witness according to you, you have been involved of many drug
operations, is it not that a Standard Operating Procedure pursuant
Section 21, Article 2 of Republic Act 9165 that there must be immediate
marking on the drugs which was allegedly seized, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: But in this particular two (2) documents you will agree with me that the
markings on the alleged items of sachets seized are not indicated?
WITNESS:
At that time, Sir?
ATTY. LIM:
Yes.
Q: Are not indicated?
A: Yes.
Q: So, in effect you have no documentary proof that there was indeed
marking immediate marking that was made on the alleged sachets that
you are talking no documentary proof?
A: No.
Q: No documentary proof?
A: Yes, Sir.
COURT:
As to the marking?
ATTY. LIM:
No documentary proof.
Q: Because when we talked about the inventory there are two (2)
important aspects in the inventory, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: There must be immediate marking on the drug or sachet recovered
after that there be a listing of all those items that were recovered,
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that you also aware of Section 21 a, Article 2 of Republic Act 9165?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And in that law its very clear there was immediate inventory on the
items seized, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You also have attended seminars, correct?
26
A: Yes.
Q: In that seminar specifically the lecturers are saying all over again that
the marking must be done at the place where the said items were
allegedly seized, correct?
A: As much as possible, sir.
xxx xxx
27
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/ paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of
the seized items and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
x x x
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the
volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification
shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said
examination and certification;
x x x. [Italics, emphases added]
28
under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR, including their very own
PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drug Operations and Investigation, 22
which demands strict adherence to the rules on the handling and
custody of seized illegal drug and other non-drug evidence:
22 2010 Edition, published by the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force.
23 Id. 2010 AIDSOTF.
29
c. Chain of Custody.
1) The Seizing Officer must preserve the integrity and
evidentiary value of all evidences.
2) Persons handling drug evidence from the time of its
seizure/confiscation should be limited to the Seizing
Officer, the Investigator-On-Case and PDEA
Laboratory Service or PNP Laboratory personnel. All
non-drug evidence shall be turned-over to the
evidence custodian.
3) An acknowledgement receipt shall be issued by the
person receiving the evidence. Such receipt shall
form part of the case folder of the transmitting Unit.
4) The Seizing Officer shall accomplish the Chain of
Custody Form and with it, submits the evidence to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
[Emphases, italics supplied]
All told, the identities of the corpus delicti in these instant cases
were not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
III.
30
Section 21 of R.A. 9165.24 As the high tribunal pronounced in
People v. Guzon,25 whereby it held that flagrant lapses or serious
breaches against the mandated requirements under Section 21 of
RA 9165 effectively negates the presumption of regularity
in the performance of the police officers duties, as any taint
of irregularity affects the whole performance and should
make the presumption unavailable. In the case of People v.
Go,26 the Supreme Court held:
31
must then be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe
penalty for drug offences. (People vs. Sevilla, 339 SCRA
625)
For the courts could not merely rely on but must
apply with studied restraint the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.
This presumption should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence and the constitutionally
protected rights of the individual. It is the duty of the
courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the
prostitution of the criminal law through lawless
enforcement. Courts could not allow themselves to be
used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent
persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties
for drug offenses. (People vs. Ong, Et al., G.R. No. 137348,
June 21, 2004)
xxx. The governments drive against illegal drugs
deserves everybodys support. But it is precisely when the
governments purposes are beneficent that we should be
most on our guard to protect these rights. As Justice
Brandeis warned long ago, the greatest dangers to liberty
lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well
meaning but without understanding, Our desire to stamp
out criminality cannot be achieved at the expense of
Constitutional rights, x x x. (People vs. Pedronan, 404
SCRA 183, 192)
IV.
32
FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF HEREIN
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
33
reasonable doubt. We find occasion then to reiterate what
we have said in People v. Masalihit:
Before we condemn . . . the crime must first be
positively established and that the accused is guilty sans
any scintilla of doubt. This is elementary and fundamental
in our criminal justice system. Any suspicion or belief that
that accused is guilty no matter how strong cannot
substitute for the quantum of evidence that is required to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant should not be punished for the
failure of the prosecution to dispose of its burden to
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence
and to establish his guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. This Court has always stood by the rule
that it is better to acquit a guilty person than to convict an
innocent one. [Underscoring added]
34
required for a pronouncement of guilt, i.e. proof beyond
reasonable doubt of his complicity in the crime. It is
incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on
its merits, and which cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless
it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not
even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of
the accused has not been proven with moral certainty,
such as the case at bar, it is a policy of long standing that
the presumption of innocence of the accused must be
favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of
right.
The presumption of innocence of an accused is a
substantial part of the law founded upon a great principle
of justice that cannot be balanced out merely by
conjecture or by probability. The heavy burden of
overcoming this presumption rests on the prosecution, and
unless it succeeds in proving by satisfactory evidence the
guilt of the accused, the constitutional mandate of
innocence prevails. [Emphases added]
CONCLUSION
PRAYER
35
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that herein Accused be
ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
Copy Furnished:
36