crim pro lacking digest till atienza
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
1/6
PEOPLE OF THE PHILS VS. BOCBOSILA
FACTS:
On 29 November 1999, appellant was charged in an
Information with Murder allegedly committed murder
(with ! of treachery and evident premeditation" upon
the person of one MI!#$% N&$%O '%'$ )
!*+I%%ON, a minor, 1 years of age, by then and
there stabbing him on the trun- with the use of a
bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon him serious
and grave wound which was the direct and immediate
cause of his untimely death
ccording to the testimonies, when the deceased
!astillon was wal-ing through a grocery store,
appellant and his 2 companions suddenly approached
and surrounded Michael. ppellant positioned himself
at the bac- of Michael while his two companions
stood in front of Michael. *uddenly, they grabbed the
shoulders of Michael and overpowered the latter. One
of appellant/s companions drew out a -nife and
repeatedly stabbed Michael at the stomach.
fterwards, the appellant/s other companion, too- the
-nife from the companion with long hair, and also
stabbed Michael at the stomach. %ater, appellant went
in front of Michael, too- the -nife from the companion
and li-ewise stabbed Michael at the stomach.
ppellant also -ic-ed Michael when the latter was
already lying on the ground.
0hen arraigned appellant pleaded Not &uilty to the
charge therein. +rial on the merits thereafter ensued
On 12 November 21, the +! rendered its
3ecision convicting appellant of murder. It sustained
the clear, direct and positive testimony of the
prosecution witnesses who all declared that they saw
appellant stab Michael. It found no ill4motive on the
part of the prosecution witnesses in testifying against
appellant. It also ruled that there was treachery in the
-illing of Michael since the latter was unarmed,
unsuspecting and very young at the time of the
attac-.
It held that accused 'ocbosila is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
'ocbosila filed Notice of ppeal to !4 affirmed the
+! decision. #ence this petition.
ISSUES:
1. 0ON +! $$3 IN 5IN3IN& +#$
!!6*$3477$%%N+ &6I%+) '$)ON3
$*ON'%$ 83O6'+ O5 +#$ !IM$
O5 M63$ 3$*7I+$ +#$ 7%7'%$
3I*!$7N!I$* N3 IN!ON*I*+$N!I$*
IN +#$ +$*+IMONI$* O5 +#$
7O*$!6+ION 0I+N$**$*.2. 0ON +! $$3 IN NO+ &I:IN&
$;!6%7+O) 0$I+ +O +#$
$:I3$N!$ 7$*$N+$3 ') +#$
3$5$N*$.3. Crim pro: WON the constitutional rights to
produce evidence on his behalf and to due
process were violated when the trial court
denied the motion of his counsel to present
substitute witnesses.
HELD:
7etition bereft of merit
1. witness testifying about the same nerve4
wrac-ing incident can hardly be e
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
2/6
the appellant, had stabbed Michael. +heir descriptions
of the faces, physical attributes, and respective
positions of appellant and his two companions during
the attac- are compatible. +hey also stated that
appellant was the last person who stabbed Michael.
2. propos the second issue, appellant deniedany liability and invo-ed alibi. #e argued that
he was inside his store when the stabbing
incident occurred, and, that it was %emuel
who stabbed Michael. #e also presented
ntonio to corroborate his testimony.
5or alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed. #e must li-ewise prove that it is
physically impossible for him to be present at the
crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.2?If appellant was, as he claimed, inside
his store at the time of the incident, then it was notphysically impossible for him to be at the crime scene
or in its immediate vicinity. #is store is located @ust
beside Mactan *treet,2and that he witnessed the
incident at a distance of merely five arms/ length from
his store.2A+herefore, his defense of alibi must fail.
=. +he +! was correct in denying the defense
counsel/s motion for substitution of witnesses
since *ection B, ule 11A of the evised
ules on !riminal 7rocedure mandates that
the matters agreed upon in the pre4trial
conference and as stated in the pre4trial
order shall bind the parties, to witC
*$!. B. 7re4trial order. D fter the pre4trial
conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the
actions ta-en, the facts stipulated, and evidence
mar-ed. *uch order shall bind the parties, limit the
trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course
of the action during the trial, unless modified by the
court to prevent manifest in@ustice (Italics supplied".
+he pre4trial order of the +! dated 29 5ebruary
2 clearly shows that the defense named only four
witnesses. +he parties were also informed therein thatwitnesses who were not mentioned in the pre4trial
order will not be entertained during the trial on the
merits. +hus, pursuant to the afore4stated provision
and its purpose of preventing undue delay in the
disposition of criminal cases and ensuring fair trial,
the denial of the defense counsel/s motion for
substitution of witnesses is @ustified. Moreover, if
appellant/s motion for substitution of witnesses is
given due course, it will amount to an unreasonable
disregard of solemn agreements submitted to and
approved by the court of @ustice and would ma-e a
moc-ery of the @udicial process.
+I% (%!EIN& !*$*"
NILO MACAYAN, JR. Y MALANA, v.PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
5!+*
Macayan was charged with robbery upon the personof nnie 6y #ao.
nnie 6y Fao (Fao" is the owner of %anero &arments
$
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
3/6
ccording to Macayan/s testimony, he was bo
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
4/6
without citation of specific evidence on whichthey are basedH
(9" 0hen the facts set forth in the petition as wellas in the petitionersK main and reply briefs arenot disputed by the respondentsH and
(1" When the findings of fact of the Court of'ppeals are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted b" theevidence on record.BB($mphasis supplied"
+he position ta-en by the Office of the *olicitor&eneral has resulted in the peculiar situation where itis not the prosecution but, effectively, the trial courtand the !ourt of ppeals arguing for MacayanKs guiltbeyond reasonable doubt.
0ith the bac-drop of these assertions, we deem itproper to reevaluate the factual findings and theconclusions reached by both the trial court and the!ourt of ppeals.
REVIE OF ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY
rticle 29= of the evised 7enal !ode provides forwho are guilty of robberyC
+I!%$ 29=. 0ho are &uilty of obbery. J nyperson who, with intent to gain, shall ta-e anypersonal property belonging to another, by means ofviolence against or intimidation of any person, orusing force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
$%$M$N+*1" there is a ta-ing of personal property 8i.e., unlawful
ta-ingH 2" the personal property belongs to anotherH=" the ta-ing is with animus lucrandi8i.e., intent togainH and B" the ta-ing is with violence against orintimidation of persons or with force upon things.B?
s pointed out by the Office of the *olicitor &eneral,the bone of contention centers on the elements ofunlawful ta-ing and of violence against or intimidationof persons. +his is precisely MacayanKs contentionCthat he neither intimidated nor threatened Fao, andthat he could not have unlawfully ta-en money fromher on account of any act of intimidation andorthreats made by him.
IV. RATIONALE FOR AC-UITTAL
!onsistent with the rule on burden of proof, the
reuisite uantum of evidence in criminal cases, and
in light of the points highlighted by both Macayan and
the Office of the *olicitor &eneral, we find that the
prosecution failed to establish MacayanKs guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. +hus, a reversal of the rulings of
the trial court and !ourt of ppeals is in order.
M"& /)st 0e "1)$tte+.
s correctly pointed out by the Office of the *olicitor
&eneral, the resolution of this case hinges on whether
Fao was indeed threatened andor intimidated by
Macayan into giving him money, that is, whether he
evous for handing over the e
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
5/6
corroborated, cannot be the basis of conviction.*uspicion alone is insufficient, the reuired uantumof evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt.Indeed, the sea of suspicion has no shore, and thecourt that embar-s upon it is without rudder orcompass.
It must be stressed that in our criminal @ustice system,the overriding consideration is not whether the courtdoubts the innocence of the accused, but whether itentertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. 0herethere is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they mustbe acuitted even though their innocence may beuestionable. +he constitutional right to be presumedinnocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only byproof beyond reasonable doubt.??($mphasis in theoriginal, citations omitted"
0ith the prosecution having failed to discharge its
burden of establishing MacayanKs guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, this court is constrained, as is its
bounden duty when reasonable doubt persists, toacuit him.
R$"r+% At$e&5 &+ Al*re+% Cstr% vs Pe%#le %*the Ph$l$##$&es6r N%. 7889;Fe0r)r 7a/sbirthday party where he was introduced to a certain3ario who as-ed for his help in locating a ! decisionin a particular case. (5$NN3O !*$"
+hey found said case in :ol 2? of the !Original 3ecisions. 3ario perused said documentand also scanned :ol. 2?G. In the following days,3ario approached tibula and reuested the latter to
insert a decision dated *ep 2? 19?A in one of the:olumes but tibula refused. tien>a thereafteroffered him 7G, in ea,!astro and 3ario of the !rimes of 5alsification of7ublic 3ocument and obbery under the 7!.+hereafter, corresponding informations were filedbefore the +! and the petitioners pleaded not guiltywhile 3ario remained at large.
tien>a denied having anything to do withthe crimes and he averred that he was away from theoffice during the months in uestion due to wor-4related duties as budget and liason officer. !astro onthe other hand, did not ma-e any efforts to refute thecharges against him.
+!C guilty beyond reasonable doubt andthere is conspiracy. +he previous events thatconspired between the petitioners and tibula provetheir guilt. !C affirmed +!/s decision. lthoughthere was no direct evidence, tibula/s and the N'I/stestimonies along with other circumstances aresufficient for a conviction. !C tien>a/s defense isself4serving and cannot outweigh the circumstantial
evidence.
Iss)e:
re the circumstantial evidence sufficient towarrant a conviction
Hel+:
NO.
!ircumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from which the
main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason
and common e
-
7/24/2019 Crim Pro Lacking Digest Till Atienza
6/6
e