crim pro lacking digest till atienza

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


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

$


3/6

ccording to Macayan/s testimony, he was bo


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


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


6/6

e

crim pro lacking digest till atienza

Documents