8/13/2019 Practice Court I - Decision

1/3

Republic of the Philippines7thJudicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIESBranch 7Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESPlaintiff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE NO. C-!"-#$for: Violation of Article 299(A) of

theRevised Penal Code

IAN %A& A'RO(AR)

*U+E PAR*ILLO ,UIRANTE)Defendants,

X------------------------------------------------------------/

*ECISION

Facts

On the night of May 2! 2"#$! at around ##:$" %&! 'hile the Barangay

(anods of Brgy) *a&agayan! na&ed +a% ,aincadto! aul Mercader! andRoberto .iscon 'as doing their roving! they allegedly heard noises co&ingfro& the 'arehouse o'ned by a certain rsenio 000! and the sa&e 'arehouse'hose careta1er 'as Martosa rias) %on ai&ing their flashlight u%on 'herethe noise ca&e fro&! they shouted to the cul%rits! 'hich led the latter to run)(he Barangay (anods ran after the cul%rits: ,aincadto on foot! and the t'oother rode the Barangay Multicab) (he (anods cornered the cul%rits 'hich'ere identified as herein defendants! 0an Jay brogar and 3u1e ardillo4uirante) %on a%%rehension! the defendants 'ere as1ed 'hy they ran) (he(anods alleged that there 'as no res%onse5 thereafter the (anods observedthat there 'as a bulge in the %oc1ets of the defendants) %on having as1ed

the& 'hat these 'ere! the defendants then and there reached into their%oc1ets and held out a&%ules and a used syringe)

On the other hand! the defendants! convey a different story) (hey saythat they had 6ust gotten out of their overti&e 'or1! and thereafter! dran1beer to %ass of ti&e) (hat at ##:8 %&! they decided to go ho&e! and 6ustbefore going to'ards the 6ee%ney sto% they bought balut fro& a vendor! acertain Chin1y 9s%ina) fter having bought balut! they allegedly heard

8/13/2019 Practice Court I - Decision

2/3

so&eone shout Hoy ma !a"atan# $-%li nan sa!o#&' fter that! they ranfearing for their lives) ;hen the grou% of &en caught u% 'ith the&! they'ere arrested and fris1ed! fro& 'hich contraband 'as allegedly found intheir %oc1ets to their sur%rise)

$ss%e

;hether or not the defendants act lead to a belief 'ithout reasonabledoubt that they had co&&itted a felony! s%ecifically a violation of rticle 2irstly! 'e go to the fact stated in the affidavits of the defendantssaying that the balut vendor fro& 'hich they bought balut on the night ofthe occurrence of the event sa' all that had ha%%ened) Mere affidavits

cannot be a%%reciated 'ithout the %resence of the 'itness herself in court toauthenticate such testi&ony) Considering the foregoing! this court rules outthe fact that the balut vendor had actually 'itnessd the a%%rehension of thedefendants in herein case)

(he %rosecution had a%tly %resented their case 'hen they %resentedthe Barangay (anods as 'itnesses to the cri&e) (he Barangay (anods 'ere%ersonally %resent to 'itness the ha%%ening of the event) (he cri&e ofrobbery in an inhabited 'as established by the rosecution on the onset ofthe trial)

%on %resentation! ho'ever! of the case of the accused! &ud coversthe clear glass %ut u% by the %rosecution) (he accused states that he hadbeen 'or1ing overti&e in the Construction .ite 'here he is e&%loyed and so'as his co-accused) +or&ally! such state&ent 'ould not have beena%%reciated had it not been for the e?istence of the very docu&ent thatverifies such state&ent -- the 3aily (i&e Record

8/13/2019 Practice Court I - Decision

3/3

accused) (he tools 'ere generic and could very 'ell belong to anybody!having had no identification 'hatsoever on the&)

;ell settled is the fact that in a cri&inal case! the burden of %roof restsin the %rosecution) (he %resu&%tion of innocence holds through 'hen the

%resentation of evidence fall short fro& 'hat is needed to establish that%ersons have co&&itted an unla'ful act 'ithout reasonable doubt) (he%rosecution should not rely on the 'ea1ness of the evidence of thedefendant! but should very 'ell diligently %rovide the instance andcircu&stances to 'arrant that no other thought lingers in the &inds of anyone &an that indeed the cul%rit is the very doer of the acts alleged in theinstant case)

;hen evidence is ca%able of t'o inter%retations! one that establishesthe guilt of the accused and the other establishes his innocence! the latter'ill al'ays %revail) ;hen such thing ha%%ens! it is the duty of the court to

render the case in favor of the accused)

HEREFORE) in vie' of the foregoing! the defendants areC40((93! having not been found to have violated rticle 2