Republic of the Philippines 7th Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Branch 7 Cebu City PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, versus CRIMINAL CASE NO. C- !"-#$ for: Violation of Article 299(A) of Revised 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! and Roberto .iscon 'as doing their roving! they allegedly heard noises co&ing fro& the 'arehouse o'ned by a certain /rsenio 000! and the sa&e 'arehouse 'hose careta1er 'as Martosa /rias) 2%on ai&ing their flashlight u%on 'here the 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'o other rode the Barangay Multicab) (he (anods cornered the cul%rits 'hich 'ere identified as herein defendants! 0an Jay /brogar and 3u1e -ardillo 4uirante) 2%on a%%rehension! the defendants 'ere as1ed 'hy they ran) (he (anods alleged that there 'as no res%onse5 thereafter the (anods observed that there 'as a bulge in the %oc1ets of the defendants) 2%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 say that they had 6ust gotten out of their overti&e 'or1! and thereafter! dran1 beer to %ass of ti&e) (hat at ##:78 %&! they decided to go ho&e! and 6ust before going to'ards the 6ee%ney sto% they bought balut fro& a vendor! a certain Chin1y 9s%ina) /fter having bought balut! they allegedly heard

the

so&eone shout :Hoy m a !a"atan# $-%li nan sa!o#&' /fter that! they ran fearing for their lives) ;hen the grou% of &en caught u% 'ith the&! they 'ere arrested and fris1ed! fro& 'hich contraband 'as allegedly found in their %oc1ets to their sur%rise) $ss%e ;hether or not the defendants act lead to a belief 'ithout reasonable doubt that they had co&&itted a felony! s%ecifically a violation of /rticle 2 </= of the Revised -enal Code) R%lin >irstly! 'e go to the fact stated in the affidavits of the defendants saying that the balut vendor fro& 'hich they bought balut on the night of the occurrence of the event sa' all that had ha%%ened) Mere affidavits cannot be a%%reciated 'ithout the %resence of the 'itness herself in court to authenticate such testi&ony) Considering the foregoing! this court rules out the fact that the balut vendor had actually 'itnessd the a%%rehension of the defendants in herein case) (he %rosecution had a%tly %resented their case 'hen they %resented the Barangay (anods as 'itnesses to the cri&e) (he Barangay (anods 'ere %ersonally %resent to 'itness the ha%%ening of the event) (he cri&e of robbery in an inhabited 'as established by the -rosecution on the onset of the trial) 2%on %resentation! ho'ever! of the case of the accused! &ud covers the clear glass %ut u% by the %rosecution) (he accused states that he had been 'or1ing overti&e in the Construction .ite 'here he is e&%loyed and so 'as his co-accused) +or&ally! such state&ent 'ould not have been a%%reciated had it not been for the e?istence of the very docu&ent that verifies such state&ent -- the 3aily (i&e Record <3(R=) 0t 'ould have been differently inter%reted if the 3(R 'as &anually filled u% by hand! but instead! in this case the 3(R 'as %unched in a bundy cloc1! 'hich 'ould thereafter sta&% the ti&e on the card) (o further testify to the veracity of the docu&ent 'as Mr) Macho *ho! the fore&an of the Construction .ite 'here the accused 'or1ed) 0n his state&ent! he said that he sa' the accused leave the %re&ises of the Construction .ite at around ##:$" %&! the ti&e 'hich 'as %ur%ortedly 'hen the cri&e 'as said to have been co&&itted) >ro& the ti&e they had logged out of 'or1! u% to the ti&e of their a%%rehension! it 'ould have been very unli1ely that the accused 'ere able to do all those acts that the (anods alleged that they had done) (he tools %ur%ortedly found in the sac1 could have been those identified to have been stolen! but he tools 'ould also have been those that the fore&an gave to the

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 rests in 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 the defendant! but should very 'ell diligently %rovide the instance and circu&stances to 'arrant that no other thought lingers in the &inds of any one &an that indeed the cul%rit is the very doer of the acts alleged in the instant case) ;hen evidence is ca%able of t'o inter%retations! one that establishes the 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 are /C420((93! having not been found to have violated /rticle 2 </= of the Revised -enal Code beyond reasonable doubt) .O OR39R93)