Another significant evidence which the trial court failed to

consider is the voluntary confession of accused Federico Ampatin

absolving accused-appellant Bagas of the crime. Ampatins testimony
was clear and categorical.
Ampatin and accused-appellant were charged as coconspirators in the crime of robbery with rape. As a co-accused, it
would have been more consistent with human nature for Ampatin to
implicate accused-appellant if indeed he was one of the gang. In fact,
the Court has recognized that as is usual with human nature, a
culprit, confessing a crime is likely to put the blame as far as possible
on others rather than himself. The fact that he testified to the
innocence of a co-accused, an act which resulted in no advantage or
benefit to him and which might in fact implicate him more, should
have been received by the trial court as an indicum of the truth of
Ampatins testimony and the innocence of herein accused-appellant.
Ampatins testimony, therefore, should have been given weight by the
trial court. More so, the same was substantially corroborated by
another witness, Rodolfo Rosales, accused-appellants co-worker
and who was present when accused-appellant was arrested. 1
Entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or
probative value, as they do not constitute conclusive proof of the truth
thereof. (People vs. Rendoque, 322 SCRA 622)
The improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimony cast serious
doubt on its veracity. (People vs. Gozano, 323 SCRA 1)
The rule is that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.2 It cannot be established by conjectures but by
positive and conclusive evidence. It cannot be appreciated where the
facts can be consistent with the non-participation of the accused in
the alleged offense.3

People of the Philipines vs. Valeriano Amestuzo, et.al. G.R. No. 104383, July 12,
2001.
1

2
3

People vs. Ancheta, 66 Phil. 638

People vs. Furugganan, 193 SCRA 471

Thus, the conspiracy must be shown by clear and convincing facts.

The same degree of proof required to establish the crime is
necessary to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, that is,
it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the offense itself. 4 Guilt must be premised on a more
knowing personal, and deliberate participation of each individual who
is charged with others as part of a conspiracy. 5
Conspiracy must be shown as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. A finding of conspiracy cannot be
based on mere conjecture and insufficient proof of preconceived plan
to commit the crime or commonality of purpose among the
perpetrators of the crime. (People v. Reapor, G.R. No. 130962, 5
October 2001; People v. Vicente G.R. No. 142447, 21 December
2001; People v. Saul, G.R. No. 124809, 19 December 2001).

4
5

Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan, 179 SCRA 308

Pareno vs. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 242.