Ricardo Atienza and Alfredo Castro vs People of the

Philippines
Gr No. 188694
February 12, 2014

Facts:
Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA,
affirming the decision of RTC Manila which found Petitioners
Atienza and Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document.
Petitioners are CA employees: budget officer and utility worker,
respectively. On March 20, 1995, Juanito Atibula (Atibula), a
custodian of the CA Original Decisions, was invited by Castro to
Atienza’s birthday party where he was introduced to a certain
Dario who asked for his help in locating a CA decision in a
particular case. (FERNANDO CASE). They found said case in Vol
260 of the CA Original Decisions. Dario perused said document
and also scanned Vol. 265. In the following days, Dario
approached Atibula and requested the latter to insert a
decision dated Sep 26 1968 in one of the Volumes but Atibula
refused. Atienza thereafter offered him P50,000 in exchange
for Vol 260 but he also refused. Atibula subsequently
discovered that Vol. 266 was missing which he reported to his
superiors immediately. Several days later, a certain Nelson de
Castro, also a CA employee, handed Atibula a gift-wrapped
package which turned out to be the missing Vol. 266. De Castro
claimed that it was Castro who asked him to do so. The
contents of the returned Vol. 266 were reviewed by Atibula and
it was found that there were new documents inserted therein:
CA decisions and resolutions supposedly for the FERNANDO
CASE. Upon Atibula’s comparison, it was found that the
duplicate original decisions did not bear such promulgations.
Upon the NBI investigation that ensued, it was found that Vol.
266 has indeed been altered and the signatures of the CA
Justices therein have been forged. Ultimately, a complaint was
filed by the NBI to the Office of the Ombudsman implicating
Atienza, Castro and Dario of the Crimes of Falsification of Public
Document and Robbery under the RPC. Thereafter,
corresponding informations were filed before the RTC and the
petitioners pleaded not guilty while Dario remained at large.
Atienza denied having anything to do with the crimes and he
averred that he was away from the office during the months in
question due to work-related duties as budget and liason
officer. Castro on the other hand, did not make any efforts to
refute the charges against him. RTC: guilty beyond reasonable
doubt and there is conspiracy. The previous events that
conspired between the petitioners and Atibula prove their guilt.
CA: affirmed RTC’s decision. Although there was no direct
evidence, Atibula’s and the NBI’s testimonies along with other
circumstances are sufficient for a conviction. CA: Atienza’s
defense is self-serving and cannot outweigh the circumstantial
evidence.
Issue:
Are the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant a
conviction
Held:
NO. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts
and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be
inferred based on reason and common experience. It is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial
evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which
leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person.
Stated differently, the test to determine whether or not the
circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the
accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be
consistent with each other and that each and every
circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt and
inconsistent with his innocence. Firstly, the Court found no
evidence to link Castro to the crimes charged. Affidavits,
although acknowledged before a notary public, are considered
hearsay evidence of the affiant was not presented in court to
testify thereon and to give the adverse party a chance to cross-
examine him. Nelson de Castro, who averred in his sworn
statement that it was Castro who asked him to deliver the gift-
wrapped package to Atibula was not presented in court during
trial. Secondly, Atienza’s guilt is likewise questionable. Atibula’s
testimony states that the former attempted to bribe him to
take out Vol. 260 but then the controversy arose from a
different document: Vol 266. This discrepancy on the very
subject matter of the crimes dilutes the strength of the
evidence required for a conviction. According to the court, the
attempted bribery constituted proof of motive which is not
sufficient to support a conviction, no matter how strong.
Criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of
defense. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his
guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
Accordingly, there being no circumstantial evidence sufficient
to support a conviction, the Court hereby acquits petitioners,
without prejudice, however, to any subsequent finding on their
administrative liability in connection with the incidents in this
case.