3. People v. Parel, 261 SCRA 720, September 16, 1996.

BELLOSILLO, J:

FACTS.

Leticia Perez owns a restaurant where accused-appellant Parel work during. The restaurant is located on the ground
floor of a three-storey building. The second floor is quarters for the employees and the third floor is the dwelling of
Leticia. On the date of the crime, it was alleged that Leticia was sleeping in her bedroom while her employees are
taking care of her business.

As per the case sole witness Jean Santollo, Parel arrived at the place at around 3 o’clock pm and joined some of the
employees in cooking. 45 minutes later she saw Parel in front of the restaurant and when asked where he was going
Parel said he’d see his employer for some money. At half past four, Jean saw Parel standing by the stairway but lost
sight of him when customers began coming in. Later someone called up looking for Estrellita, the common law wife
of Parel, but Jean informed the caller that only Parel was there. Jean told Parel of the caller. Then Jean last saw Parel
at four-forty five.

Parel’s version of the story is as follows: He arrived at the restaurant at two o’clock in the afternoon then went to
the second floor to talk with Jean, Samuel and Luz. He told them that he was going to wait for Estrellita and Danilo,
his brother. He would go in and out of the eatery while waiting for his brother. At four o’clock that afternoon, Danilo
finally arrived and handed to Renante an envelope containing P6,000.00 Renante then told Richard Depante, an
employee at Le Mars who saw Danilo arrive, that he (Parel) was already leaving. He also requested Richard to inform
Leticia that he and Estrellita would be leaving for their vacation in Bacolod.

It was 8’oclock in the evening when Leticia was found dead by his son. Police investigators said that Leticia’s bag
was lying on top of her dresser about a meter from the bed already open and, without any money or jewelry but only
her personal things.

The RTC of Manila found Parel guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide of Letecia. Parel appealed
to the High Court contending that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt hence he is entitled of acquittal.

ISSUE.

Is the circumstantial evidence on record sufficient to convict the accused of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide?

RULING.

No. Circumstantial evidence which has not been adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot by itself be
the basis of conviction.—It is a fundamental evidentiary rule in criminal law that the prosecution has the onus
probandi (burden of proof) of establishing the guilt of the accused. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. He
who asserts—not ‘he who denies—must prove. As oft-repeated, the conviction of the accused must rest not on the
weakness of his defense but on the strength of the prosecution. Hence, circumstantial evidence which has not been
adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot be itself be the basis of conviction.

In the instant case, there is absence of positive proof that appellant intended to rob the deceased or that he was the
one who carried away the money belonging to the victim. His mere presence at the locus criminis (place of the crime)
is not sufficient to implicate him.