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. 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 giftwrapped 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. 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 rules that
Atienza’s defense is self-serving and cannot outweigh the circumstantial
evidence.

Issue:
Whether or not 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.