CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | PEOPLE V. NUÑEZ, G.R. NO. 209342, 4 OCTOBER 2017
PEOPLE V. NUÑEZ,
G.R. NO. 209342, 4 OCTOBER 2017
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Conviction in criminal cases demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.
While this does not require absolute certainty, it calls for moral certainty.
FACTS
This
resolves an from thedecision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court Decision which
found accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez (Nuñez) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of robbery with homicide.
The
prosecution’s case rises and falls on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Cruz and
Perez. The necessity of their identification of Nuñez is so manifest that the
prosecution saw it fit to recall them to the stand, even as it merely adopted
the evidence already presented in the trial of Marciales and Nabia. Cruz’s and
Perez’s testimonies centered on their supposed certainty as to how it was Nuñez
himself, excluding any other person, who participated in the robbery and
homicide.
ISSUE
Whether testimonies of eyewitnesses Cruz and Perez is sufficient to
convict the accused.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that conviction in criminal cases demands proof beyond reasonable
doubt. While this does not require absolute certainty, it calls for moral
certainty. It is the degree of proof that appeals to a magistrate’s conscience:
An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of
Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must
be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process
clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except
upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and
unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in
his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as excluding possibility
of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The
conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense
charged. Eyewitnesses who have
previously made admissions that they could not identify the perpetrators of a
crime but, years later and after a highly suggestive process of presenting
suspects, contradict themselves and claim that they can identify the
perpetrator with certainty are grossly wanting in credibility. Prosecution that
relies solely on these eyewitnesses’ testimonies fails to discharge its burden
of proving an accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.