Atienza vs People, G.R. No.

188694, February 12, 2014

FACTS:

This case involves crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document against
Atienza and Castro. Atienza and Castro (petitioners) are employees of the CA,
particularly assigned to its Budget Division and holding the positions of Budget Officer I
and Utility Worker I.

Abitula, Custodian of CA decisions was invited by Castro to attend Atienzas party

where the latter introduced Atibula to a certain Dario and asked him to assist in
searching for the CA decision. Thereafter, Atibula and Dario returned to the office and
searched for the decision. Dario requested Atibula to insert a decision in one of the
volumes of CA Original Decisions where the latter refused and immediately left. Atienza
offered Atibula 50,000 in exchange for records. Atibula reported the incident. He further
discovered that some of the volumes were missing which he also reported.

Nelson de Casto, Clerk IV detailed at the CA Reporters Division handed to Atibula a

bag containing a gift-wrapped package which turned out to be the missing records. He
claimed that it was Castro who asked him to deliver the said package to Atibula.

The contents of the returned records were reviewed by Atibula and it was found that
there were new documents inserted therein. Upon Atibulas comparison, it was found
that the duplicate original decisions did not bear such promulgations. On investigation, it
was found that the signatures of the justices were forged.

Atienza denied the allegations.

RTC found that there is conspiracy. CA affirmed RTCs decision.

ISSUE: Are the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction

RULING: 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 accuseds guilt and
inconsistent with his innocence.

The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence, failing
which, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted.
This, despite the fact that his innocence may be doubted, for a 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, as in this case. Courts should be
guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably
guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.

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.