CORPUS DELICTI

 To prove the corpus delicti, it is sufficient for the prosecution to be able show that
(1) a certain fact has been proven — say, a person has died or a building has
been burned; and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act.
Corpus delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence. People v.
Roluna

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

 Moreover, in Lozano v. People, this Court clarified the application of the

circumstantial evidence rule:

To sustain 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. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person has committed the crime. .i,e., the
circumstances proven must be consistent with each other, consistent with
the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent
with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with any other rational
hypothesis except that of guilt.

 The proven circumstances must be “consistent with each other, consistent

with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (Emphasis supplied).1

 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that in a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt.

 The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interest of immense

importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon
conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the
conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name and freedom of
every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when
there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.

 Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused

must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the
prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence. Macayan, Jr. y Malana v.
People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015

 'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly
convicted'

1
Marlon T. Bacerra vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 204544, July 3, 2017)
Take Note:

 Are the witnesses biased for or against either party?

 Is the testimony clear, consistent, and convincing?
 Does other evidence support or contradict what the witnesses said? This could
include a witness’s own previous statements that contradict the testimony at the
trial.
 Do the witnesses have a reputation for being honest and trustworthy?
 Was there anything that hindered the witnesses’ ability to see or hear the events
they’re testifying about? Do they have visual or hearing impairments? Were they
under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time?
 Do the witnesses’ appearance and demeanor support or undermine their
credibility? Do they appear uncertain or sure of their testimony? Juries might be
less likely to believe witnesses whose age or mental condition suggests memory
problems.

Jurisprudence has established the standard of appreciating the credibility of a

witness claim:

“For evidence to be believed, however, it must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself, such as the
common experience and observation of mankind can approve under the
circumstances.”

The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether

such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of
mankind.
 Allow me to tell you a story of two men, the differences in their lives, and the
paths they have chosen.

The first man came from an affluent, powerful, and respective family. He carved
his way up to the ladder of success and made name for himself. His life is like taken
straight out of the pages of a fairy tale book. He is successful, he has a loving wife, a
child, a perfect family. However, not all fairy tale books have happy endings. He then
realized that what good is power, if he cannot protect the ones he loves.

The other man came from a dirt poor family. His parents could no longer support
him, and thus, he was sent off to live with his affluent relatives. He was fed, educated,
cared for and treated as their own flesh and blood.

Years passed, he could still not make a name for himself. He is still behind the
shadows of his adoptive family. He grew up to be a wallflower.

Later in life, he eventually made wrong choices and became more envious with
the life of others—the life he could never have. Since time immemorial, jealousy and
envy of man destroyed countless lives.

The prosecution failed proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was our client,
Congressman Adlawan, who committed the crime. The prosecution relied on the sole
testimony of SPO4 Keith Gabica, completely forgetting the fact that SPO4 Gabica holds
a grudge against the Spouses Adlawan because of that random drug test.

The prosecutions theories that would establish reasonable doubt:

Acotre non probante reus absolvitur. When the plaintiff does not prove his
case, the defendant is absolved.
 In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court
entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to
explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his
guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind
of doubt hangs on to ones inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between
teeth.
I will let the Honorable Court to decide upon the faith of this man. A man with an
impeccable reputation, a man of integrity, a loving husband, an exceptional father and
an outstanding civil servant. A man who is falsely accused of a crime.