gggg.docxaa

7/28/2019 gggg.docxaa

1/4

Page

1

Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy's testimony. But that

testimony is just one piece of evidence against

respondent. It must be considered and weighed along

with petitioners' other evidence vis--vis respondent's

contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the

burden of proof must establish his case by a

preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence"

is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence

on either side and is usually considered synonymous with

the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater

weight of the credible evidence." "Preponderance of

evidence" is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means

probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more

convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which

is offered in opposition thereto.1[13] Rule 133, Section 1

of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in

determining preponderance of evidence, thus:

SECTION I. Preponderance

of evidence, how determined. In civil

cases, the party having burden of

proof must establish his case by a

preponderance of evidence. In

determining where thepreponderance or superior weight of

evidence on the issues involved lies,

the court may consider all the facts

and circumstances of the case, the

witnesses' manner of testifying, their

intelligence, their means and

opportunity of knowing the facts to

which they are testifying, the nature

of the facts to which they testify, the

probability or improbability of their

testimony, their interest or want of

interest, and also their personal

credibility so far as the same may

legitimately appear upon the trial. Thecourt may also consider the number

of witnesses, though the

preponderance is not necessarily with

the greater number.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE, accused-

appellants.

PARDO, J.:

Appeal seeking to reverse the decision1

of the Regional

Trial Court, Cotabato, at Kidapawan City, Branch 17 findingaccused Gilbert Baulite and Liberato Baulite guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentencing

each of them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the

heirs of Delia Jacobo Lano in the sum of P50,000.00, with

costs.

On December 1, 1993, Eddie Arguelles, a farmer, passed

by a river on his way to Old Bunawan, Tulunan, Cotabato.

In the river, he saw two men Gilbert and Liberato Baulite

washing their bloodied hands. Eddie continued on his

way after seeing them. Upon reaching the road, he hear a

boy shouting that somebody was found dead.

Jonathan Cando, a civilian volunteer, was on horseback

crossing a river on his way to Bunawan. He heard a woman

crying "indi" "indi". He checked his left, and approximately

six (6) meters away, he saw a person mounting somebody,

as if choking the one mounted. He went to the barangay

captain and related what he heard and saw. The barangay

captain, however, dismissed the incident, speculating that

the two were "only sweethearts."

Around 3 to 4 in the afternoon of the same day, a boy

found the body of Delia Jacobo Lano, Delia was a public

school teacher at Old Bunawan, Datu Paglas and a resident

of Maybula, Tulunan, Cotabato. An examination of her

body revealed that Delia suffered a three-inch-deeppunctured wound between her eyes, a smashed face (left

side) and a bruised neck (upper portion). Vaginal smear

test also found her positive for (dead) spermatozoa.

However, there were no indications that Delia's genitalia

sustained any laceration. The medical examiner opined

that Delia had probably delivered several children. The

examination was conducted approximately five (5) to six

(6) hours after Delia died.

On December 7, 1993, 2nd

assistant provincial prosecutor

of Cotabato Alfonso B. Dizon, Jr., filed with the Regional

Trial Court, Cotabato, at Kidapawan an information for

rape with homicide against Gilbert Baulite and Liberato

Baulite, the two men caught wshing their bloodied handsby the river. The information reads:

"That on or about December 1, 1993. At

Barangay New Bunawan, Municipality of

Tulunan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, the

above named accused, with lewd design,

conspiring, confederating and mutually helping

one another, did then and there, willfully,

unlawfully and feloniously with the use of force

and intimidation succeeded in having sexual

intercourse with one DELIA JAGOBO LANO

against her will, and thereafter said accused,

with intent to kill with personal violence,

strangulated the victim with the use of a hand as

shoen by finger nails marking which caused

hematoma of the upper portion of the neck and

likewise with the use of a sharp object, inflicted

punctured wound (sic) located just above and

between the eyes, three (3) inched deep,

directed and posteriorly and superiorly and

multiple fracture of the bone of the left face

with hematoma of both eyes, which injuries is


2/4

Page

2

(sic) the direct and proximate cause of death of

said DELIA JOCOBO LANO."2

On June 23, 1994, the trial court arraigned the accused.

They each pleaded not guilty.3

After due trial, on November 25, 1998, the trial courtrendered a decision finding the two accused guilty of rape

with homicide, the decretal portion of which reads as

follows:

"Prescinding from the foregoing facts and

considerations, the Court finds accused Gilbert

Baulite and Liberato Baulite guilty beyond

reasonable doubt, of the crime charged, accused

Liberato Baulite and Gilbert Baulite are hereby

sentenced each to suffer the penalty of

Reclusion Perpetua. Consonant with the recent

jurisprudence, both accused are hereby ordered

to indemnify the heirs of Delia Jacobo Lano the

sum of P50,000.00

"With costs de oficio.1wphi1.nt

IT IS SO ORDERED.4

On December 29, 1998, the accused filed a notice of

appeal.5

The issues in the appeal are: (1) Was the guilt of the

accused-appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt? (2)

Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the

accused-appellants?

The Trial court convicted the accused on the basis of the

following circumstantial evidence, namely:

a) A witness saw accused-appellants Gilbert and

Liberato Baulite washing their bloodied hands;

b) A boy was heard shouting that somebody was

found dead;

c) A witness hear a woman shouting "indi" "indi"

who was being choked and later the dead body

of Delia Lano was found.6

An autopsy revealed that the body of Delia Lano sustained

a three-inch-deep punctured wound between the eyes and

a smashed face.7

Accused-appellants explained that the blood in their hands

was that of a chicken that they had dressed recently.8

Witness Jonathan Cando heard a woman shouting "indi",

"indi", then saw a person mounting somebody as if

choking the person mounted. However, in the absence of

an eye-witness identifying the person choking, accused-

appellants would not necessarily be incriminated in the

crime. Subsequent examination of the body of Delia Lano

revealed that she was choked, as evidenced by the finger

markings or hematoma on the upper portion of her neck.

The fact that the upper portion of the neck was the one

severely injured is physical evidence consistent with the

scenario that one in a mounting position applied pressure

or choking in the upper portion of the neck of person

"mounted." The prosecution, unfortunately, failed to

positively identify the person "mounting and choking" the

victim.9

In light of the prosecution's evidence, we are not

convinced that the guilt of the accused has been proved

beyond reasonable doubt. "The rule is clear. The guilt of

the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of

its own evidence and must not simply depend on the

weakness of the defense. The slightest possibility of an

innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never

committed, let alone when no less than the capital

punishment is imposed, would be far more dreadful than

letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may

have perpetrated."10

"On the whole then, the scanty

evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the

guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of moral

certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of

innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees the accused.

It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is

not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with

guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of

innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt."11

Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, there must

be an even greater need to apply the rule that the

prosecution depends not on the weakness of the defense

but on the strength of its own evidence. Conviction must

rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilty of

the accused. "For circumstantial evidence to convict, the

Rules of Court require that: (1) there is more than one

circumstance: (2) the facts from which the inferences are

derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the

circumstances is such as produce a conviction beyond

reasonable doubt. On the latter, decided cases expoundthat the circumstantial evidence presented and proved

must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair

and reasonable conclusion pointing to accused, to the

exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."12

The Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of the

accused.13

We agree.

We find the circumstantial evidence adduced not sufficient

to support a finding that both accused-appellants were

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide. To

begin with, witness Jonathan Cando was no able to

identify either the woman victim or the person choking

the victim.14

We cannot conclude with certainly that the blood in the

hands of the accused-appellant was the blood of the

victim, and that the person choking her was one of the

accused-appellants. Speculations and probabilities cannot

substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt.15

In a criminal case,

every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused

must be duly taken into account.16

In our criminal justice, the overriding consideration is not

whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused

but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to hisguilt.

17Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of

the accused, he must be acquitted even though his

innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right

to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be

overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.18

In conclusion, because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt

of the accused-appellant, they must be acquitted. "Every


3/4

Page

3

accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;

that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable

doubt, or that degree of proof that produces conviction in

an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right

of the accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional

duty of the court to acquit them.19

Highest burden of proof in a criminal case, placed normally

on the prosecution. Because under common law the

defendant is presumed innocent, his or her guilt must be

proven to the entire satisfaction of the judge or jury. This

term, however, does not imply 'beyond a shadow of a

doubt.' If the evidence is so strong that there is only a

remote possibility (and no probability) of an extenuating

circumstance, the guilt is then deemed to have been

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the same

level ofproof is required also in civil cases is still a matter

of debate.

Read more:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnR

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's

evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical

explanation can be derived from the facts except that the

defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the

presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's

guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then

the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt and the defendant should be

pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular

point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute

that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not

mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but

only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the

evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of

proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the

standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE

EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These

are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of theevidence simply means that one side has more evidence in

its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear

and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high

probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The

main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable

doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can

result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in

his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than

in civil trials, in which money damages are the common

remedy.

Cross-references

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's

evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical

explanation can be derived from the facts except that the

defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the

presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's

guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then

the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt and the defendant should be

pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular

point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute

that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not

mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but

only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the

evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of

proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the

standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE

EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These

are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the

evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in

its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear

and Convincing Proofis evidence that establishes a high

probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The

main reason that the high proof standard of reasonabledoubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can

result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in

his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than

in civil trials, in which money damages are the common

remedy.

Cross-references

Moral certainty refers to a degree of assurance that

induces a reasonable man to act without doubts and reach

conclusions. It is an essential element constituting crime.

Guilt must be proved by the evidence to a moral certainty.

Proof to a moral certainty means that a juror first must

conscientiously consider all the evidence and must then

reach a resulting firm and settled belief that the charge is

true. *Commonwealth v. Walker, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 194,

201 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)]

Mendoza vs. Arrieta, 91 SCRA 113

Facts: On October 22, 1969, at around 4pm, a 3-way

vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway

Bulacan, involving a Mercedez Benz owned and driven by

petitioner, a private jeep owned and driven by respondent

Salazar and a gravel and sand truck owned by respondent

Timbol and driven by Montoya. As a consequence,

separate informations were filed against Salazar andMontoya.

At the trial, petitioner testified that Salazar overtook the

truck, swerved to the left and hit his car. He further

testified that before impact, Salazar jumped from the jeep

not knowing that Salazar was hit by the truck of Montoya.

Montoya affirmed this. On the other hand, Salazar tried to

show that after overtaking the truck, he flashed a signal

showing his intention to turn left but was stopped at by a

policeman directing traffic at the intersection which he

contends to be the time he was hit by the truck causing his

jeep to hit petitioners car.

Issues:(1) Whether or not the damages ensued to the vehicle of

petitioner shall be the liability of the driver of the jeep or

of the truck.

(2) Whether or not the trucks owner may be held liable

for damages caused by him employee.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden-of-proof.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/criminal-case.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/prosecution.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-law.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innocent.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/satisfaction.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/remote.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/probability.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deemed.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/required.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-case.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnRhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnRhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Convincing+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubthttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnRhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html#ixzz2QgBQJvnRhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-case.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/required.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proof.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reasonable-doubt.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deemed.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/probability.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/remote.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/evidence.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/jury.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/judge.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/satisfaction.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innocent.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defendant.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-law.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/prosecution.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/criminal-case.htmlhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/burden-of-proof.html


4/4

Page

4

Held: Thus, the trial Court absolved jeep-owner-driver

Salazar of any liability, civil and criminal, in view of its

findings that the collision between Salazar's jeep and

petitioner's car was the result of the former having been

bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya.

Neither was petitioner awarded damages as he was not a

complainant against truck-driver Montoya but only against

jeep-owner-driver Salazar.

That petitioner's cause of action against Timbol in the civil

case is based on quasi-delict is evident from the recitals in

the complaint to wit: that while petitioner was driving his

car along MacArthur Highway at Marilao, Bulacan, a jeep

owned and driven by Salazar suddenly swerved to his

(petitioner's) lane and collided with his car That the

sudden swerving of Salazar's jeep was caused either by the

negligence and lack of skill of Freddie Montoya, Timbol's

employee, who was then driving a gravel and sand truck iii

the same direction as Salazar's jeep; and that as a

consequence of the collision, petitioner's car suffered

extensive damages. Clearly, therefore, the two factors that

a cause of action must consist of, namely: (1) plaintiff's

primary right, i.e., that he is the owner of a Mercedes

Benz, and (2) defendant's delict or wrongful act or

omission which violated plaintiff's primary right, i.e., the

negligence or lack of skill either of jeep-owner Salazar or of

Timbol's employee, Montoya, in driving the truck, causing

Salazar's jeep to swerve and collide with petitioner's car,

were alleged in the Complaint.

Consequently, petitioner's cause of action being based on

quasi-delict, respondent Judge committed reversible error

when he dismissed the civil suit against the truck-owner,

as said case may proceed independently of the criminal

proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

In view of what has been proven and established during

the trial, accused Freddie Montoya would be held able for

having bumped and hit the rear portion of the jeep driven

by the accused Rodolfo Salazar. Considering that the

collision between the jeep driven by Rodolfo Salazar and

the car owned and driven by Edgardo Mendoza was the

result of the hitting on the rear of the jeep by the truck

driven by Freddie Montoya, this Court behaves that

accused Rodolfo Salazar cannot be held able for the

damages sustained by Edgardo Mendoza's car.

Schizophrenic Mind at Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Share

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Melai Ysulat

wrote:

Juaniza vs. Jose Case Digest

Juaniza vs. Jose

89 SCRA 306

Facts: Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator

of the passenger jeepney involved in an accident of

collision with a freight train of the Philippine National

Railways that took place on November 23, 1969 which

resulted in the death to seven (7) and physical injuries to

five (5) of its passengers. At the time of the accident,

Eugenio Jose was legally married to Socorro Ramos but

had been cohabiting with defendant-appellant, Rosalia

Arroyo, for sixteen (16) years in a relationship akin to that

of husband and wife.

Motion for reconsideration was filed by Rosalia Arroyopraying that the decision be reconsidered insofar as it

condemns her to pay damages jointly and severally with

her co-defendant, but was denied.

Issue: Whether or not Article 144 of the Civil Code (now

Article 148 of FC) is applicable in a case where one of the

parties in a common-law relationship is incapacitated to

marry.

Ruling: It has been consistently ruled by this Court that the

co-ownership contemplated in Article 144 of the Civil Code

requires that the man and the woman living together must

not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage.

Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos,

there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with

Rosalia Arroyo. Under the aforecited provision of the Civil

Code, Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. The

jeepney belongs to the conjugal partnership of Jose and

his legal wife. There is therefore no basis for the liability of

Arroyo for damages arising from the death of, and physical

injuries suffered by, the passengers of the jeepney which

figured in the collision
http://www.blogger.com/profile/13964985917823145913http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.html?m=1http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.html?m=1mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.html?m=1http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/mendoza-vs-arrietaa-91-scra-113.html?m=1http://www.blogger.com/profile/13964985917823145913

Documents

gggg.docxaa