Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The testimony of Sgt. Nieves is vital, because it is the only evidence left to support the
conclusion that FLORES was indeed selling marijuana when arrested, since Annalisa Santos, the
alleged buyer-poseur, did not testify nor did she appear before the investigating fiscal or, even
execute a statement. Considering the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused, the testimony of Sgt. Nieves must be subjected to close and careful scrutiny.
After a close and painstaking examination of the record, the Court finds that standing
alone, the testimony of Sgt. Nieves fails to satisfy the quantum of proof necessary to support a
judgment of conviction. The inconsistencies and material discrepancies, in his testimony
engender serious doubt as to its reliability and veracity.
In the sworn statement that he and the other CANU officers executed on 21 August 1980,
the time of the apprehension in flagrante was indicated as 12:10 p.m. When he first took the
witness stand however on 19 June 1981, Nieves testified that they conducted the "buy-bust"
operation at 8:30 p.m. When he next testified on 22 July 1981, still on direct examination, he
reversed himself and said that the incident indeed happened at 12:10 p.m. On 27 November
1981 on cross examination, he again reverted to his original answer, stating that it was really at
9:30 p.m. when the arrest took place. The record reveals this series of conflicting answers of Sgt.
Nieves.
As a lingering doubt remains as to whether Nieves was testifying to the same incident, or
whether it was some other, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Due to the
harshness of the penalty imposed by law and specially where a person's liberty for the rest of his
life is at stake, the time of the incident becomes material to prove to a moral certainty, that
when arrested, the person charged was indeed committing a crime.
Thus, the contradictory testimony of Sgt. Nieves, on the vital matter of the time the
apprehension took place casts a grave doubt, nay, destroys his credibility.
While Courts generally give credence to testimonies of police officers, as it is presumed
that official duty has been regularly performed [Rule 131, Sec. 5(m), Rules of Court] this
presumption cannot by itself, prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the
accused.
This fact could have been established by other evidence. But not even the testimony of
Annalisa Santos, the alleged buyer-poseur was presented. Even as this Court is aware of the
principle that it is the prosecution's prerogative to weigh and determine the evidence to be
presented, we consider the non-presentation of Santos as witness to be fatal to the prosecution's
case. Being the only alleged eyewitness other than Nieves, Santos could have corrected the
material inconsistencies in the latter's testimony and, more importantly, could have positively
testified on the fact necessary for conviction: that FLORES was indeed selling marijuana to her
when apprehended.
As has been oft repeated, every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must
be taken into account and the proof against him must survive the test of reason. Only when the
conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial should the
sentence be for conviction [People v. Ramos, G.R No. 76744, June 28, 1988, citing People v. Bania
G.R No. L-46524, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 347].
DECISION: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and judgment is
entered ACQUITTING the accused-appellant of the offense charged.
without any expectation of refund. Furthermore, no entrapment was employed in this situation
where it could have been quite easy to catch the petitioner red-handed with the bribe money. As
testified to by Hanginon, petitioner allegedly told him that the balance of the P200 Pesos bribe
money was to be delivered at the Davao Famous Restaurant upon the arrival of the owner of the
agency (Rollo, pp. 206-207). If, according to this witness the owner had decided to press charges
and had gone to his legal counsel the day after his (the owner's) arrival (Rollo, p. 207), why was
the police not called in to entrap the petitioner at the place indicated by him? That would have
been a more logical and usual procedure in preparing for the prosecution of a bribery case which
almost always suffers from a dearth of witnesses.
The petitioner, in his defense, asserts that there is serious dispute as to the fact of the
commission of the offense; that the uncorroborated testimony of Hermogenes Hanginon fails to
prove its commission and the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and that notice of
garnishment had been served upon the bank for satisfaction of the NLRC's judgment against the
Guardsman Security Agency before the alleged bribery took place.
This Court finds that in the absence of evidence establishing the guilt of the petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of conviction under review must yield to the
constitutional presumption of innocence.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the respondent Sandiganbayan (First
Division) is REVERSED. Liwanag Aguirre is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.