Burden of Proof

People v. Mendoza: 43
x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to
prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of
guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must
further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all
these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor
its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof
placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused
that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the
accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the
weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the
proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in
establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as
the malefactor responsible for it.

||| (Maamo v. People, G.R. No. 201917, [December 1, 2016])

Proving Conspiracy

In countless decided cases, this Court has consistently held that conspiracy must be established
not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence and that the same degree of proof
necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of a criminal
conspiracy, 66that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Sabiniano v. Court of Appeals, 67 it
was ruled that a mere signature appearing on a voucher or check is not enough to sustain a
finding of conspiracy among public officials charged with defraudation of the government:

Apart from petitioner's signature on the treasury warrant, nothing else of real substance
was submitted to show petitioner's alleged complicity in the crime. A mere signature
or approval appearing on a voucher, check or warrant is not enough to
sustain a finding of conspiracy among public officials and employees charged
with defraudation. Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered
to indicate that the accused had taken part in, to use this Court's words in Arias vs.
Sandiganbayan, the "planning, preparation and perpetration of the alleged conspiracy to
defraud the government" for, otherwise, any "careless use of the conspiracy theory
(can) sweep into jail even innocent persons who may have (only) been made unwitting
tools by the criminal minds" really responsible for that irregularity. In the recent case
of Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, involving an accusation for estafa through falsification of
public documents, where the accused not only co-signed a check but also noted an
accomplishment report and signed the disbursement voucher with the usual certification
on the lawful incurrence of the expenses to be paid, the Court held:
 Fairly evident, however, is the fact that the actions taken by Magsuci involved
the very functions he had to discharge in the performance of his official duties.
There has been no intimation at all that he had foreknowledge of any irregularity
committed by either or both Engr. Enriquez and Ancla. Petitioner might have
indeed been lax and administratively remiss in placing too much
reliance on the official reports submitted by his subordinate (Engineer
Enriquez), but for conspiracy to exist, it is essential that there must be
a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is not the product of
negligence but of intentionality on the part of cohorts. x x x 68(Italics omitted;
emphasis supplied)

It can readily be seen that the disbursement of funds at the municipal level involves a
successive process of review and clearing that requires the participation of different public
officers, each with different roles and duties. Hence, in order to establish conspiracy between
the Petitioners, the Prosecution must present evidence other than the mere fact that the
Petitioners are at the opposite ends of the chain in the disbursement process. To
sustain a conviction based on such fact alone would necessarily require the aid of conjecture
and assumptions in order to establish conspiracy. From the evidence adduced by the
Prosecution, no clear nexus exists to prove a unity of action and purpose between the
Petitioners to falsify the Time Books and Payrolls in order to commit Malversation against the
government.

As a final note, the Court takes this occasion to reiterate that the overriding consideration in
criminal cases is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it
entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — if there exists even one iota of doubt, this Court
is "under a long standing legal injunction" to resolve the doubt in favor of the
accused. 69 Hence, if the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused must be
acquitted.

||| (Maamo v. People, G.R. No. 201917, [December 1, 2016])

The affirmance of the decision in question, hinges on the conspiracy theory that respondent
Sandiganbayan espoused that the act of one is the act of all, however, the existence of
conspiracy has to be proved first before it can be made to apply on all the accused named in
the information. This requirement was miserably absent here, thus —

"It is settled that the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to
support a finding of conspiracy. In other words, it must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the offense itself in order to uphold the fundamental principle
that no one shall be found guilty of crime except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
defendant in a criminal case must always be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven,
and in case of reasonable doubt and when his liability shall not have been satisfactorily shown
he shall have the right to be acquitted, even though his innocence be doubted (U.S. v.
Gutierrez, 4 Phil. 493 cited in People v. Sadie, 149 SCRA 240, 244)". (Enrico Perez y dela
Merced v. Sandiganbayan & People of the Philippines, 180 SCRA 9)

||| (Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58327 (Resolution), [June 18, 1992], 285 PHIL 520-
534)

Good faith

We are not unaware of an observation made by this Court in People vs. Rodis 8 to the effect
that a person may be so held liable as a co-principal if he, by an act of reckless imprudence,
has brought about the commission of estafa through falsification,
or malversation through falsification, without which (reckless negligence) the crime could not
have been accomplished. 9 When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good
faith, albeit misplaced, by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary
responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to
prevail.||| (Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101545, [January 3, 1995], 310 PHIL 14-21)

Presumption of innocence
The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction,
accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The accused is protected by the constitutional
presumption of innocence which the prosecution must overcome with contrary proof beyond
reasonable doubt. This Court has repeatedly declared that even if the defense is weak, the case
against the accused must fail if the prosecution is even weaker, for the conviction of the
accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the
prosecution. Indeed, if the prosecution has not sufficiently established the guilt of the
accused, he has a right to be acquitted and released even if he presents naught a shred
of evidence (Maamo v. People, G.R. No. 201917, [December 1, 2016])
|||

Moreover, in the case of People vs. Guinto this Court held that: "The principle has been dinned
into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous
with guilt. The accused is protected by the constitutional presumption of innocence which the
prosecution must overcome with contrary proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has
repeatedly declared that even if the defense is weak, the case against the accused must fail if
the prosecution is even weaker, for the conviction of the accused must rest not on the
weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. Indeed, if the prosecution has
not sufficiently established the guilt of the accused, he has a right to be acquitted and released
even if he presents naught a shred of evidence . . . The accused-appellants have been
condemned . . . based on certain evidence clearly insufficient to sustain their conviction. It is
their guilt and not their innocence that has been presumed. It is their innocence and not their
guilt that should have been pronounced. In these circumstances, only one thing that has to be
done if the Constitution is to be observed and justice is to be served."||| (Balmadrid v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58327 (Resolution), [June 18, 1992], 285 PHIL 520-534)

General

Without much delay, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision,
contending that the aforestated conviction is not supported by competent and substantial
evidence as it rests on conjectures, surmises, speculations and gratuitous conclusions and that
the Decision violated the cardinal rule that conviction must rest on the strength of the
prosecution evidence and not on the weakness of the defense evidence.||| (Balmadrid v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58327 (Resolution), [June 18, 1992], 285 PHIL 520-534)

All told, there is reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt, an
accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established.
When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must be granted as a matter of
right.

Finally, we reiterate what we have long enjoined:

Time and time again, this Court has emphasized the need to stamp out graft and
corruption in the government. Indeed, the tentacles of greed must be cut and the
offenders punished. However, this objective can be accomplished only if the evidence
presented by the prosecution passes the test of moral certainty. Where doubt lingers, as
in this case, the Court is mandated to uphold the presumption of innocence guaranteed
by our Constitution to the accused.

||| (Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, [March 17, 2010], 629 PHIL 567-578)