Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84260:60007&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:06:49+00:00

Document:
NILO MACAYAN, JR. Y MALANA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari praying that the assailed Decision1 dated June 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside and that a new one be rendered acquitting petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr.
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (by increasing the duration of the penalty) the Decision2 dated November 15, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, which found Nilo Macayan, Jr. (Macayan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery.
That on or about the 16th day of February 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob / divest one ANNIE UY JAO of the amount of P4,000.00 in cash in the manner as follows: on the date and in the place afore-mentioned, said accused threatened complainant that he would destroy her and her entire family and that he will have her and members of her family kidnapped unless she gives to him the amount of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency and thereafter negotiated with said Annie Uy Jao at McDonald's located at Quezon Avenue, this City, thus creating fear in the mind of said complainant who was compelled to give as in fact she gave and delivered to the accused the amount of P4,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of said Annie Uy Jao in the amount aforementioned.
The Information charging him with robbery dated February 20, 2001 was then prepared, and the criminal case (docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-01-98670) was filed and raffled to Branch 101 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court, therefore, finds the Accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of robbery and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty (there being no mitigating/aggravating circumstance) of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAYofARRESTO MAYOR as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (I) DAY of PRISION CORRECCIONAL as maximum.
Lastly the P4,000.00 marked money exhibit, which has been claimed to be owned by the private complainant, is ORDERED RELEASED to her after the finality of this Decision.
Macayan then appealed to the Court of Appeals. He filed his Appellant's Brief24 on August 25, 2004.
The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines at the appellate stage, did not file an appellee's brief. Instead, it filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Appellee's Brief25 recommending that Macayan be acquitted. It asserted that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
On July 31, 2006, the Court of Appeals Tenth Division rendered the assailed Decision27 affirming Macayan's conviction and increasing the duration of the penalty imposed. It reasoned that Jao's sole, uncorroborated testimony was nevertheless positive and credible. As regards Jao's having been threatened after the postponement of the February 12, 2001 conference in the illegal dismissal case, the Court of Appeals reasoned that constancias are "not the best evidence of attendance"28 and that, in any case, Jao was threatened after and not during the conference.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, in Criminal Case No. Q-01-98670 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as MAXIMUM.
Asked by this court to file a Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General instead filed a Manifestation and Motion33 to adopt as its Comment the same Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Appellee's Brief that it filed with the Court of Appeals. Thus, the Office of the Solicitor General reiterated its position that Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been established and that he must be acquitted.
On September 11, 2007, Macayan filed the Manifestation in Lieu of Reply34 in view of the Office of the Solicitor General's earlier Manifestation and Motion.
For resolution is the sole issue of whether Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt has been established.
We reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals and acquit petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. of the charge of robbery.
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.
The determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court appreciates evidentiary matters in relation to the requisites of an offense. Determination of guilt is, thus, a fundamentally factual issue.
Lastly, the inconsistent claims of Jao and prosecution witness Rodrigo Mapoy, the NBI operations team leader, as to who Macayan called on the evening of February 16, 2001 to reset the rendezvous to McDonald's EDS A. Jao claimed that Macayan called Angel, while Rodrigo Mapoy claimed that Macayan called Jao herself.
In the instant case, however, clues of untruthfulness in the testimony of Annie Uy Jao are abundant while incentives for fabrication of a story [are] not wanting. The only way to eliminate any doubt in Annie Uy Jao's assertions would have been to find independent confirmation from the other sources, as by way of unambiguous testimony of a competent and credible witness. Sadly, no such confirmation could be had as the prosecution's evidence on the most crucial elements of the crime was limited to that testified on by Annie Uy Jao.
The position taken by the Office of the Solicitor General has resulted in the peculiar situation where it is not the prosecution but, effectively, the trial court and the Court of Appeals arguing for Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
With the backdrop of these assertions, we deem it proper to reevaluate the factual findings and the conclusions reached by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
ARTICLE 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, the "bone of contention"47 centers on the elements of unlawful taking and of violence against or intimidation of persons. This is precisely Macayan's contention: that he neither intimidated nor threatened Jao, and that he could not have unlawfully taken money from her on account of any act of intimidation and/or threats made by him.
Consistent with the rule on burden of proof, the requisite quantum of evidence in criminal cases, and in light of the points highlighted by both Macayan and the Office of the Solicitor General, we find that the prosecution failed to establish Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, a reversal of the rulings of the trial court and Court of Appeals is in order. Macayan must be acquitted.
As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, the resolution of this case hinges on whether Jao was indeed threatened and/or intimidated by Macayan into giving him money, that is, whether he extorted money from Jao. Per Jao's own testimony, there were two (2) instances in which she was threatened and/or intimidated: first, immediately after the postponement of the February 12, 2001 conference in the illegal dismissal case; and second, when Macayan called her on February 13, 2001 and set a rendezvous for handing over the extorted money.
Contrary to the conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we find Jao's testimony regarding these occasions (and ultimately, the presence of the requisite of violence against or intimidation of a person) dubious and unreliable.
Mr. Witness, you were present when complaining witness Annie Uy Jao told this Honorable Court that sometime on February 12, 2001, during the hearing of the labor case in the NLRC, at Banawe, Quezon City, you threatened her that you will kidnap her and her family if she will not give P200,000.00. What can you say about this?
That is not true, Sir.
Why did you say there is no truth in it?
Because we did not meet on February 12.
Do you mean to tell this Honorable Court that Annie Uy Jao was not present during the hearing of that case?
Has she an [sic] representative?
Do you have any proof that she was not present?
I am showing to you constancia, date of hearing 2/12/03. Will '" you please examine this document. Does it have anything to do with what you said?
This is the Minutes of Hearing on February 12, 2001.
We would like to request that this constancia be marked as Exhibit "2."
Mark it. On its face, this is a form by the NLRC containing the caption, the name of the parties and the case number, date of hearing and the time.
Mr. Witness, there are signature [sic] below this constancia, complaining witness, there is a signature above the complainant.
This is my signature and this is the signature of Marjorie Angel.
Jao's absence in the intended conference (though subsequently postponed despite both parties to the illegal dismissal case being represented) places serious doubt on the occurrence of the supposed first instance of intimidation on February 12, 2001.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that a constancia "would not be the best evidence of attendance in any of the National Labor Relations Commission hearings."49 It added that, in any case, the act of intimidation happened after, and not during, the conference. This is a strained £ consideration of the facts of this case.
First, consistent with the presumption "[t]hat official duty has been regularly performed"50 and "[t]hat a person takes ordinary care of his concerns,"51 both the personnel of the Labor Arbiter's office who prepared the minutes of the February 12, 2001 conference and the persons who signed it must be considered as having taken the necessary care to make it a faithful and accurate record of what transpired and of who were present in the conference. Thus, the minutes' indication that only Angel was present should be taken as accurate and reliable absent any proof to the contrary. If the principal, Jao, were present, there would not have been a need for Angel, her representative, to sign in such capacity.
Second, much is made of how the threats were delivered after and not during the conference. To recall the prosecution's allegation, the intimidation took place immediately after the conference, outside the Labor Arbiter's office, along the corridor of the National Labor Relations Commission Building.52 As there was neither an appreciable duration of time between the conference and the subsequent threatening exchange nor a significant distance between where the conference was held and where the subsequent threatening exchange took place, it may be deduced that whatever exchange, if any, that transpired must have been between those who were present at the conference. Conversely, those who were absent from the conference must have been equally unavailable to engage in an exchange with Macayan.
Apart from these, that the rest of the minutes of the illegal dismissal case shows that Jao never attended any conference gives rise to the question of why she chose to be personally present in, of all conferences, the postponed February 12 conference. If, indeed, she was present in this despite her absence in all others, some particular significance must have characterized this conference, something that Jao has not accounted for. In any case, if there was any particular significance to this February 12 conference, then, all the more, her presence or attendance should have been indicated in the records.
Here, there is serious doubt on whether Jao was actually threatened or intimidated at the time she specified. Thus, there is serious doubt on the existence of the fourth requisite for robbery — violence against or intimidation of a person — in relation to the alleged February 12, 2001 incident.
The prosecution could have addressed the deficiency in Jao's allegation that she was threatened on February 12, 2001 by presenting as witness the other person who was supposedly present in the incident: Angel, Jao's secretary. However, she was never presented as a witness.
Precisely, conviction resting on a singular testimony is warranted if this is, in the words of Cleopas, "trustworthy and reliable,"57 or, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "credible."58 This could not be said of Jao's testimony. As previously discussed, her very presence in the February 12, 2001 conference that she claimed to have been immediately followed by Macayan's threats, is in serious doubt. Nothing casts greater doubt on the reliability of Jao's claim than her having not been at the time and place of the supposed intimidation.
With the first alleged instance of intimidation being discredited, the prosecution is left to rely on the second supposed instance of intimidation: the phone call made by Macayan to Jao on February 13, 2001, during which he not only reiterated his threats but also set a rendezvous for the handover of the extorted money. Even this, however, is doubtful.
Madam Witness, you said you received another call after February 12, 2001. Is that from the accused or from another person?
He repeated the threat again that I have to give him P200,000.00 or else, he will harm y [sic] family; and he set a place to give the money.
The first word uttered by him. You narrated, more or less. Did he introduce himself?
He never stated his name because he knew I know his name.
He always calls me madam.
You answer the question of the Court now. How did the conversation go?
That was the first line. Was that the end of the first line of the accused?
Those were the only words that he told me. I cannot say anything. I just put down the phone.
After he said those lines, you put down the telephone?
After he said the date and time.
The Court is asking you to narrate line by line. What he said. What you said.
If you will not give me P200,000.00, I will ask somebody to kidnap you, your child and your husband.
That was the first line, Did you reply to him?
No, sir. 1 did not ask. The next line, he said he was going to wait for me at McDo Banawe at around 6:00 [to] 7:00 in the evening.
Did he state the date?
You are impressing to this Court that the accused had said two lines already without you uttering any word. How did the accused knew [sic] that it is Annie Uy Jao on the other line?
Because the first word [sic] that I said, Hello, then he replied, Madam.
You uttered the hello, that is why the accused recognized you on the line.
Certainly, Jao could have offered other, more reliable means of ascertaining that it was, indeed, Macayan with whom she was conversing. The second alleged instance of intimidation is likewise cast in serious doubt. Left with no other act of intimidation to rely on, the prosecution fails in establishing the fourth requisite of the crime of robbery.
Apart from these, another point underscores the unreliability of Jao's allegations. As pointed out by Macayan and acknowledged by the prosecution, Jao never saw it proper to warn her family, more specifically, her husband, of the threat of being kidnapped. Nevertheless, she supposedly perceived Macayan's alleged threat as being of such a serious nature that she must not only report the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation, but also entreat its officers to conduct an entrapment operation.
You did not inform anybody about that call?
Only my secretary. She was beside me.
What about your husband? At that time, where was he?
Does he have a cellular phone at that time?
Did it not occur to you to inform your husband about the call?
How about the words uttered to you in the Labor hearing, did you inform you [sic] husband?
I was afraid because he might accused (sic) me of what happened?
This is a very private question. That date of hearing in the NLRC, you slept together [with] your husband?
That night, you did not inform him?
He knows about the labor case.
You did not inform him about the extortion threat of the Accused?
During the direct examination, the Honorable Court asked you whether you told this matter to your husband and you said you did not?
I am not [the] type of person who don't usually tell [sic] everything to my husband specially [sic] regarding things like this because he is medyo makulit and I don't want him asking same questions again and again (sic).
Instead of telling your husband, you went to the NBI to report the matter?
The Court of Appeals stated that "the subsequent and contemporaneous actions of the private complainant from the time the threat was made bolsters the veracity of her story."64 This cannot be farther from the truth. On the contrary, inconsistencies and absurdities in Jao's actions cast serious doubt on the veracity of her claims.
The defense's accession to these is inconsequential. These only prove that Macayan handled the bills used in the alleged entrapment operation, a fact that he does not dispute. It remains, however, that they do not establish any certainty as to the circumstances surrounding his handling of the bills, among these: whether there was, indeed, unlawful taking by Macayan, and whether Jao did hand him the bills because he extorted them from her.
In criminal cases, the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who asserts — not he who denies — must prove. The burden must be discharged by the prosecution on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of that for the defense. Hence, circumstantial evidence that has not been adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot be the basis of conviction. Suspicion alone is insufficient, the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, "the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass."
With the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of establishing Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this court is constrained, as is its bounden duty when reasonable doubt persists, to acquit him.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 28380 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If detained, he is ordered immediately RELEASED, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. Any amount paid by way of a bailbond is ordered RETURNED.
* Designated Acting Member per S.O. No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 122-144. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CR. No. 23830, was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now an Associate Justice of this court) of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
2 Id. at 66-76. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case No. Q-01-98670, was penned by Judge Normandie B. Pizarro.
6 Id. at 66 and 93.
7 Id. at 67 and 93-94.
8 Id. at 13, 67-68, and 94.
10 Id. at 13-14, 68-69, and 94-95.
11 Id. at 14-15 and 69-70.
14 Id. at 71 and 96-97.
15Id. at 71 and 97.
19 Id. at 77-87. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72892 and dated October 28, 2003, was penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza (now an Associate Justice of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-De la Cruz and Eliezer R. De Los Santos of the Ninth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
35 CONST, (1987), art. Ill, sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
36 CONST, (1987), art. III, sec. 14 (2): In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed Of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
37People of the Philippines v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811,819 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
38 591 Phil. 508 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
40Heirs of Deauna v. Fil-Star Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 191563, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 284, 302 [Per J. Reyes, Second Division], citing Antiquina v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, 664 Phil. 88 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
[Per J. Reyes, First Division].
44Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 656,660 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
45Rollo, pp. 118 and 147.
46 See Consulta v. People of the Philippines, 598 Phil. 464, 471 (2009) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division].
48 Id. at 28-29, citing TSU, pp. 19-21, April 25, 2002.
50 REV. RULES ON EVID., Rule 131, sec. 3 (m).
51 REV. RULES ON EVID., Rule 131, sec. 3 (d).
52 Rollo, pp. 112 and 139.
53Basilio v. People of the Philippines, 591 Phil. 508, 521-522 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
55 384 Phil. 286 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
61People of the Philippines v. Camilla, 442 Phil. 641, 651 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], citing People of the Philippines v. Supnad, 411 Phil. 637 (2001) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
66People of the Philippines v. Asis, 439 Phil. 707, 72 7-728 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.