JULIUS AMANQUITON,

PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C
ISION
Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok leader of Barangay Western
Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. As a purok leader and barangay tanod, he was
responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness, peace and order of the
community.

At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, petitioner heard an explosion. He, together
with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante[1] and a certain Cabisudo,
proceeded to Sambong Street where the explosion took place. Thereafter,
they saw complainant Leoselie John Bañaga being chased by a certain Gil
Gepulane. Upon learning that Bañaga was the one who threw the pillbox[2]
that caused the explosion, petitioner and his companions also went after him.

On reaching Bañaga's house, petitioner, Cabisudo and Amante knocked on

the door. When no one answered, they decided to hide some distance away.
After five minutes, Bañaga came out of the house. At this juncture, petitioner
and his companions immediately apprehended him. Bañaga's aunt, Marilyn
Alimpuyo, followed them to the barangay hall.

Bañaga was later brought to the police station. On the way to the police
station, Gepulane suddenly appeared from nowhere and boxed Bañaga in the
face. This caused petitioner to order Gepulane's apprehension along with
Bañaga. An incident report was made.[3]

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 1 of 12
 During the investigation, petitioner learned Bañaga had been previously
mauled by a group made up of a certain Raul, Boyet and Cris but failed to
identify two others. The mauling was the result of gang trouble in a certain
residental compound in Taguig City. Bañaga's mauling was recorded in a
barangay blotter which read:

10-30-201
Time: 10-15 p.m.
RECORD purposes

Dumating dito sa Barangay Head Quarters si Dossen[4] Bañaga is

Alimpuyo 16 years old student nakatira sa 10 B Kalachuchi St. M.B.T. M.M.

Upang ireklamo yong sumapak sa akin sina Raul[,] Boyet [at] Cris at yong
dalawang sumapak ay hindi ko kilala. Nang yari ito kaninang 10:p.m. araw
ng [M]artes taong kasalukuyan at yong labi ko pumutok at yong kabilang
mata ko ay namaga sa bandang kanan. Ang iyong kaliwang mukha at pati
yong likod ko ay may tama sa sapak.

Patunay dito ang aking lagda.

Dossen Banaga (sgd.)

Thereafter, an Information for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI, RA[5]

7160[6] in relation to Section 5 (j) of R.A. 8369 was filed against petitioner,
Amante and Gepulane. The Information read:

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 2 of 12
 The undersigned 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Julius
Amanquiton, Dominador Amante and Gil Gepulane of the crime of
Violations of Section 10 (a) Article VI, Republic Act No. 7610 in relation to
Section 5 (j) of R.A. No. 8369 committed as follows:

That on the 30th day of October, 2001, in the Municipality of Taguig,

Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused in conspiracy with one another, armed
with nightstick, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and use personal violence, a form of physical abuse, upon
the person of Leoselie John A. [Bañaga], seventeen (17) years old, a minor,
by then and there manhandling him and hitting him with their
nightsticks, thus, constituting other acts of child abuse, which is inimical
or prejudicial to child's development, in violation of the above-mentioned
law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On arraignment, petitioner and Amante both pleaded not guilty. Gepulane

remains at-large.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Dr.
Paulito Cruz, medico-legal officer of the Taguig-Pateros District Hospital who
attended to Bañaga on October 30, 2001, Bañaga himself, Alimpuyo and
Rachelle Bañaga (complainant's mother).

The defense presented the testimonies of petitioner, Amante and Briccio

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 3 of 12
 Cuyos, then deputy chief barangay tanod of the same barangay. Cuyos
testified that the blotter notation entered by Gepulane and Bañaga was
signed in his presence and that they read the contents thereof before affixing
their signatures.

On May 10, 2005, the RTC found petitioner and Amante guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.[7] The dispositive portion of the RTC
decision read:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused

JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR AMANTE "GUILTY"
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article VI Sec. 10 (a) of Republic
Act 7610 in relation to Section 3 (j) of Republic Act 8369, hereby sentences
accused JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR AMANTE a
straight penalty of thirty (30) days of Arresto Menor.

Both accused Julius Amanquiton and Dominador Amante are hereby

directed to pay Leoselie John A. Banaga the following:

1. Actual damages in the amount of P5,000.00;

2. Moral Damages in the amount of P 30,000.00; and
3. Exemplary damages in the amount of P 20,000.00.

The case against the accused Gil Gepulane is hereby sent to the
ARCHIVES to be revived upon the arrest of the accused. Let [a] warrant of
arrest be issued against him.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 4 of 12
 SO ORDERED.

Amanquiton's motion for reconsideration was denied.[8]

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was given due course. On August 28,
2008, the CA rendered a decision[9] which affirmed the conviction but
increased the penalty. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision
read:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the Decision appealed from is

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellant is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of
prision correccional maximum up to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum
as maximum. In addition to the damages already awarded, a fine of thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00) is hereby solidarily imposed the proceeds of
which shall be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.[10]

Hence, this petition. Petitioner principally argues that the facts of the case as
established did not constitute a violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA
7160 and definitely did not prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt.

The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 5 of 12
 shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.[11] An accused is
entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.[12]
It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion, with moral certainty.[13]

The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in People v.
Berroya:[14]

[Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that in a criminal

prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest
with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of
command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are
regarded as public officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and
with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of
defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if
not for life. These inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by the
rule that there is to be no conviction where there is reasonable doubt of
guilt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral
certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.

The RTC and CA hinged their finding of petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt (of the crime of child abuse) solely on the supposed positive
identification by the complainant and his witness (Alimpuyo) of petitioner
and his co-accused as the perpetrators of the crime.

We note Bañaga's statement that, when he was apprehended by petitioner

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 6 of 12
 and Amante, there were many people around.[15] Yet, the prosecution
presented only Bañaga and his aunt, Alimpuyo, as witnesses to the mauling
incident itself. Where were the other people who could have testified, in an
unbiased manner, on the alleged mauling of Bañaga by petitioner and
Amante, as supposedly witnessed by Alimpuyo?[16] The testimonies of the
two other prosecution witnesses, Dr. Paulito Cruz and Rachelle Bañaga, did
not fortify Bañaga's claim that petitioner mauled him, for the following
reasons: Dr. Cruz merely attended to Bañaga's injuries, while Rachelle
testified that she saw Bañaga only after the injuries have been inflicted on
him.

We note furthermore that, Bañaga failed to controvert the validity of the

barangay blotter he signed regarding the mauling incident which happened
prior to his apprehension by petitioner. Neither did he ever deny the
allegation that he figured in a prior battery by gang members.

All this raises serious doubt on whether Bañaga's injuries were really inflicted
by petitioner, et al., to the exclusion of other people. In fact, petitioner
testified clearly that Gepulane, who had been harboring a grudge against
Bañaga, came out of nowhere and punched Bañaga while the latter was being
brought to the police station. Gepulane, not petitioner, could very well have
caused Bañaga's injuries.

Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who actually caused the bloodied
condition of Bañaga's face because she had to first put down the baby she was
then carrying when the melee started.[17] More importantly, Alimpuyo stated
that she was told by Bañaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the
neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo was obviously
testifying not on what she personally saw but on what Bañaga told her.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 7 of 12
 While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower courts on
the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the records facts and
circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or
misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift fact from
fiction.

We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the
evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the
evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[18] If
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and
will not justify a conviction.[19]

Time and again, we have held that:

Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of

a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable
members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the
Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that
"The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development." This piece of legislation supplies the
inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children,
namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the
Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 8 of 12
 mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse
and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a
means by which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and
penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass
not only those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but
includes also "other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development."[20]

However, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be
brandished against an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to convict
him of the crime. The right of an accused to liberty is as important as a
minor's right not to be subjected to any form of abuse. Both are enshrined in
the Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other.

There is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any
and all forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of
children abound amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward
youths should not be cuddled by a misapplication of the law. Society, through
its laws, should correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the
cudgels for them. Lest we regress to a culture of juvenile delinquency and
errant behavior, laws for the protection of children against abuse should be
applied only and strictly to actual abusers.

The objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children

will be best achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent
baseless accusations against innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has come
for Congress to review this matter and institute the safeguards necessary for
the attainment of its laudable ends.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 9 of 12
 We reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias:[21]

We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure is not
to send people to the gaol but to do justice. The prosecution's job is to
prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction
must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness
of the defense. Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not enough
to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and
released at once.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The August 28, 2008

decision and January 15, 2009 resolution of Court of Appeals are reversed and
SET ASIDE. Petitioner Julius Amanquiton is hereby ACQUITTED of
violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7160.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Carpio, De Castro, and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

[1] Co-accused of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 122996. Amante opted to

apply for probation. Rollo, p. 34.

[2]
An improvised explosive device.

[3] "10-30-201

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 10 of 12
 Time: 10-06 p.m.

RECORD purposes

Nagsadya si Gel Pulane Y Castello 25 yrs. Old Binata may trabaho Tubong
Bacolod nakatira sa no.03 Sambong St., M.B.T. Mla.

Upang ireklamo si Neosen (sic) Banaga 14 yrs old Dahil siya ang nakita-
naming na naghagis ng pillbox sa harap ng tricycle na nakaparada sa
kahabaan ng sambong.

Patunay dito ang kanyang lagda."

Gel pulanes (sgd)." Rollo, p. 8.

[4]
Dossen Bañaga is the same person as Leoselie John A. Bañaga.

[5]
Republic Act.

[6] An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against

Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its

Violation and for Other Purposes.

[7]
Rollo, pp. 52-67.

[8]
Resolution dated June 29, 2006. Id., pp. 76-77.

[9]
Id., pp. 34-50.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 11 of 12
 [10]
Resolution dated January 15, 2009. Id., p. 51.

[11]
CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (2).

[12]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 2.

[13] People v. Fernandez, 434 Phil. 435, 445 (2002).

[14] 347 Phil. 410, 423 (1997).

[15]
Rollo, p. 90.

[16]
Id.

[17]
Id., p. 16.

[18] People v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 150762, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 225, 239.

[19] People v. Lagmay, 365 Phil. 606, 633 (1999).

[20]
Gonzalo Araneta v. People, G.R. No. 174205, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 323, 332.

[21]
People v. Mamalias, 385 Phil. 499, 513-514 (2000).

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49567 10/07/2019, 00C42

Page 12 of 12