G.R. No. 188694. February 12, 2014.*

 
RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO,
petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; The test to

determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is
sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances
duly proven must be consistent with each other and that each and
every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt and
inconsistent with his innocence.—Circumstantial evidence consists
of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main
fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common
experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than
one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently,
the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence
on

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
85
record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of
circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other
and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the
accused’s guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.
Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence; It is settled that while
affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer
authorized to administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay
evidence unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness
stand to testify thereon and the adverse party is accorded the
opportunity to cross-examine them.—Nelson was not presented
before the RTC during trial, hence, was not subjected to any in-
court examination. It is settled that while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a
notary public (here, a public officer authorized to administer
oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless the
affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to
cross-examine them. With the prosecution’s failure to present
Nelson to affirm his statement that Castro caused the return of
Volume 266, the prosecution’s evidence on the matter should be
treated as hearsay and, thus, inadmissible to establish the truth
or falsity of the relevant claims. Consequently, there exists no
sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove Castro’s guilt.
Same; Same; Motives; It is well-established that mere proof of
motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a
conviction, most especially if there is no other reliable evidence
from which it may reasonably be deduced that the accused was the
malefactor.—While records show that Atienza was positively
identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to take out
Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions from the Reporter’s
Division, the fact is that the alleged intercalation actually
occurred in a different document, that is Volume 266. The
discrepancy of accounts on the very subject matter of the crimes
charged dilutes the strength of the evidence required to produce a
conviction. At best, the bribery attempt may be deemed as a
demonstration of interest on the part of Atienza over said subject
matter and in this regard, constitutes proof of motive. However, it
is well-established that mere proof of motive, no matter how
strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction, most especially

 
 
 86

if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may reasonably

be deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Direct proof is not essential to
establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts
of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
which point to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and
community of interests.—It may not be amiss to debunk the claim
that petitioners conspired in this case. While direct proof is not
essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the
collective acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime which point to a joint purpose, design,
concerted action, and community of interests, records are,
however, bereft of any showing as to how the particular acts of
petitioners figured into the common design of taking out the
subject volume and inserting the falsified documents therein.
Hence, the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy does not deserve any
merit.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt;
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the degree of proof that, after
investigation of the whole record, produces moral certainty in an
unprejudiced mind of the accused’s culpability.—All told, the
prosecution has failed to show that the circumstances invoked
constitute an unbroken chain of events which lead to a fair and
reasonable conclusion that petitioners are, to the exclusion of the
others, indeed the culprits. As such, their conviction, tested under
the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, was not
warranted. To be sure, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the
degree of proof that, after investigation of the whole record,
produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accused’s
culpability. Such moral certainty is, however, lacking in this case
due to the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; The rule is well-
settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings.—The RTC did not have
jurisdiction to take cognizance of Criminal Case No. 01-197426
(i.e., the falsification case) since Falsification of Public Document
under Article 172(1) of the RPC, which is punishable by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods (or
imprisonment for 2 years, 4
  
 

87

months and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine of not more than

P5,000.00, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 129, otherwise known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980,” as amended by RA 7691. While petitioners raised this
jurisdictional defect for the first time in the present petition, they
are not precluded from questioning the same. Indeed, jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or
the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by
the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the
court. The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised
for the first time on appeal.
Constitutional Law; Presumption of Innocence; The
Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.—
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption
of innocence, failing which, the presumption of innocence prevails
and the accused should be acquitted. This, despite the fact that
his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on
the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is 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 is not sufficient to support a
conviction, as in this case. Courts should be guided by the
principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be
probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent
man for a crime he did not commit. Accordingly, there being no
circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction, the
Court hereby acquits petitioners, without prejudice, however, to
any subsequent finding on their administrative liability in
connection with the incidents in this case.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.

 
 

88

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

  Salomon, Gonong, Dela Cruz Law Offices for
petitioners.
  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the
Decision2 dated November 28, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 30650 which affirmed the
Decision3 dated June 8, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 21 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 01-197425
and 01-197426, finding petitioners Ricardo L. Atienza
(Atienza) and Alfredo A. Castro (Castro) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Robbery and Falsification
of Public Document.
 
The Facts
 
Atienza and Castro (petitioners) are employees of the
CA, particularly assigned to its Budget Division and
holding the positions of Budget Officer I and Utility Worker
I,4 respectively, at the time material to this case.
On March 20, 1995, at about past noon,5 Juanito Atibula
(Atibula), Records Officer I and Custodian of the CA
Original Decisions in the CA Reporter’s Division, was
invited by Castro to attend Atienza’s birthday party
somewhere along Bocobo Street, Ermita, Manila. At the
party, Atienza intro-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 8-38.

2 Id., at pp. 42-61. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, with
Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison,
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 84-97. Penned by Judge Amor A. Reyes.
4  See Information in Criminal Case Nos. 01-197425 and 01-197426;
records, pp. 3 and 6.
5 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), December 3, 2002, p. 15.

 
 

89

duced Atibula to a certain Dario and asked him to assist

the latter in searching for the CA decision6 in the case
entitled “Mateo Fernando v. Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc.”7
(Fernando), docketed as CA-G.R. No. 36808-R.8
Thereafter, Atibula returned to the office — followed a
few minutes later by Dario — and searched for the
aforementioned decision which was found compiled in
Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions. As Dario was
scanning through the said volume, Atibula observed that
he was comparing its pages9 to the discolored papers he
was holding.10 Dario likewise scanned Volumes 265 and
267,11 and placed check marks on the papers he was
holding.12
On March 24, 1995, after office hours, Atibula saw Dario
outside the CA compound along Maria Orosa Street.13 As
they walked side by side towards the jeepney stop, Dario
requested Atibula to insert a Decision dated September 26,
1968 in one of the volumes of the CA Original Decisions.
However, Atibula refused and immediately left.14
On April 21, 1995, Atienza offered Atibula the amount of
P50,000.00 in exchange for Volume 260,15 which the latter
turned down. Atienza then ridiculed him saying, “duwag
ka, pera na nga ito ayaw mo pa,” to which Atibula retorted,
“ikaw ang duwag dahil nagpapakita ka ng kabuktutan.”
Disturbed by the situation, Atibula reported the incident to
Atty. Arnel

_______________

6  TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 5-7.

7  Rollo, p. 45.
8  Records, p. 669.
9  TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 7-8.
 10  Sinumpaang Salaysay dated August 9, 1995 executed by Juanito
Atibula (Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay), records, p. 320.
11 TSN, December 3, 2002, p. 18.
12 Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, records, p. 320.
13 TSN, December 3, 2002, pp. 13-14.
14  Rollo, p. 46; see also Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, records, pp.
320-321.
15 TSN, December 3, 2002, pp. 19-20.

 
 
90

Macapagal16 (Atty. Macapagal), the Assistant Chief of the

CA Reporter’s Division, who then instructed him (Atibula)
to hide Volumes 260, 265 and 26717 in a safe place.18
On May 9, 1995, Atibula discovered that Volume 26619
covering the period from January 28 to February 12, 1969
was missing20 and, hence, immediately reported the same
to Atty. Macapagal. Two days after the discovery of the
loss, Atibula encountered Atienza near the canteen,21
shouting “[p]utang ina mo, Juaning, pinahirapan mo
kami!”22
On May 18, 1995, a certain Nelson de Castro, Clerk IV
detailed at the CA Reporter’s Division,23 handed to Atibula
a bag containing a gift-wrapped package which turned out
to be the missing Volume 266. He claimed that it was
Castro who asked him to deliver the said package to
Atibula.24
Having been notified of Volume 266’s return, Atty.
Macapagal then directed Atibula to ascertain who
borrowed the volume. Records, however, disclosed no one.25
Separately, Atibula compared the contents of Volume 266
with the index of the decisions and noticed that there were
two new documents inserted therein,26 namely: (a) a
Resolution27 dated February 11, 1969 (subject resolution),
ostensibly penned by

_______________

16 TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 12-13.

17 TSN, December 3, 2002, p. 21.
18 Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, records, p. 321.
 19 Id., at p. 22.
20  Letters dated May 22, 1995 and June 21, 1995 of Atty. Gemma
Leticia F. Tablate (Letters dated May 22, 1995 and June 21, 1995),
records, pp. 336 and 667.
21 Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, id., at p. 321.
22 TSN, December 2, 2002, p. 14.
23 Letters dated May 22, 1995 and June 21, 1995, records, pp. 336 and
667.
24 TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 13-14.
25 Atibula’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, records, p. 321.
26  Letters dated May 22, 1995 and June 21, 1995, id., at pp. 336 and
667.
27 266 CA Original Decisions 906-907.

 
 

91

Associate Justice Juan P. Enriquez (Justice Enriquez) and

concurred in by Associate Justices Magno S. Gatmaitan
and Edilberto Soriano, recalling and setting aside the
Entry of Judgment earlier issued in the Fernando case; and
(b) a Decision28 dated April 16, 1970 (subject decision), also
ostensibly penned by Justice Enriquez and concurred in by
Associate Justices Jesus Y. Perez and Jose M. Mendoza,
amending the original decision dated September 26, 1968
in the aforementioned case. Consequently, Atibula reported
his findings to Atty. Macapagal who, in turn, informed
Atty. Gemma Leticia F. Tablate (Atty. Tablate), then Chief
of the CA Reporter’s Division, of the same. They tried to
verify the genuineness, authenticity and existence of the
subject resolution and decision, and found that the
compilation of the duplicate original decisions/resolutions
of Justice Enriquez did not bear the said promulgations.
Atty. Tablate reported the incident to then CA Presiding
Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr.29 who immediately
requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
conduct an investigation on the matter.30
Laboratory analysis and comparative examination of the
subject resolution and decision31 as well as of a decision in
another case found in pages 906 to 922 of Volume 266 of
the CA Original Decisions were conducted by the NBI.32 As
a result, it issued its Questioned Documents Report No.
937-1295,33 finding that: (a) Volume 266 had indeed been
altered;34 and (b) the signatures of the CA Justices in the
subject resolution and decision (questioned signatures) and
their

_______________

28 Id., at pp. 908-915.

29 Letters dated May 22, 1995 and June 21, 1995, records, pp. 336-337
and 667-668.
30 Letter dated June 26, 1995, id., at pp. 669-670.
31 Id., at p. 329.
32 TSN, August 12, 2002, pp. 41-43.
33 Records, pp. 329-334.
34 Id., at p. 329.

 
 

92

standard/sample signatures “were not written by one and

the same person,”35 leading to the conclusion that the
questioned signatures were forgeries.36
Meanwhile, sometime in the second week of July 1995, an
inspection of the air-conditioning units at the office of the
CA Reporter’s Division was conducted, whereby it was
discovered that the improvised angle bar supporting the air
conditioning unit at the right most end from the main door
was corroded with rust and the portion of the wall holding
the same was broken (“may bak-bak na”).37 NBI Agents,
Atty. Daniel D. Daganzo38 (Atty. Daganzo) and Norman R.
Decampong39 then conducted an ocular inspection of the
premises, and, in the course thereof, interviewed several
personnel of the CA Maintenance Division. Said
investigation yielded the following findings: (a) there were
no signs of forcible entry;40 (b) the perpetrators gained
entry to the office of the CA Reporter’s Division “by passing
through the hole on the concrete wall after removing the
air conditioning unit”41 located on the right most [sic] end
from the main door;42 (c) there was conspiracy to commit
the crime of Falsification of Public Document between
Atienza and Dario in view of their “concerted efforts
through previous or simultaneous acts and deeds”;43 and
(d) Castro assisted Atienza and Dario “to profit from the
effects of the crime by returning safely the missing volume
to the [CA Reporter’s Division].”44 Consequently, a criminal
complaint was filed by the NBI and the Fact-Finding and
Intelligence

_______________

35 Id., at p. 333.
36 TSN, August 12, 2002, pp. 56-61.
37  Sinumpaang Salaysay dated April 29, 1997 executed by Cielito
Salud; records, p. 510.
38 TSN, October 15, 2002, p. 1.
39 See Final Report dated May 23, 1997, records, p. 557.
40 Id., at p. 551.
41 Id., at p. 554.
42 Id., at p. 551.
43 Id., at p. 555.
44 Id., at p. 556.

 
 

93

Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman against Atienza,

Castro, and Dario before the Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau of the OMB, docketed as OMB-0-97-
2054,45 charging them for the following crimes: (a)
Falsification of Public Document; (b) violation of Section
3(a)46 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,47 as amended; and (c)
violation of Section 848 of RA 6713.49
After investigation, the charges involving the pertinent
provisions of RAs 3019 and 6713 were dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence,50 but it was contrarily determined
that there existed probable cause to charge Atienza,
Castro, and

_______________

45 Rollo, p. 65.
46 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to
perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection
with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
offense.
xxxx
47 ENTITLED THE “ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.”
48  Relative to petitioners’ failure to file their respective sworn
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections covering the years 1989 to 1994, as
required under Section 8 of RA 6713; Rollo, p. 71.
49  Entitled “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-
HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING
INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED
ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”; otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”
50 Rollo, p. 82.

 
 

94

Dario51 for the crimes of Robbery under Article 299(a)(1)52

of the Revised Penal Code53 (RPC), as amended, and of
Falsification of Public Document under Article 172(1)54 in
relation to Article 171(6)55 of the same code. Thus, the
corresponding Informations,56 respectively docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 01-197425 and 01-197426, were filed
before the RTC. Peti-

_______________

51 See Resolution dated August 9, 2001 penned by Graft Investigation

Officer I Francisco Alan L. Molina, Id., at pp. 65-83.
52  Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or
edifice devoted to worship.—Any armed person who shall commit robbery
in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious
worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the
property taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the
robbery was committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress;
xxxx
53  Act No. 3815, as amended, entitled “AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL
CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS.”
54  Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified
documents.—The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications
enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;
and
xxxx
55  Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister.—The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or
notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
xxxx
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning;
xxxx
56 Records, pp. 2-4 and 5-7, respectively.

 
 
95

tioners posted bail57 and, thereafter, pleaded “not guilty”58

to the charges during their arraignment, while Dario
remained at large.
In his defense, Atienza denied having anything to do
with the questioned incidents59 as he was not even
summoned by the CA Clerk of Court or the Chief of the
Reporter’s Division,60 and became aware of the incident
only when he and Castro were subpoenaed by the NBI
Special Investigators.61 Further, he gave the alibi that he
was out of the office 4 days a week during the months of
April to June 1995,62 reporting only on Fridays,63 since he
had to perform his duties as Budget Officer I of the CA
Budget Division and Liaison Officer to the Department of
Budget and Management, the Committee on Appropriation
of the Congress, Committee on Appropriation of the lower
house, and the Committee on Finance of the Senate and
the GSIS.
On the other hand, Castro did not endeavor to refute the
allegations in the Informations filed against him and the
other accused.64
 
The RTC Ruling
 
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision65
on June 8, 2006, finding petitioners guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Robbery under Article
299(a)(1) of the RPC and Falsification of Public Document
under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(6) of the
RPC, and sentenced

_______________

57 Id., at pp. 55 and 69.

58 See Order dated March 13, 2002, id., at p. 113.
59 TSN, June 1, 2004, p. 14.
60 Id., at pp. 10 & 15.
61 Id., at p. 4.
62 Id., at pp. 3-4; Rollo, p. 48.
63 TSN, June 1, 2004, p. 14.
64 Rollo, p. 58.
65 Id., at pp. 84-97.

 
 

96

them to each suffer: (a) the indeterminate penalty of six (6)

months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and
four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum, for
the first crime; and (b) the penalty of six (6) months and
one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision
correccional, as maximum, and a fine of P5,000.00 for the
second crime.
 In convicting petitioners, the RTC found that “the
evidence x x x of the prosecution is replete with situations
and/or events to prove [petitioners’] guilt,”66 namely: (a)
Atienza requested Atibula to take out Volumes 260, 265
and 267 of the CA Original Decisions from the CA
Reporter’s Division, which the latter rejected despite offer
of remuneration; (b) Volume 266 was subsequently
discovered to be missing; (c) access to the missing volume
appears to have been acquired by entering through an
opening in the premises of the CA’s Reporter’s Division
because the air conditioning unit occupying the space
thereat was taken out for repair earlier; (d) Castro
returned Volume 266 after its loss;67 (e) Volume 266 bore
badges of tampering evidenced by the “non-continuity of
the front and the back cover flaps x x x and the pages of the
book/volume differences in the cutting marks on the sides
of the volume and the presence of artificial aging on [its]
sides”;68 and (f) two (2) new documents which materially
amended the original decision and resolution in the
Fernando case were inserted in the said volume.69 The RTC
further added that the manner by which petitioners
committed the felonious acts reveals a community of
criminal design, and thereby held that conspiracy exists.70
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed their conviction to the
CA.

_______________

66 Id., at p. 94.
67 Id., at pp. 94-95.
68 Id., at p. 95.
69 Id., at p. 94.
70 Id., at pp. 96-97.

 
 

97

The CA Ruling
 
In a Decision71 dated November 28, 2008, the CA
affirmed the RTC’s judgment of conviction in toto. It held
that while there is no direct evidence showing that the
petitioners committed the crimes charged, the testimonies
of Atibula and NBI Agent Atty. Daganzo with respect to
what had transpired before and after Volume 266 was
taken from its shelf, when viewed together with the other
circumstances in the case, constitute circumstantial
evidence which sufficiently point to the guilt of
petitioners.72 In addition, it found that Atienza’s defenses
were self-serving negative evidence which cannot outweigh
the circumstantial evidence clearly establishing his
participation,73 adding too that while there was no proof of
previous agreement between petitioners to unlawfully take
Volume 266 out of the office of the CA Reporter’s Division
and falsify the subject documents, their conspiracy may be
inferred from the fact that Castro was in possession of the
missing Volume 266 which was eventually discovered to
have been falsified.74
Undaunted, petitioners filed a motion for
75
reconsideration which was, however, denied in a
76
Resolution dated July 7, 2009, hence, the instant petition.
 
The Issue Before the Court
 
The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether
or not petitioners’ conviction for the crimes of Robbery and
Falsification of Public Document should be upheld on
account

_______________

71 Id., at pp. 42-61.

72 Id., at p. 57.
73 Id., at p. 58.
74 Id., at p. 59.
75 CA Rollo, pp. 249-256.
76 Rollo, pp. 62-63.

 
 

99

of the circumstantial evidence in this case proving their

guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 
 The Court’s Ruling
 
The petition is meritorious.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral
facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue
may be inferred based on reason and common experience.77
It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the
others, as the guilty person. Stated differently, the test to
determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on
record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series
of circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each
other and that each and every circumstance must be
consistent with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with
his innocence.78
Applying these principles to the facts that appear on
record, the Court finds that no sufficient circumstantial
evidence was presented in this case to establish the
elements of Robbery under Article 299(a)(1)79 of the RPC
and Falsification

_______________

77 People v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 161,
176.
78 People v. Lamsen, G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA
498, 507.
79  To convict the accused for Robbery under Article 299(a)(1) of the
RPC, the following elements must be established:
(a) That the offender entered an inhabited place, public building,
or edifice devoted to religious worship;

 
 

99
of Public Documents under Article 172(1) in relation to
Article 171(6)80 of the same code, or of petitioners’ supposed
conspiracy therefor. To this end, the Court examines the
participation of and evidence against each petitioner and
forthwith explains its reasons for reaching the foregoing
conclusions.
 
A.        The Participation of and Evidence Against
Castro
 
Notwithstanding Castro’s failure to refute the charges
against him, the Court finds no evidence to link him to the
commission of the crimes of Robbery and Falsification of
Public Document, contrary to the conclusions reached by
the

_______________

(b) That the entrance was effected through an opening not

intended for entrance or egress; and
(c) That once inside the building, the offender took personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain. (See Reyes, Luis
B., The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law, Book Two, Articles 114-
367, 18th Ed., 2012, p. 704.)
80  The elements of Falsification of Public Documents by a Private
Individual under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC are:
(a) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or
employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
(b) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated
in Article 171 of the RPC; and
(c) That the falsification was committed in a public, official or
commercial document. (See Panuncio v. People, G.R. No. 165678,
July 17, 2009, 593 SCRA 180, 189-190.)
Meanwhile, the elements of Falsification under Article 171(6) of the
RPC are as follows:
(a) That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation
(insertion) on a document;
(b) That it was made on a genuine document;
(c) That the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning
of the document; and
(d) That the changes made the document speak something false.
(See Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, G.R. Nos. 179003 and 195816, January
9, 2013, 688 SCRA 263, 280-281.)
  
 

100

RTC and concurred in by the CA. To begin with, it is

essential to note that Castro’s purported possession and
eventual return of Volume 266 was only premised upon the
statement of one Nelson de Castro (Nelson), i.e., the
Sinumpaang Salaysay81 dated August 9, 1995, who averred
that on May 18, 1995, at around 11:50 in the morning,
Castro told him to pass by his office and there handed him
a bag which, as it turned out, contained the missing
Volume 266, viz.:82

Noong Mayo 18, 1995 bandang 11:50 ng tanghali ay tumawag

sa telepono si ALFREDO CASTRO, ng Budget Division, at
sinabihan ako na dumaan sa kanyang opisina dahil mayroon daw
siyang ibibigay para sa opisina namin. Pumunta po naman ako
kaagad kay ALFREDO CASTRO sa opisina at iniabot sa akin ang
isang bag na malaki kulay parang pink at may laman at
sinabihan pa niya ako na buksan ko na lang daw ang bag
pagdating sa opisina. Pagdating ko sa opisina ay tinawag ko si
Mr. ATIBULA at doon ay binuksan naming dalawa ang bag.
Nakita ko sa loob ang isang bagay na nakabalot sa isang gift wrap
at ng buksan namin o alisin ang gift wrap ay ang Original
Decisions, Volume 266 na nawawala mga ilang linggo na ang
nakakaraan.

 
Nelson was not, however, presented before the RTC
during trial, hence, was not subjected to any in-court
examination. It is settled that while affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged
before a notary public (here, a public officer authorized to
administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay
evidence unless the affiants themselves are placed on the
witness stand to testify thereon and the adverse party is
accorded the opportunity to cross-examine them.83 With the
prosecution’s failure to present Nelson to affirm his
statement that Castro caused the return

_______________

81 Records, pp. 323-324.

 82 Id., at p. 324.
83 See Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012,
665 SCRA 367, 388.

 
 

101

of Volume 266,84 the prosecution’s evidence on the matter

should be treated as hearsay and, thus, inadmissible to
establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims.
Consequently, there exists no sufficient circumstantial
evidence to prove Castro’s guilt.
 
B. The Participation of and Evidence Against
Atienza
 
In similar regard, the prosecution’s evidence on the
circumstances in this case do not sufficiently establish
Atienza’s guilt for the crimes of Robbery and Falsification
of Public Document.
While records show that Atienza was positively
identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to
take out Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions from
the Reporter’s Division,85 the fact is that the alleged
intercalation actually occurred in a different document,
that is Volume 266. The discrepancy of accounts on the
very subject matter of the crimes charged dilutes the
strength of the evidence required to produce a conviction.
At best, the bribery attempt may be deemed as a
demonstration of interest on the part of Atienza over said
subject matter and in this regard, constitutes proof of
motive. However, it is well-established that mere proof of
motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a
conviction, most especially if there is no other reliable
evidence from which it may reasonably be deduced that the
accused was the malefactor.86 In fact, even if Atienza’s
bribery attempt is taken together with the other
circumstance couched as a relevant link by the prosecution
in this case — i.e., his averred encounter with Atibula, on
May 11, 1995, or two (2) days after the discovery of the loss
of Volume 266, wherein the latter uttered “[p]utang
_______________

84 Records, p. 324.
85 TSN, December 3, 2002, pp. 20-21.
86 People v. Comesario, 366 Phil. 62, 68; 306 SCRA 400, 405 (1999).

 
 
102

ina mo, Juaning, pinahirapan mo kami”87 — the Court still

finds the evidence to be lacking. This allegation, even if
proven as true, does not indicate that Atienza howsoever
affirmed the taking or even the falsification of Volume 266.
Clearly, the utterance was made by Atibula who did not
bother to state Atienza’s response thereto or any other
subsequent action connected therewith so as to bolster a
finding of guilt. Neither can this circumstance be properly
linked to the act of Castro inviting Atibula to Atienza’s
party. It would be a stretch to conclude that this mere
invitation, without any other proof of Castro’s
participation, was instrumental or, at the very least,
reasonably connected to Atienza and his own alleged
participation in the above-stated crimes.
In this relation, it may not be amiss to debunk the claim
that petitioners conspired in this case. While direct proof is
not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred
from the collective acts of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime which point to a joint
purpose, design, concerted action, and community of
interests,88 records are, however, bereft of any showing as
to how the particular acts of petitioners figured into the
common design of taking out the subject volume and
inserting the falsified documents therein. Hence, the
prosecution’s theory of conspiracy does not deserve any
merit.
All told, the prosecution has failed to show that the
circumstances invoked constitute an unbroken chain of
events which lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that
petitioners are, to the exclusion of the others, indeed the
culprits. As such, their conviction, tested under the
threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, was not
warranted. To be sure, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
the degree of proof that, after investigation of the whole
record, produces moral certainty in

_______________

87 TSN, December 2, 2002, p. 14.

88 People v. Lamsen, supra note 78, at p. 508.

 
 

103

an unprejudiced mind of the accused’s culpability.89 Such

moral certainty is, however, lacking in this case due to the
insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented.
 
C. Jurisdictional Defect: Falsification Case
 
Also, it bears mentioning that the RTC did not have
jurisdiction to take cognizance of Criminal Case No. 01-
197426 (i.e., the falsification case) since Falsification of
Public Document under Article 172(1)90 of the RPC, which
is punishable by prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods (or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 6 years91) and a fine of not more than
P5,000.00, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2)92
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,93

_______________
89 People v. Bacus, G.R. No. 60388, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 81,
93.
90 Rollo, p. 36-37.
91  See Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law, Book
Two, Articles 114-367, 18th Ed., 2012, p. 1081.
92  SEC. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.—
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
xxxx
 (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated
thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided,
however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
93  ENTITLED “AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUND
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”

 
 

104

otherwise known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of

1980,” as amended by RA 7691.94 While petitioners raised
this jurisdictional defect95 for the first time in the present
petition, they are not precluded from questioning the same.
Indeed, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired
through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties
or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. The rule is
well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised
for the first time on appeal.96
 
D. A Final Word
 
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption of innocence, failing which, the
presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should
be acquitted.97 This, despite the fact that his innocence
may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the
strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence
of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then
the evidence does not fulfill the
_______________

94  ENTITLED “AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN

TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE ‘JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980.’ ”
95 Rollo, p. 36.
96 See Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, G.R. No.
162322, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 158, 163-164.
97 People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA
279, 287.

 
 
105

test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a

conviction, as in this case. Courts should be guided by the
principle that it would be better to set free ten men who
might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to
convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.98
Accordingly, there being no circumstantial evidence
sufficient to support a conviction, the Court hereby acquits
petitioners, without prejudice, however, to any subsequent
finding on their administrative liability in connection with
the incidents in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated November 28, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR. No. 30650 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioners Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A.
Castro are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes of Robbery
and Falsification of Public Document on the ground of
reasonable doubt, without prejudice to any subsequent
finding on their administrative liability in connection with
the incidents in this case. The bail bonds posted for their
provisional liberty are consequently cancelled and released.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Petitioners Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro
acquitted.
 Notes.—The accused, in all criminal prosecutions, is
presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is
proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Del Castillo vs. People,
664 SCRA 430 [2012])
While affidavits may be considered as public documents
if they are acknowledged before a notary public, these
Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. (Republic
vs. Marcos-Manotoc, 665 SCRA 367 [2012])
 
——o0o——

_______________

98 People v. Angus, Jr., G.R. No. 178778, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA
503, 517-518.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.