G.R. No. 103395 November 22, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

EXEQUIEL ANISCAL, alias Ekil, and MANSUETO REDULLA, alias Chito, accused. MANSUETO REDULLA, accused-appellant.

FACTS: Accused appellant together with accused Aniscal were charged and convicted by the Regional Trial Court for robbery with homicide for the death of Juana Baocia Vda. de Valles. The principal witness for the prosecution was Pedro Ramones, a long-time resident of Maribojoc. He related during the trial that he had just come from a cockfight derby at the Maribojoc Cockfight Arena and was on his way to the nearby wharf at around 9:00 in the evening of March 16,1990 when, with a flashlight, he spotted Wilfredo Aniscal walking along the concrete fence separating the victim's house from that of her neighbor. Shortly thereafter, he saw accused Exequiel Aniscal and appellant emerge from the direction of the victim's residence, with the former clutching what looked like a dark-colored bag. The two then jumped over the concrete fence and, upon joining Wilfredo, the trio scampered away and vanished into the darkness of the night. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. HELD: The Supreme Court held that after a careful evaluation of the circumstances of the case at bar, said evidence cannot persuade us, with the inner strength of moral certainty, to, conclude that appellant's guilt has been proved beyond peradventure of a reasonable doubt. It is true that the rules of evidence do not require that proof of guilt be established solely by direct evidence. Conviction may also rest upon circumstantial evidence alone but, in such case, it becomes incumbent upon the court called to assess such evidence to cautiously determine if the circumstances composing the same consists of an unbroken chain which leads said court to fairly and reasonably conclude that the accused had authored the crime to the exclusion of all others. It is basic that for the circumstantial evidence to become the basis of a judgment of conviction the following requisites must concur, namely: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. It is likewise fundamental that where 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, an acquittal should be in order, for then the evidence would not be sufficient to meet the test of moral certainty required in a finding of guilt. In fine, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has clearly failed to meet the rigid and exacting requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt. While it is true that alibi, a jaded artifice long regarded by the courts as frail because of the facility with which it can be concocted, was the defense set up by the appellant, a reversal of the trial court's findings is nevertheless in order. A conviction must rest not upon the weakness of the evidence for the defense but upon the strength and forceful stroke of the prosecution's own evidence.