Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 169 views

    01 - People v. Franco

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    The prosecution's evidence against Franco for theft of Nakamoto's cell phone is circumstantial and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The witness who saw Franco take a cell phone from the altar did not positively identify it as Nakamoto's phone. Other people also had access to the area where Nakamoto left his phone. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Franco committed the theft, as the evidence did not conclusively establish that he took Nakamoto's phone, nor rule out other possibilities for who may have taken it. Circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused. Reasonable doubt remains, so Franco's conviction cannot stand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    01 - People v. Franco

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    169 views2 pages
    The prosecution's evidence against Franco for theft of Nakamoto's cell phone is circumstantial and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The witness who saw Franco take a cell phone from the altar did not positively identify it as Nakamoto's phone. Other people also had access to the area where Nakamoto left his phone. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Franco committed the theft, as the evidence did not conclusively establish that he took Nakamoto's phone, nor rule out other possibilities for who may have taken it. Circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused. Reasonable doubt remains, so Franco's conviction cannot stand.

    Original Description:

    Franco

    Original Title

    01_People v. Franco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The prosecution's evidence against Franco for theft of Nakamoto's cell phone is circumstantial and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The witness who saw Franco take a cell phone from the altar did not positively identify it as Nakamoto's phone. Other people also had access to the area where Nakamoto left his phone. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Franco committed the theft, as the evidence did not conclusively establish that he took Nakamoto's phone, nor rule out other possibilities for who may have taken it. Circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused. Reasonable doubt remains, so Franco's conviction cannot stand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    169 views2 pages

    01 - People v. Franco

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    The prosecution's evidence against Franco for theft of Nakamoto's cell phone is circumstantial and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The witness who saw Franco take a cell phone from the altar did not positively identify it as Nakamoto's phone. Other people also had access to the area where Nakamoto left his phone. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Franco committed the theft, as the evidence did not conclusively establish that he took Nakamoto's phone, nor rule out other possibilities for who may have taken it. Circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused. Reasonable doubt remains, so Franco's conviction cannot stand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    On November 3, 2004 at around 11 :00 a.m.

    , Benjamin Joseph Nakamoto (Nakamoto)


    went to work out at the Body Shape Gym located at Malong Street, Tondo, Manila. After
    he finished working out, he placed his Nokia 3660 cell phone worth 'Pl 8,500.00 on the
    altar where gym users usually put their valuables and proceeded to the comfort room to
    change his clothes. When he returned to get his cell phone, it was already missing.
    Arnie Rosario (Rosario), informed him that he saw Guilbemer Franco (Accused) get a
    cap and a cell phone from the altar.

    The gym's caretaker, Virgilio Ramos (Ramos), testified that he saw Franco in the gym
    but he was not working out and was just going around the area. In fact, it was just
    Franco's second time at the gym. Ramos even met him near the door and as Franco did
    not log out, he was the one who indicated it in their logbook, he put an asterisk opposite
    the name of Franco in the logbook to indicate that he was the only one who left the gym
    after the cell phone was declared lost.

    Nakamoto, together with Jeoffrey Masangkay, a police officer who was also working out
    at the gym went and looked for him. A vendor told them that he saw a person who was
    holding a cell phone, which was then ringing and that the person was trying to shut it off.
    Nakamoto then filed a complaint with the barangay but no settlement was arrived
    thereat; hence, a criminal complaint for theft was filed against Franco before the City
    Prosecutor's Office of Manila.

    In his defense, Franco denied the charge, alleging that if Nakamoto had indeed lost his
    cell phone at around 1 :00 p.m., he and his witnesses could have confronted him as at
    that time, he was still at the gym, having left only at around 2:45 p.m. He also admitted
    to have taken a cap and cell phone from the altar but claimed these to be his.

    The RTC found him guilty of theft ruling that his defense is not credible that his denial
    cannot be given evidentiaryvalue over the positive testimony of Rosario. The CA upon
    his appeal affirmed the decision giving credence to the testimonies of the witnesses.

    Issue: Whether or not the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence is sufficient for Franco’s
    conviction

    Held: No, To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, Section 4, Rule


    133 of the Rules of Court provides that the following requisites must concur: (l) there
    must be more than one circumstance to convict; (2) the facts on which the inference of
    guilt is based must be proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such
    as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. With respect to the third requisite,
    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 others, as the guilty person.
    There are two types of positive identification. A witness may identify a suspect or
    accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very
    act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may,
    however, be instances where, although a witness may not have actually seen the very
    act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or
    accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or
    one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the
    commission of the crime.
    Rosario's testimony definitely cannot fall under the first category of positive identification.
    While it may support the conclusion that Franco took a cell phone from the altar, it does
    not establish with certainty that what Franco feloniously took, assuming that he did, was
    Nakamoto's cell phone. Rosario merely testified that Franco took "a cell phone."
    Neither can the prosecution's testimonial evidence fall under the second category of
    positive identification, that is, Franco having been identified as the person or one of the
    persons last seen immediately before and right after the commission of the theft.
    Records show that there were other people in the gym before and after Nakamoto lost
    his cell phone. In fact, Nakamoto himself suspected Rosario of having taken his cell
    phone

    The prosecution's evidence does not rule out the following possibilities: one, that what
    Franco took was his own cell phone; two, even on the assumption that Franco stole a
    cell phone from the altar, that what he foloniously took was Nakamoto's cell phone,
    considering the fact that at the time Nakamoto was inside the changing room, other
    people may have placed their cell phone on the same spot; and three, that some other
    person may have taken Nakamoto's cell phone.

    It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused
    based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions."

    You might also like