8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716

 
 
 

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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 1/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 2/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716

 
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.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 3/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
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.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 4/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
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.

 
 

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 5/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 6/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716

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 reconsideration75 which was,
however, denied in a Resolution76 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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 7/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
_______________

(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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 8/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716

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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 9/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716
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.

 
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 10/11
8/25/22, 6:14 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 716

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182d7b7321f0f9647b0000d00d40059004a/p/AUB528/?username=Guest 11/11