Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
xxx
xxx
xxx
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole
act; otherwise, that thing which a person possesses, or exercises
acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
The chain of proven circumstances leads to the logical conclusion that the items
unlawfully taken by the accused from its owner, Estrelita Yacat y
Arellano. Accused was last seen by the complainants neighbor, Ruffa Marcelo,
through the testimony of Mrs. Yacat; wherein PO3 Damayan and PO2 Coliat
testified that they were the investigator from Batangas City Police Station and San
Jose Police Station who spotted Jerry on board a ship docked at the pier in Brgy.
Santa Clara, Batangas City. The items unlawfully taken were found in his
possession and voluntarily admitted that he sold the other items he took. Such
possession, which remained without any satisfactory explanation, raises the
presumption that the accused authored the robbery. This presumption remains
unrebutted.
evidence against him. Custodial investigation has been defined as any questioning
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way (Sebastian Sr.
v. Garchitorena, 343 SCRA 463, 470, October 18, 2000). We have ruled
previously that constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to
a spontaneous statement that is not elicited through questioning by the authorities,
but is given in an ordinary manner. (People v. Mantung, 369 Phil. 1084, 1099, July
20, 1999)
How the presumption under Section 3(j)
understood, United States v. Catimbang24 explains:
Rule
131
is
to
be
According to the modern view convictions in cases of this kind are not
sustained upon a presumption of law as to the guilt of the accused. The conviction
rests wholly upon an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused.If as a matter of
probability and reasoning based on the fact of possession of the stolen
goods, taken in connection with other evidence, it may fairly be concluded
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the theft, judgment or
conviction may properly be entered. x x x
In the case of Malacat v. Court of Appeals, (347 Phil. 462) Supreme Court
held that the Constitution proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature. Without a judicial warrant, these are allowed only under the
following exceptional circumstances: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest, (2)
seizure of evidence in plain view, (3) search of a moving motor vehicle, (4)
customs search, (5) stop and frisk situations, and (6) consented search.
burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.
Admittedly, the evidence for the prosecution is circumstantial.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Indicted for committing a crime of Robbery, defined and penalized under
Article 229(a) 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution charged the accused
Jerry Marcelo y Alawan, on an information dated April 1, 2013.
The complainant in this case, Estrelita Yacat y Arellano testified that she
lived in a rented house in Sitio Uluhan, Galamay-Amo, San Jose, Batangas. On
March 31, 2013 at around 1:00 in the afternoon, she arrived at her rented house in
Sitio Uluhan after having stayed in Cabuyao, Laguna for three weeks. And found
that her house was robbed by using force over the receptacle of the back door of
the house. She reported the incident to her landlady PCI Anacleta Cultura, who told
her that it was the latters boy, named Jerry, herein accused, who probably was
the person responsible for the incident. Mrs. Yacat and PCI Cultura together with
several police officers from PNP Batangas City Police Station were able to find
Jerry on board a ship docked at the pier in Brgy. Santa Clara, Batangas City. PO3
Damayan and PO2 Coliat testified that they were the investigator from Batangas
City Police Station and San Jose Police Station, respectively, and that they have no
personal knowledge as to the identity of the accused.
To constitute robbery, the following elements must be established: (1) The subject is
personal property belonging to another; (2) There is unlawful taking of that property; (3) The taking is
with the intent to gain; and (4) There is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force
upon things. Lily Sy v. Hon. Secretary of Justice Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, Benito Fernandez Go,
Berthold Lim, Jennifer Sy, Glenn Ben Tiak Sy and Merry Sy, G.R. No. 171579, November 14, 2012.
Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 15. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution has rested its case, the court may
dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution an opportunity to be heard; or (2) on motion of the accused filed with prior leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may
adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of
court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment
on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
While courts have consistently looked upon alibi with suspicion not
only because it is inherently weak and unreliable as a defense, but
because it can easily be fabricated,19 the basic rule is for the
prosecution, upon which lies the onus, to establish all the elements
of a crime to thereby hold him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Such burden does not shift as it remains with the prosecution.
Tasked with the burden of persuasion, the prosecution must thus
rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense.20
rll