Akusado bago hatulan, dapat may ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | June 28, 2024

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang kapatid ko ay kilalang magnanakaw dito sa EDSA. Isang gabi, may manggagawang nanakawan umano ng cellphone habang pauwi mula sa kanyang pinapasukang trabaho.  Dahil hindi niya alam kung paano nawala ang kanyang cellphone, hindi niya ito ini-report sa pulisya. Sa kanyang pag-uusisa, narinig niya mula sa mga tambay na ang aking kapatid umano ang nagnakaw. Sa sumunod na linggo, nahuli ang aking kapatid sa isang illegal drugs operation ng pulisya. Doon pa lang siya nagpa-blotter sa nangyari sa kanya dahil nakakuha na siya ng ideya sa pagkakakilanlan ng aking kapatid matapos mai-post ang picture nito sa isang social media platform. Tanging testimonya niya lang ang ebidensya ng tagausig.  Maaari bang makalaya ang aking kapatid mula sa kasong Theft? — Lydia

---

Dear Lydia,

Ang isang wastong hatol o conviction ay may dalawang importanteng sangkap: 1) pagkakakilanlan ng akusado bilang salarin sa nasabing krimen; at 2) presensya ng lahat ng elemento ng krimen. Nararapat na ang dalawang sangkap na ito ay mapatunayan ng prosekusyon sa pamamagitan ng tinatawag na proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Kaugnay nito, sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Mark Anthony Pagtakhan vs. People, G.R. No. 257702, February 7, 2024, na isinulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, pinalaya ang isang akusado sa kasong Robbery dahil kaduda-duda ang testimonya ng nag-iisang testigo kung paano niya nakilala ang akusado. Lumalabas sa nasabing desisyon na nalaman ng testigo ang pagkakakilanlan (identity) ng akusado mula sa sabi-sabi ng mga tambay at sa mga larawan na ipinakita sa kanya sa istasyon ng pulisya. Sabi ng korte:

“On the witness stand, herein private complainant testified on cross examination that somehow, he did not have personal knowledge of the perpetrator’s identity before going to the police station to identify the petitioner. But this contradicts his initial statement in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that he got to know of the perpetrator’s identity through his inquiries to neighborhood bystanders. This also contradicts how he somehow knew of petitioner’s specific, private and personal circumstances and details, which he averred to knowing in the same Sinumpaang Salaysay. And again, nowhere in herein private complainant’s testimony appears any mention of the perpetrator’s physical features or attributes. Verily, herein petition already knew that he was going to see petitioner long before he travelled to the police station for purposes of pointing to the latter, and it stands to reason that he was invited to visit the police station precisely because it was petition who was recently apprehended at the time. 

To the mind of the Court, it is evident here that once herein private complainant got hold of petitioner’s name from the neighborhood bystanders, the specificity of said name (without any basis other than the strong suspicions of people from the area) took hold in herein private complainant’s mind and thereafter gave him a firm but flawed conviction that petitioner was the man who robbed him. Indeed, one cannot fault herein private complainant for his righteous indignation and his genuine desire for some justice after his ordeal, but this should never be at the expense of established procedures and protocols for the proper out-of-court identification. 

Thus, while herein private complainant pointed to petitioner to positively identify him, the same is utterly tainted with the insufficiency of his prior out of court identification of petitioner even before criminal proceedings began. It is indeed regrettable that there were no other witnesses to the crime, as testified by herein private complainant himself, but with him being the sole witness to his own ordeal, it is even more regrettable to find no physical description at all of the perpertrator anywhere in the records of all procedings below. And with no items constituting the corpus delicti (ie. Either the handgun utilized by the perpetrator or the stolen items themselves) that would have aided the determination of the case, the trial relied on herein private complainant’s identification (both out of court and in court) of petition as the sole basis for the latter’s conviction. Bearing upon the extensive explanations above, this is a grave and egregious error that the Court must dutifully correct. 

Malinaw sa nasabing desisyon na dapat makapagbigay ang nag-iisang testigo ng naunang paglalarawan (prior description) sa akusado sa pinakamaagang pagkakataon base sa kanyang nakita, at hindi base sa mga narinig niya sa mga tambay o sa mga mungkahi ng sinuman. Sa iyong kaso, hindi kilala ng biktima o testigo ang nagnakaw sa kanya. Dahil dito, maaaring makalaya ang akusado dahil sa kaduda-dudang ebidensya ukol sa kanyang pagkakakilanlan. 

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.