Scribd
Upload
48 views

Evidence To Be Believed Must Not Only Come From The Mouth of A Credible Witness But Must Also Be Credible in Itself

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. [1] The testimony of the key witness was not credible and did not make sense. [2] The CCTV footage only showed the accused and victim together, but did not prove the accused committed the crime. [3] Reasonable doubt still exists and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to exclusively point to the accused, so the verdict should be not guilty.

Uploaded by

Lourleth Caraballa Lluz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views

Evidence To Be Believed Must Not Only Come From The Mouth of A Credible Witness But Must Also Be Credible in Itself

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. [1] The testimony of the key witness was not credible and did not make sense. [2] The CCTV footage only showed the accused and victim together, but did not prove the accused committed the crime. [3] Reasonable doubt still exists and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to exclusively point to the accused, so the verdict should be not guilty.

Uploaded by

Lourleth Caraballa Lluz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

However, it does not take rocket scientist to observe that the Prosecution’s story was not adding up;

they first wrote


the conclusion, and then the body of the story. As I will point out later, their entire theory was rife with implausibilities.

It is a cardinal rule that in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt each and
every element of the crime charged. In fact, the accused need not testify on his behalf to prove his defense. Moral
certainty that the crime was committed by the accused is what is required by law or that which would produce
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It is only when the Prosecution has effectively discharged this burden, that the
verdict of GUILTY be handed down to the accused.

In this case, the Prosecution had to prove that the minor accused knowingly and intentionally caused the death of X by
stabbing her with a pair of scissors, and afterwards, that he intentionally scraped off the facial skin of X. Ladies and
gentlemen, they failed to meet this burden.

The Prosecution presented mere morsels or scraps of evidence, which showed that they did a rushed job in pinning a
face to the crime.

Let us go to the specifics on how the Prosecution managed to kill their own cause. To establish their claim that John
killed the victim, they heavily relied on only two things: first, the testimony of Juan dela Cruz who allegedly saw the
accused kill the victim, and second, a CCTV footage showing that the victim was allegedly last seen with the accused.

JUAN DELA CRUZ’S TESTIMONY

The Prosecution presented as their Star Witness Juan dela Cruz. According to him, he went to the vacant lot to gather
some specimen for his thesis, and that he had planned to go home at around 10:30 pm.

First point, what is baffling to the mind is that the statement is contrary to common sense and human experience. Any
person within reasonable mind when placed in his position would know that the specimens are better appreciated and
taken in the clear light of day and not under cover of darkness.

Second, the distance of between the witness and the arguing couple (purported to be the victim and the accused) was
not established. If it were true that he heard the couple arguing, he must have been at a close distance. And since he
was taking specimens, he probably used some form of illumination while he was on the vacant lot. In such case, the
arguing couple could have seen that another person was around. Following human experience and Filipino culture,
the couple would have the decency not to fight within the hearing or observation of other people since it is human
nature to that one acts in such a manner to protect himself from shame or ridicule.

Third, if we are to follow the incredible statement that he heard screams of help from the victim and had seen that the
perpetrator stabbed the victim, again it would be reasonable to infer that he was near them. The perpetrator, if he
really had intention of hurting victim, would ensure the crime was perfectly executed (preferrably with no witness who
could testify against him). The perpetrator could have observed that someone was around, which could be enough
reason for him to desist. But no, the perpetrator decided not to care and continued on with his business. IT JUST
DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.

Fourth, when he was shown the CCTV footage, he immediately confirmed that the person allegedly named CJ and
the person in the video was one and the same as they were both wearing the same clothing and that he was familiar
with the outline of the accused. His identification of the accused is rendered suspect since it is possible that another
person may have the same physique as the accused.

Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in
itself. The Prosecution in an effort to prove their cause, desperately went on to the lengths of engaging in mental
gymnastics which is the height of absurdity.
CCTV FOOTAGE

Aside from the fantastic statements of Juan dela Cruz, the Prosecution banked on the CCTV footage of a glass
establishment showing that the victim was last seen with the accused. However, it only proves just that and nothing
else. If it were so, it would be tantamount to setting a very dangerous precedent of pinning liability on the mere
expediency of showing a CCTV footage.

The accused on his part, sufficiently established that while after he chanced upon the victim after they attended the
same mass, he went to a basketball tournament for the whole duration of the alleged commission of the crime. With
every point of their finger, they are showing to the court their misguided conclusions.

In Bacolod v. People, this Court had the occasion to say:


The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by
evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged
may also be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Moreover, in Lozano v. People, this Court clarified the application of the circumstantial evidence rule:
To sustain 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. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other
person has committed the crime.

These were not sufficiently proven. Reasonable doubt still exists as to whether or not the accused indeed committed
the crime.

The prosecution had eaten up the witness’ story and are now spoon-feeding the court of the ending that they have
already decided long before this case commenced. However, their arsenals are not enough to decide a child’s fate. A
child whose life was forever changed just because he was caught by the CCTV walking with the victim. A child who will
never be seen by society in the same way again, no matter how innocent he is. Not today. Write the conclusion that is
acceptable with the last two words, not guilty

You might also like