Separate Concurring Opinion
3
G.R. No. 224469
contradicted by the evidence on record. 9 (Citations omitted, emphasis
supplied)
Furthermore, it has been held that this Court may reevaluate the lower
court's factual findings "when certain material facts and circumstances had
been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter
the result of the case in that they would introduce an element of reasonable
doubt which would entitle the accused to acquittal." 10
Daayata v. People 11 explained the degree of proof necessary to sustain
a conviction in criminal actions:
Conviction in criminal actions demands proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt
is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
While not impelling such a degree of proof as to establish
absolutely impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal
cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility
of establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately appeals to a
person's very conscience[.] 12
In Pit-og v. People, 13 the petitioner was charged of theft after she took
sugarcane and banana plants allegedly planted on the private complainant's
land. The case involved a communal land called tayan owned by the
tomayan group. A portion of the tayan was sold to private complainant
Edward Pasiteng (Pasiteng), who planted sugarcane and banana plants there.
Pasiteng's lot was adjacent to the area cultivated by the petitioner,
where she likewise planted banana plants and sugarcane. The petitioner was
then convicted by the lower courts and the Court of Appeals. Yet, when the
case reached this Court, the petitioner was acquitted based on reasonable
doubt. This Court noted that "the areas cultivated by [Pasiteng] and Erkey
were adjacent and so close to each other that the possibility of confusion as
to who planted which plants is not remote." 14
9
10
11
12
13
14
Id. at 232.
Pit-og v. People, 268 Phil. 413,420 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
807 Phil. 102 (2017) [Per J. Leanen, Second Division].
Id.atll7-118.
268 Phil. 413 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
Id. at 422.
/J
f..