4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The trial court correctly pointed out that there is no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against Nzenza,[60] and that their testimonies should be given full faith and credence since they are presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties as police and customs officers of the NAIA.[61] However, to support a finding that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the testimonies should not only be credible and positive, but also sufficient to establish guilt. We are mindful that in our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. [62] Thus, to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused, proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact essential to constitute the offense charged must be clearly established by the prosecution.[63] In the absence of direct proof that Nzenza transported heroin on December 19, 1992, the prosecution attempted to establish his guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied upon the following: First, accused Williams tipped off the Customs and police authorities at the NAIA that he had a companion, another black man carrying prohibited drugs in his bag. Acting on this information, the team organized to capture this second black man searched and apprehended Nzenza. Second, when the team saw Nzenza at the departure area and after they asked him whether he was travelling with a companion, they saw that he had a hand-carried bag similar to that of Williams, prompting them to ask if he had checked-in any luggage. Third, to verify whether Nzenza had any checked-in luggage, the team requested a PAL employee to furnish them with a passenger manifest. The manifest provided by the PAL employee indicated that Nzenza was passenger number 37 of Swiss Air Flight Number SR 177. Across his name was sequence number 85, and the information that he had checked-in three pieces of luggage. Accordingly, the pieces of luggage with baggage identification numbers SR 450229 and SR 450246 and SR 91 2058 indicated in the passenger manifest as belonging to Nzenza were located. Fourth, from the three pieces of luggage which were retrieved, only that numbered SR 91 2058 was subjected to examination, since those numbered SR 450229 and SR 450246 were only a baby roller and a baby cot.[64] The luggage with baggage identification number SR 91 2058 was later found to contain heroin. This Court finds that the evidence relied upon by the trial court failed to prove Nzenza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As a general rule, in the absence of direct proof, conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, but to warrant conviction, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance, (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[65] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52099 8/15