Dissenting Opinion
-3-
G.R. No. 224469
Likewise, Alcantara v. Court ofAppeals7 states:
x x x Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of
the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind
rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not
required by the law to convict of any crime charged but moral certainty is
required and this certainty is required to every proposition of proof requisite
to constitute the offense. The reasonable doubt should necessarily
pertain to the facts constituted by the crime charged. Surmises and
conjectures have oo place in a judicial inquiry and thus are shunned in
criminal prosecution. For the accused to be acquitted on reasonable
doubt, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from lack of
evidence. Reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any man may start
questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or sunnised
without foundation in facts, for it is always possible to question any
conclusion derived from the evidence on record. x x x.
Even the majority opinion noted that:
With respect to those of a contrary view, it is difficult to think of a
more accurate statement than that which defines reasonable doubt as a doubt
for which one can give a reason, so long as the reason given is logically
connected to the evidence. An inability to give such a reason for the doubt
one entertains is the first and most obvious indication that the doubt held may
not be reasonable. x x x.
You will note that the. Crown must establish the accused's guilt beyond
a "reasonable doubt", not beyond "any doubt." A reasonable doubt is
exactly what it says -a doubt based on reason- on the logical processes
of the mind. It is not a fanciful or speculative doubt, nor is it a doubt
based upon sympathy or prejudice. It is the sort of doubt which, if you
ask yourself "why do I doubt?" -you can assign a logical reason by way
of an answer.
A logical reason in this context means a reason connected either to
the evidence itself, including any conflict you may find exists after
considering the evidence as a whole, or to an absence of evidence
which in the circumstances of this case you believe is essential to a
conviction. x x x. 8
Accordingly, courts must evaluate the evidence in relation to the
elements of the crime charged and, as such, the finding of guilt is always a
question offact. 9 Acquittals based on reasonable doubt, being a question of
fact, therefore, has nothing to do with the interpretation of pertinent law, but
has everything to do~ with the appreciation of evidence. It has been
established that:
7
8
9
462 Phil. 72, 89-90 (2003).
See majority opinion p. 8.
Atty. Bernardo T Constantino v. People of the Philippines, supra note 5.