4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly x x x.[75] The Court finds that the circumstances upon which the trial court based its finding that Nzenza is indeed guilty of transporting heroin in one of his bags in the afternoon of December 19, 1992 do not support such finding beyond reasonable doubt. Said facts and circumstances do not pass the test of moral certainty since these permit the alternative inference that a person other than Nzenza could have transported the heroin discovered in the baggage tag numbered SR 91 2058. To support a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the same must not only be consistent with guilt, it must also exclude every reasonable hypothesis of evidence. Circumstantial evidence which merely arouses suspicion or gives room for conjecture is insufficient to convict an accused. It must do more than raise the mere possibility or even the probability of guilt. [76] Thus, in several cases, we have held that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is not adequate to support a conviction,[77] and the Court must acquit the accused. In the case at bar, we cannot simply ignore the fact that the burden of proof required to hold Nzenza liable for the offense charged was not met by the prosecution. In view thereof, it is not only Nzenza's right to be freed, it is, even more, the Court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[78] WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and accused-appellant Manzanza Nzenza is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ordered to cause the release of accused-appellant forthwith, unless the latter is being held lawfully for another cause. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. [1] People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, vs. Manzanza Nzenza, Accused. [2] People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, vs. Austin Williams, Accused. [3] Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, states: SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. -- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52099 11/15