In a criminal suit, there are two [2] parties: the accused and offended. The latter is represented by the State [gov’t], whose law was violated and the victim. It will undergo preliminary investigation where a public prosecutor will decide based on evidence if there is a possibility that a crime has been committed. If there is probable cause, the case will undergo trial where the judge will decide based on legally admissible evidence if the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
At the trial, the public prosecutor will first present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused may present evidence to prove his innocence. In our criminal justice system, the accused enjoys the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. As such, the basic rule is the prosecution carried the burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, a criminal suit rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution evidence
and not on the weakness of the defense. The public prosecutors has to overcome the presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence then shifts to the defense, who shall then test the strength of the prosecution case by proving that no crime was in fact committed, casting doubt on one’s guilt.
The presumption of innocence and circumstantial evidence became an issue in a case involving the death of a one-year and 4-month old baby girl drown and found in the river. The last person, Irma Maglinas, who saw her alive was charged, tried and convicted of murder. The Supreme Court ruled the issue in People v. Maglinas, G.R. No. 255496, dated 10 August 2022 and uploaded on 12 September 2022.
Based on the testimonies of ten [10] witnesses: At 9:30 am, Eufresina passed by at the house of Irma. She heard a crying baby and Irma’s voice yelling “tigil tigil” and five loud sound of whipping or slapping followed by crying that even got louder. At 3:00 pm, three witnesses were on their way to a river when they met the son of Irma, who asked for help to look for a missing child. They found the child floating in the river, which is 100 meters away from Irma’s house. The doctor testified that the cause of death is drowning, noted two blisters on the right hand and small abrasion at the right eye, but ruled out any foul play.
Irma testified that Jenely and child stayed in her house. At 7:00, she was attending to a customer while taking care of the child. Later, she cooked lunch and fed the child. At 12:00 noon, while the child was asleep, she went to a store to buy food for dinner. At 2:00, she went home, noticed the door opened and the child was no longer there.
After trial, the RTC [Regional Trial Court] convicted Irma as circumstances surrounding the incident lead to no other conclusion that she could have intentionally hurt the child that led to her death. While pacifying the child from crying, she may have used force by whipping/slapping her, which could be fatal rendering the child unconscious, worse lifeless. To hide it, she made it appear that the child accidentally drowned by bringing the child to the river and placing her face down.
The CA [Court of Appeals] affirmed the RTC decision and ruled that all the elements of murder were present: the child died, Irma killer her, there was treachery in killing a child even if the manner of killing is not shown because the child is defenseless and weak. Irma appealed to the SC [Supreme Court]. It ruled that the crime against the accused is murder – a serious offense where the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, there is no direct evidence to establish the author of the crime. While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction, this does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Circumstantial evidence is accepted in criminal suit to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient to convict if there is more than one circumstance, the facts form which the inferences are derived are proven and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. An accused may be convicted when the circumstances established form an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused – to the exclusion of all others – as the guilty person.
The RTC and CA relied on the testimony of Eufresina as circumstantial evidence that accused purportedly maltreated the child on the day of the incident. Yet, she did not see if Irma was indeed hitting the child. She just assumed that Irma was scolding the child. The prosecution theory that Irma purportedly hit the child correlated with the fact that the child was found dead in the river, could led to the conclusion that accused is the author of the crime. The SC found the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Irma was indeed the author of the crime. The medical record shows drowning was the cause of death and no substantial injury or wound was sustained. This is physical evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently that a hundred witnesses, which disproves the theory of the prosecution that Irma’s act of hitting the child cause her death. There was no basis to conclude that child was maltreated considering that there were no significant injuries that would support said claim.
In the present case, since the physical evidence on record opposes the theory of the prosecution, presumptions as to physical evidence should prevail. Injuries of the child other than those testified to by the prosecution witnesses, if at all, could have been caused by stones or other hard objects along the river. The evidence cannot categorically and conclusively point to Irma as the author of the crime. Allegation that it was Irma who maltreated and killed the child since there was no other person who hurt her, remains a mere speculation. Nobody saw Irma take the lifeless body of the child to the river. It may be probable that Irma committed the crime. But, based on the evidence presented in court, it is equally probable that someone else did it. In a criminal case, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his/her guilt. If there exists even one iota of doubt, the court is under a longstanding legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused. When dealing with circumstantial proof an inference cannot be based on another inference. Inferring that Irma is immediately guilty without sufficient proof is against the rule on presumption of innocence. Thus, Irma was acquitted.
