LEGAL NOTE 0078: WHAT IS REASONABLE DOUBT?

 

SOURCE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DE LA CRUZ (G.R. NO. 185717, 08 JUNE 2011) SUBJECTS: RA 9165;  BUY BUST OPERATION IN DRUG CASE; CHAIN OF COMMAND. (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ).

 

WHAT IS REASONABLE DOUBT?

 BY REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT MEANT THAT WHICH OF POSSIBILITY MAY ARISE BUT IT IS THAT DOUBT ENGENDERED BY AN INVESTIGATION OF THE WHOLE PROOF AND AN INABILITY, AFTER SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, TO LET THE MIND REST EASY UPON THE CERTAINTY OF GUILT.

In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt.[1][41]  In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[2][42]  As the Court often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[3][43]

 

In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a buy-bust operation, thus:

 

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  While appellant’s defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt.   It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.

 

In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty.  By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.  An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants’ innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.  Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[4][44]

 

[1][41] People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 653.

[2][42] People v. Caiñgat, G.R. No. 137963, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 387, 396; citing People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000, 347 SCRA 109 and People v. Tacipit, G.R. No. 109140  March 8, 1995, 242 SCRA 241.

[3][43] Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 41, 60; citing  People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 503, 512.

[4][44] G.R. No. 175940 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155361-62], February 6, 2008, 544 SCRA 123, 141.