This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [W]hile the lone defense of the accused that he was the victim of a frame-up is easily fabricated, this claim assumes importance when faced with the rather shaky nature of the prosecution evidence. It is well to remember that the prosecution must rely, not on the weakness of the defense evidence, but rather on its own proof which must be strong enough to convince this Court that the prisoner in the dock deserves to be punished. The constitutional presumption is that the accused is innocent even if his defense is weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him.[65] (Emphasis supplied) In People of the Philippines v. Gonzales,[66] the Court held that where there was material and unexplained inconsistency between the testimonies of two principal prosecution witnesses relating not to inconsequential details but to the alleged transaction itself which is subject of the case, the inherent improbable character of the testimony given by one of the two principal prosecution witnesses had the effect of vitiating the testimony given by the other principal prosecution witness.[67] The Court ruled that it cannot just discard the improbable testimony of one officer and adopt the testimony of the other that is more plausible.[68] In such a situation, both testimonies lose their probative value. The Court further held:Why should two (2) police officers give two (2) contradictory descriptions of the same sale transaction, which allegedly took place before their very eyes, on the same physical location and on the same occasion? We must conclude that a reasonable doubt was generated as to whether or not the "buy-bust" operation ever took place.[69] In the present case, to repeat, the glaring contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses generate serious doubt as to whether a firearm was really found in the house of petitioner. The prosecution utterly failed to discharge its burden of proving that petitioner is guilty of illegal possession of firearms beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence of petitioner has not been demolished and therefore petitioner should be acquitted of the crime he was with. | |||||