Conviction of accused must rest, not on weakness of defense, but on strength of prosecution

Dear PAO,

My cousin filed a criminal case, which was heard in court but was eventually dismissed. My cousin said that the assailant only presented one witness, while he had several witnesses who testified for him, and he submitted a good number of evidence. So, we really could not understand why or how the case was dismissed. According to a paralegal officer my cousin spoke with, the evidence that my cousin submitted was not enough to prove the guilt of his assailant as there were inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies of his witnesses. Can this really happen?

Antonia

Dear Antonia,

Proving the criminal liability of an accused does not merely rest on the number of pieces of evidence presented against him or her, but rather on the substance and significance of those evidence. Accordingly, the evidence to be submitted against an accused must concretely and convincingly point to his or her commission of the crime, excluding the possibility of another person committing it, regardless of how many or few such pieces of evidence may be.

It also bears stressing that our laws do not require evidence to prove absolute certainty of the guilt of the accused. Rather, evidence tending to prove the moral certainty of the accused's guilt would suffice. As expressly provided for under Section 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence (AM 19-08-15-SC):

«Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. – In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.»

Corollary, the criminal case initiated by your cousin may have indeed been dismissed because of the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, thereby failing to establish with moral certainty the guilt of the accused.

Moreover, we wish to emphasize that it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove that he or she is innocent of the crime being charged against him or