Ricardo Atienza and Alfredo Castro vs People of the PhilippinesGr No. 188694February 12, 2014

Facts:Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA, affirming the decision of RTC Manila which found Petitioners Atienza and Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Robbery and Falsification of Public Document.Petitioners are CA employees: budget officer and utility worker, respectively. On March 20, 1995, Juanito Atibula (Atibula), a custodian of the CA Original Decisions, was invited by Castro to Atienzas birthday party where he was introduced to a certain Dario who asked for his help in locating a CA decision in a particular case. (FERNANDO CASE)They found said case in Vol 260 of the CA Original Decisions. Dario perused said document and also scanned Vol. 265. In the following days, Dario approached Atibula and requested the latter to insert a decision dated Sep 26 1968 in one of the Volumes but Atibula refused. Atienza thereafter offered him P50,000 in exchange for Vol 260 but he also refused.Atibula subsequently discovered that Vol. 266 was missing which he reported to his superiors immediately. Several days later, a certain Nelson de Castro, also a CA employee, handed Atibula a gift-wrapped package which turned out to be the missing Vol. 266. De Castro claimed that it was Castro who asked him to do so.The contents of the returned Vol. 266 were reviewed by Atibula and it was found that there were new documents inserted therein: CA decisions and resolutions supposedly for the FERNANDO CASE. Upon Atibulas comparison, it was found that the duplicate original decisions did not bear such promulgations. Upon the NBI investigation that ensued, it was found that Vol. 266 has indeed been altered and the signatures of the CA Justices therein have been forged.Ultimately, a complaint was filed by the NBI to the Office of the Ombudsman implicating Atienza, Castro and Dario of the Crimes of Falsification of Public Document and Robbery under the RPC. Thereafter, corresponding informations were filed before the RTC and the petitioners pleaded not guilty while Dario remained at large. Atienza denied having anything to do with the crimes and he averred that he was away from the office during the months in question due to work-related duties as budget and liason officer. Castro on the other hand, did not make any efforts to refute the charges against him.RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt and there is conspiracy. The previous events that conspired between the petitioners and Atibula prove their guilt. CA: affirmed RTCs decision. Although there was no direct evidence, Atibulas and the NBIs testimonies along with other circumstances are sufficient for a conviction. CA: Atienzas defense is self-serving and cannot outweigh the circumstantial evidence.Issue:Are the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant a convictionHeld:NO.Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience.It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently, the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. Firstly, the Court found no evidence to link Castro to the crimes charged. Affidavits, although acknowledged before a notary public, are considered hearsay evidence of the affiant was not presented in court to testify thereon and to give the adverse party a chance to cross-examine him. Nelson de Castro, who averred in his sworn statement that it was Castro who asked him to deliver the gift-wrapped package to Atibula was not presented in court during trial.Secodly, Atienzas guilt is likewise questionable. Atibulas testimony states that the former attempted to bribe him to take out Vol. 260 but then the controversy arose from a different document: Vol 266. This discrepancy on the very subject matter of the crimes dilutes the strength of the evidence required for a conviction. According to the court, the attempted bribery constituted proof of motive which is not sufficitent to support a conviction, no matter how strong.Criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of defense. 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 does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Accordingly, there being no circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction, the Court hereby acquits petitioners, without prejudice, however, to any subsequent finding on their administrative liability in connection with the incidents in this case.