Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Practice Court I - Decision

    Uploaded by

    mikayz30
    The defendants were apprehended by barangay tanods for allegedly committing robbery. However, the defendants claimed they were leaving work when apprehended and presented time records from their construction job to corroborate their story. A witness from their workplace also confirmed seeing the defendants leave at the time of the alleged crime. While tools were found in the defendants' possession, they were generic and could have been from their work. Given reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the defendants of robbery charges due to insufficient evidence against them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Practice Court I - Decision

    Uploaded by

    mikayz30
    48 views3 pages
    The defendants were apprehended by barangay tanods for allegedly committing robbery. However, the defendants claimed they were leaving work when apprehended and presented time records from their construction job to corroborate their story. A witness from their workplace also confirmed seeing the defendants leave at the time of the alleged crime. While tools were found in the defendants' possession, they were generic and could have been from their work. Given reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the defendants of robbery charges due to insufficient evidence against them.

    Original Description:

    practice court - decision template

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants were apprehended by barangay tanods for allegedly committing robbery. However, the defendants claimed they were leaving work when apprehended and presented time records from their construction job to corroborate their story. A witness from their workplace also confirmed seeing the defendants leave at the time of the alleged crime. While tools were found in the defendants' possession, they were generic and could have been from their work. Given reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the defendants of robbery charges due to insufficient evidence against them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    48 views3 pages

    Practice Court I - Decision

    Uploaded by

    mikayz30
    The defendants were apprehended by barangay tanods for allegedly committing robbery. However, the defendants claimed they were leaving work when apprehended and presented time records from their construction job to corroborate their story. A witness from their workplace also confirmed seeing the defendants leave at the time of the alleged crime. While tools were found in the defendants' possession, they were generic and could have been from their work. Given reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the defendants of robbery charges due to insufficient evidence against them.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Republic of the Philippines 7th Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Branch 7 Cebu City PEOPLE OF THE

    PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, versus CRIMINAL CASE NO. C- !"-#$ for: Violation of Article 299(A) of Revised Penal Code IAN %A& A'RO(AR) *U+E PAR*ILLO ,UIRANTE) Defendants, X------------------------------------------------------------/ *ECISION Facts On the night of May 2 ! 2"#$! at around ##:$" %&! 'hile the Barangay (anods of Brgy) *a&agayan! na&ed +a% ,aincadto! -aul Mercader! and Roberto .iscon 'as doing their roving! they allegedly heard noises co&ing fro& the 'arehouse o'ned by a certain /rsenio 000! and the sa&e 'arehouse 'hose careta1er 'as Martosa /rias) 2%on ai&ing their flashlight u%on 'here the noise ca&e fro&! they shouted to the cul%rits! 'hich led the latter to run) (he Barangay (anods ran after the cul%rits: ,aincadto on foot! and the t'o other rode the Barangay Multicab) (he (anods cornered the cul%rits 'hich 'ere identified as herein defendants! 0an Jay /brogar and 3u1e -ardillo 4uirante) 2%on a%%rehension! the defendants 'ere as1ed 'hy they ran) (he (anods alleged that there 'as no res%onse5 thereafter the (anods observed that there 'as a bulge in the %oc1ets of the defendants) 2%on having as1ed the& 'hat these 'ere! the defendants then and there reached into their %oc1ets and held out a&%ules and a used syringe) On the other hand! the defendants! convey a different story) (hey say that they had 6ust gotten out of their overti&e 'or1! and thereafter! dran1 beer to %ass of ti&e) (hat at ##:78 %&! they decided to go ho&e! and 6ust before going to'ards the 6ee%ney sto% they bought balut fro& a vendor! a certain Chin1y 9s%ina) /fter having bought balut! they allegedly heard

    the

    so&eone shout :Hoy m a !a"atan# $-%li nan sa!o#&' /fter that! they ran fearing for their lives) ;hen the grou% of &en caught u% 'ith the&! they 'ere arrested and fris1ed! fro& 'hich contraband 'as allegedly found in their %oc1ets to their sur%rise) $ss%e ;hether or not the defendants act lead to a belief 'ithout reasonable doubt that they had co&&itted a felony! s%ecifically a violation of /rticle 2 </= of the Revised -enal Code) R%lin >irstly! 'e go to the fact stated in the affidavits of the defendants saying that the balut vendor fro& 'hich they bought balut on the night of the occurrence of the event sa' all that had ha%%ened) Mere affidavits cannot be a%%reciated 'ithout the %resence of the 'itness herself in court to authenticate such testi&ony) Considering the foregoing! this court rules out the fact that the balut vendor had actually 'itnessd the a%%rehension of the defendants in herein case) (he %rosecution had a%tly %resented their case 'hen they %resented the Barangay (anods as 'itnesses to the cri&e) (he Barangay (anods 'ere %ersonally %resent to 'itness the ha%%ening of the event) (he cri&e of robbery in an inhabited 'as established by the -rosecution on the onset of the trial) 2%on %resentation! ho'ever! of the case of the accused! &ud covers the clear glass %ut u% by the %rosecution) (he accused states that he had been 'or1ing overti&e in the Construction .ite 'here he is e&%loyed and so 'as his co-accused) +or&ally! such state&ent 'ould not have been a%%reciated had it not been for the e?istence of the very docu&ent that verifies such state&ent -- the 3aily (i&e Record <3(R=) 0t 'ould have been differently inter%reted if the 3(R 'as &anually filled u% by hand! but instead! in this case the 3(R 'as %unched in a bundy cloc1! 'hich 'ould thereafter sta&% the ti&e on the card) (o further testify to the veracity of the docu&ent 'as Mr) Macho *ho! the fore&an of the Construction .ite 'here the accused 'or1ed) 0n his state&ent! he said that he sa' the accused leave the %re&ises of the Construction .ite at around ##:$" %&! the ti&e 'hich 'as %ur%ortedly 'hen the cri&e 'as said to have been co&&itted) >ro& the ti&e they had logged out of 'or1! u% to the ti&e of their a%%rehension! it 'ould have been very unli1ely that the accused 'ere able to do all those acts that the (anods alleged that they had done) (he tools %ur%ortedly found in the sac1 could have been those identified to have been stolen! but he tools 'ould also have been those that the fore&an gave to the

    accused) (he tools 'ere generic and could very 'ell belong to anybody! having had no identification 'hatsoever on the&) ;ell settled is the fact that in a cri&inal case! the burden of %roof rests in the %rosecution) (he %resu&%tion of innocence holds through 'hen the %resentation of evidence fall short fro& 'hat is needed to establish that %ersons have co&&itted an unla'ful act 'ithout reasonable doubt) (he %rosecution should not rely on the 'ea1ness of the evidence of the defendant! but should very 'ell diligently %rovide the instance and circu&stances to 'arrant that no other thought lingers in the &inds of any one &an that indeed the cul%rit is the very doer of the acts alleged in the instant case) ;hen evidence is ca%able of t'o inter%retations! one that establishes the guilt of the accused and the other establishes his innocence! the latter 'ill al'ays %revail) ;hen such thing ha%%ens! it is the duty of the court to render the case in favor of the accused) -HEREFORE) in vie' of the foregoing! the defendants are /C420((93! having not been found to have violated /rticle 2 </= of the Revised -enal Code beyond reasonable doubt) .O OR39R93)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy