REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH XX, MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff

-versus- Criminal Case No. XXXX

For: Violation of Article 246
Revised Penal Code

JUAN DELA CRUZ, Accused

DECISION
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines expresses its support for the
Filipino families. As provided in Article 2, Section 12 of the highest law of
the land, “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution…”
Filipinos are known for its tradition of close family ties. Many stay in the
same barangay where their relatives live.
As heads of the basic autonomous social institution, parents are
expected to provide full support to their children to give the latter sufficient
capability in order to live in their own in the future. And in return, children
are expected to obey their parents to show respect and gratitude before
their parents who raised and fundamentally taught them of what is life.
Conflicts inside every home is almost inevitable. As parents, they are
the primary responsible to handle this problem and make sure that no
further fights occur in the situation.
Accused Juan Dela Cruz is charged before this court for parricide
under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, who pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged against him. Thus, trial on merits proceeded.
The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: Marites Cruz, and
John Manuel, aside from the official statement from the police officers.
The first witness for the prosecution was Marites Cruz, who was
living on the other side of the railway where the alleged commission of the
crime happened. She narrated that, on the evening of March 16, 2008, she
saw the accused kill his own father, Pedro Dela Cruz, through the windows
of the passing train. She also testified that she saw Pedro hit the accused
twice before the alleged felony was committed.
 The second witness for the prosecution was John Manuel, who is at
the dawn of his years. Mr. Manuel was living beneath the apartment where
the alleged killing happened. He narrated that, on the evening of March 16,
2008, he heard upstairs a fight. And that he heard the accused shouting,
“I’m gonna kill you.” He also testified that he heard a body hitting the
ground and saw the accused running down the stairs.
The prosecution also presented the offenses where the accused was
involved in. Among the said offenses, the heaviest that questioned the
rightfulness of the accused was when he tried to slash another teenager.
Lastly, the prosecution also presented the findings of the
investigators; (1) that the accused used a unique knife which only he owns,
and a receipt of the same weapon was found in the possession of the same,
(2) upon arrest, the accused cannot name the movies that he claimed he
had seen that night before the police officer who arrested him.
The defense presented their position in the case stating as follows;
(1) that the accused went to watch movies when the alleged commission
of the crime happened,
(2) that the accused dropped the said knife he bought on his way to the
cinemas to watch movies and,
(3) that the accused is under “great emotional distress” during the
interrogation made by the arresting police officer.
The defense questioned the uniqueness of the knife used in the
crime. They presented another knife which is exactly the same with the
evidence presented by the prosecution. Along with the identical knife, the
defense presented the receipt of the same indicating that it was sold only
two blocks away from the commission of the crime, rebutting the unique
characteristic the prosecution is claiming.
The defense brought into question the capability of Mr. Manuel, who
was at the moment, having a hard time walking, with his testimony that he
“hurriedly” went into the hallway and saw the boy running downstairs.
Also, the distance was questioned being the bed is 30 feet away from the
door which he claimed he opened that night.
This court recognizes the following issues:
(1) Whether the individual testimonies of the witnesses is valid and shall
be considered, as a fact, for this case.
(2) Whether the evidences presented is sufficient in determination of
the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This court took into consideration all the evidence provided by both
counsel. From the proceedings we found that;
(1) there is inconsistency in the individual testimonies of the witnesses,
 (2) the claim of the prosecution regarding the uniqueness of the knife
used in the crime is without merit
(3) the capability of Mr. Manuel to run to the door quickly is nearly
impossible considering his age and the distance between the bed and
the door.
In taking the testimony of the two witnesses. This court found that
both testimonies are incompatible with each other. The testimony of Mr.
Manuel that he heard the fight between the victim and the accused and the
testimony of Ms. Cruz that there was a train passing by made at least one
of these statements untruthful. With the train passing by during the
commission of the crime, a person can hardly hear anything around him
considering the loud noise the train is making.
The law provides the requirement of “proof beyond reasonable
doubt” for conviction for a crime as provided in Rule 133, Section 2 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence which states that,
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (2a)”
With these findings, this Court determined that the evidences
provided by the prosecution doesn’t produce enough evidence to prove the
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing evidences, we found that
Juan Dela Cruz is not proven guilty of parricide, under article 246 of the
Revised Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt and shall be immediately
released from detention unless they are confined for another lawful
reason. No costs.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections for immediate action. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
is directed (with emphasis) to report the action he has taken to this Court
within ten days from receipt of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Rodel Baldemor Jr.
MeTC Judge, Branch xx, Manila