People vs. Juan Dela Cruz, Jr. Criminal Case No.

123

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Makati City Branch 12

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. 123

FOR: MURDER

JUAN DELA CRUZ, JR,

Accused,

x—————————————————————————————————————x

DECISION

At bar is the above-captioned criminal case charging Juan Dela Cruz, Jr.
of the Article 248 (6) of the Revised Penal Code or the crime of murder. A brief
statement of the factual and procedural antecedents of the case is, thus, in
order.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS

On June 20, 2020 at three o’clock in the morning, Juan Dela Cruz, Sr., a
father of the accused, was found dead by the accused in their residence at San
Isidro, Makati City with a four-inch stab on his chest by a switchblade knife.

Prior to the incident, the accused admitted going out of their house at
eight o’clock on the night of June 19, 2020 after being hit several times by the
victim. The former went directly to a neighborhood junk shop where he bought
a switchblade knife which was identified by the storekeeper who sold it to him.

At about 8:45 in that evening, the accused ran to his friends and talked
with them for about an hour where his friends saw the switchblade knife. The
friends identified the knife in court.

The accused further claims that he bought the knife as a gift to one of
his friends which he was supposed to hand to the latter on the next day. The
People vs. Juan Dela Cruz, Jr. Criminal Case No. 123

accused also narrated that he broke his friend’s knife that’s why he was
supposed to replace it. This fact was affirmed by the latter in his testimony.

The accused went back to their residence at about ten o’clock that
evening and claimed to have stayed home until 11:30 and then went to one of
those all-night movies.

On the way to the movies, the accused claims that the weapon fell out of
his pocket some time between 11:30 in the evening of June 19 and 3:15 in the
morning of June 20.

However, there was no witness in the itinerary of the accused including

the personnel in the theater. He also failed to identify the names of the pictures
he saw in the movie.

At 3:15 in the morning of January 20, 2020, the accused went home
where he found the body of his father.

According to a witness who is an old man residing on the first level of the
accused’s residence, during an argument of the former with his father, he
heard the accused yell out, “I’m going to kill you.” After a split second, the
witness heard a body hit the floor and consequently saw the accused run out of
the house fifteen seconds later. The witness identified the voice he heard
during the trial through a blindfolded test.

Another witness, a woman living across the accused’s residence, testified

in court that she saw the accused stab his father, Juan Dela Cruz, Sr., through
the windows of a moving elevated train that had six cars. She further narrated
in details that she saw the stabbing through the windows of the last two cars.

ISSUE

The issue pending to be resolved before this court is whether Juan Dela
Cruz, Jr. is guilty of murder under Article 248 (6) of the Revised Penal Code for
killing Juan Dela Cruz., Sr.

RULING

This Court finds the evidence of the prosecution insufficient to establish

the accused’s criminal liability for murder. Further, this Court rules that the
accused is entitled to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

The Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines a person guilty of the
crime of Murder as follows:

“Any person who shall kill another, shall be guilty

People vs. Juan Dela Cruz, Jr. Criminal Case No. 123

of murder and shall be punished by reclusion

temporal in its maximum period to death.”

The specific circumstance cited before this Court is the paragraph six (6)
of the above-mentioned provision which reads:

“With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly

augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse”

As much as the element of motive was established through the narration

of facts and admission of the accused in the incident, the above-stated facts
are believed to have been failed to convince this court and prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the crime of murder.

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifies the

requisite quantum of evidence in criminal cases:

Section 2. 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.

The requirement for a proof beyond reasonable doubt finds not only in
the due process clause1 of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an
accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” The task of the
prosecution in establishing the guilt of an accused must rely on the strength of
the pieces of evidence presented int he case and not on the weakness of the
defense of the accused.2

In People v Ganguso, the Court ruled that, “An accused has in his favor
the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable
doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution
which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond

1CONST, (1987), art. III, sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws
2 CONST, (1987), art. III, sec. 14 (2): In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
People vs. Juan Dela Cruz, Jr. Criminal Case No. 123

reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he
is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges
that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he
would be entitled to an acquittal.”

In the case at bar, this Court specifically would like to draw attention in
the insufficiency and possible inaccuracy of the following facts:

First, the second witness, the woman who lives across the street may
have only seen a glimpse of a man who stabbed the victim. It is possible that
the man who committed the crime is not the accuse.

Second, it is physically improbable for the old man who may have been
walked from his bedroom to the front door within fifteen seconds to witness the
accused running out of the house. Moreover, the contention that there is an
assurance of the motive by the accused through yelling out “I will kill you” is
an insufficient claim. It can be a mere expression which is usual in intense and
emotional conversations considering the culture of the accused’s upbringing
and his relationship with the victim.

Third, the identification of the switchblade cannot be a sufficient

evidence to point out that it was the same weapon bought and lost by the
accused. It turns out, such weapon can be easily procured in the
neighborhood.

Fourth, the failure of the accused to identify the characters in the movie
house is a shallow basis to speculate otherwise. Considering the emotional
distress the accused had been going through at that time, it is probable for him
to have difficulty in remembering accurate details of the movie.

It is established that as much as this court gives ample credit to the

presented pieces of evidence together with the established motive of the
accused, none of which would satisfy the requisite quantum of evidence in
criminal cases.

It would have been a careless decision for this Court to rule otherwise.
With the given background of the case, the accused may have been only a
victim of his circumstances. The power of this Court should not be used to
deprive an eighteen year old boy of a future waiting to be unfold before him
because of vague claims and inaccurate testimonies.

The determination of the guilt of an accused hinges on how a court

appreciates evidentiary matters in relation to the requisites of an offense.
Determination of guilt is, thus, a fundamentally factual issue.3

3 Malana v People of the Philippines G.R. No. 175842

People vs. Juan Dela Cruz, Jr. Criminal Case No. 123

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused JUAN DELA CRUZ., JR.

ACQUITTED of the crime of murder on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Unless detained for some other lawful reasons, accused is hereby released
immediately.

SO ORDERED.