March 8, 2017

G.R. No. 205745

CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, and BREGIDO MALA CAT,

JR., Petitioners
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Same; Same; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Conviction in

criminal actions demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.—Conviction in
criminal actions demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 133,
Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states: 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 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. While not impelling such a degree of proof as to
establish absolutely impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in
criminal cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately
appeals to a person’s very conscience. While indeed imbued with a sense
of altruism, this imperative is borne, not by a mere abstraction, but by
constitutional necessity.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Pride, when unchecked, can waste our youth and cause the forfeiture of all
meaning in life, even in the most inconsequential things: in this case, a
basketball game.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must
rise on its own merits, not merely on relative strength as against that of the
defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must
follow as a matter of course.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45,2 praying
that the assailed May 31, 2012 Decision3 and January 14, 2013
Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 27951 be reversed
and set aside, and that petitioners be acquitted of the offense of which they
are charged.

The Court of Appeals' assailed Decision affirmed the April 24, 2003
Decision5 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 37,
which found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated
murder. The Court of Appeals' assailed January 14, 2013 Resolution
denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

In an Information, petitioners Capistrano Daayata (Daayata), Dexter Salisi

(Salisi), and Bregido Malacat, Jr. (Malacat) were charged with frustrated
murder, as follows:

That on December 17, 1995, at about 6:00 [o]'clock in the morning at Zone
3, San Simon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with evident
premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strength, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to kill, attack,
assault[,] box and struck one Rolando 0. Bahian with a stone and hitting the
latter's head and several parts of his body, thereby inflicting injuries[,] to wit:
"Depressed Fracture, Open frontal bone, left, and advised for surgery,["]
thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of
Murder, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of some cause
independent of the will of the accused, that is, by the timely and able
medical attendance rendered to the said offended party which prevented
his death.6

Upon arraignment, all three accused, now petitioners, pleaded not

guilty.7 Trial then ensued.8

Five (5) witnesses testified for the prosecution: the offended party, Rolando
Bahian (Bahian); Kagawad Leonardo Abalde (Kagawad Abalde) of
Barangay San Simon, Cagayan de Oro City; Barangay Captain Reynaldo
Yafiez (Barangay Captain Yafiez); Dr. Percy H. Arreza (Dr. Arreza) of the
Cagayan de Oro City Hospital; and Dr. John Mata (Dr. Mata), the surgeon
who tended to Bahian.9
According to the prosecution, on December 16, 1995, at about 6:00 p.m.,
Bahian went to the house of Kagawad Abalde.10 Bahian recounted to
Kagawad Abalde a violent altercation between him and the petitioners in
the course of a basketball game earlier that afternoon.11 Bahian claimed
that Salisi had committed a foul against him, making him fall to the
ground.12 He complained to the referee and this infuriated Salisi. In
response, he threatened Salisi, telling him that "he would just get even with
him."13 Malacat heard his threat and positioned himself to punch Bahian.
Bahian, however, dodged the blow.14 Daayata then came, pointing a gun at
Bahian.15 Bahian then backed off and pleaded that they should not fight as
they were friends.16

Kagawad Abalde advised Bahian to bring the matter to the attention of

Barangay Captain Y afiez.17

Accordingly, the following morning, Bahian and Kagawad Abalde made

their way to Barangay Captain Yafiez' house.18 While on their way, they
were blocked by petitioners.19 Daayata hit Bahian on the left part of his
chest.20 Bahian staggered and fell onto a parked jeep.21 Salisi then hit
Bahian with a stone on the left side of his forehead, causing Bahian to fall
to the ground.22 While Bahian was lying prostrate on the ground, petitioners
boxed and kicked Bahian.23 Kagawad Abalde tried his best to get Bahian
away but to no avail.24 All he could do was to shout for help.25 Daayata then
poked a gun at Bahian, Malacat unsheathed a bolo, and Salisi wielded an
iron bar.26

Barangay Captain Yafiez rushed to the scene.27 There, Bahian lay on the

ground as Kagawad Abalde tried to ward off his attackers.28 Barangay
Captain Yafiez shouted to petitioners to stop.29 Shortly after, they
retreated.30 Barangay Captain Yafiez and Kagawad Abalde then brought
Bahian to Barangay Captain Yafiez' house, and later to Cagayan de Oro
City Hospital.31

Upon examination, Dr. Arreza made the following findings on Bahian:

"depressed fracture, open frontal bone, left."32

Bahian was noted to have possibly died, if not for the timely medical
intervention.33 Dr. Mata subsequently performed surgery on Bahian.34

The defense offered a different version of events. Apart from the three
petitioners, it offered the testimonies of Delfin Yafiez (Delfin),35 Rodolfo
Yafiez (Rodolfo), Danzon Daayata (Danzon) and Rosemarie Daayata
(Rosemarie ).36

Petitioners Salisi and Malacat claimed that they were having coffee at the
house of Vicente Daayata (Vicente), brother of petitioner Daayata, in the
morning of December 17, 1995.37 Bahian arrived, together with Kagawad
Abalde, and called for Salisi to come out.38 When Salisi acceded, Bahian
challenged him to a fight and threw the first punch that started a scuffle.39 In
the course of the melee, Bahian took a swing for Salisi, who ducked,
causing Bahian to lose his balance. Bahian then fell on the pavement and
hit his head.40 Kagawad Abalde then drew a gun, poked it at Salisi, and
threatened to kill him.41

For his part, petitioner Daayata claimed that he was in his house, some 50
meters away from Vicente's house when the incident recalled by petitioners
Salisi and Malacat transpired.42 He rushed to Vicente's house upon hearing
a commotion.43 There, he saw Bahian and Kagawad Abalde, who was
pointing a gun at Malacat.44

All three (3) petitioners claimed that it was not until an hour after the
incident that Barangay Captain Yafiez arrived.45 They also acknowledged
that an altercation did take place during a basketball game the day before,
or on December 16, 1995.46 They added however, that in the evening of
December 16, while they were on their way home, Bahian waited for them
to pass by his house, where he challenged them to a fight.47 Defense
witness Rodolfo allegedly pacified Bahian.48

In its Decision49 dated April 24, 2003, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37,
Cagayan de Oro City found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
frustrated murder. The dispositive portion of its Decision read:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Capistrano

Daayata, Dexter Salisi, and Br[e]gido Malacat, Jr., guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder committed against
Rolando Bahian, and they conspired in committing the crime, and,
accordingly, each of the said accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of nine (9) years of prision mayor medium as the minimum
term to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal medium as the maximum
term.
Moreover, all the three accused are sentenced and ordered (1) to pay
Rolando Bahian jointly and severally the sum of Fifty Seven Thousand
Pesos (₱57,000.00) by way of reimbursement for the expenses he incurred
for medicines; (2) to pay Rolando Bahian jointly and severally the sum of
Eighty Thousand Pesos (₱80,000.00) for the income that

Rolando Bahian could have earned for two (2) years as a farmer; (3) to pay
Rolando Bahian jointly and severally the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(₱30,000.00) by way of moral damages; and (4) to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.50

On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the Regional Trial Court's

conclusions. It affirmed the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court,
but replaced the award of actual damages to temperate damages
amounting to ₱25,000. The Court of Appeals also deleted the award for
loss of earning capacity, there being no proof in support of it. It also
awarded ₱20,000 as civil indemnity. The dispositive portion of its assailed
May 31, 2012 Decision51 read:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated April

24, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37 of Cagayan de Oro City in
Criminal Case No. 96-266 is hereby AFFIRMED as to the penalty
imposed with MODIFICATION as to the award of damages.

All three (3) accused-appellants, CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER

SALIS[I] and BREGIDO MALACAT, JR., are ordered to pay jointly and
severally Rolando Bahian the following amounts:

1. Php20,000.00 as civil indemnity;

2. Php30,000.00 as moral damages; and

3. Php25,000.00 as temperate damages.

SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis in the original)

Following the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the
present Petition,53 where they insist on their version of events. They
emphasize several factual details and maintain that they did not initiate an
assault on Bahian. They assert that Bahian sustained the injury on his
forehead through his own fault; thus, they could not be held liable for acting
with intent to kill Bahian.

On July 24, 2013, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office
of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment.54 It insisted that it was
supposedly improper for this Court to re-evaluate the factual findings of the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in the context of the present
Rule 45 Petition.55 Apart from pleading the nature of a Rule 45 Petition, the
five (5)-page Comment devoted a singular paragraph to arguing that the
positive identification of the petitioners as Bahian's supposed attackers
must prevai1.56

On May 12, 2014, petitioners filed their Reply,57 noting that respondent

failed to directly confront the factual issues they had raised.

For resolution is the sole issue of whether petitioners are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated murder.

Petitioners seek relief from this Court through a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is basic that Rule 45
petitions may only raise pure questions of law,58 and that the factual
findings of lower courts are generally binding and conclusive on this Court.
Still, there are recognized exceptions permitting this Court to overturn the
factual findings with which it is confronted. These exceptions are:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,

surmises and conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;

(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record
.59

Specifically concerning criminal cases, this Court has stated that "in
exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked
material and relevant matters ... this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the
factual findings of the [lower courts]."60

A careful review of this case and of the body of evidence that was available
for the Regional Trial Court's perusal reveals that there has been a gross
misapprehension of facts on the part of the Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals. Thus, we reverse and acquit petitioners Capistrano
Daayata, Dexter Salisi, and Bregido Malacat, Jr.

II

The defense points out several facts, which lend greater plausibility to its
claim that the possibly fatal injury sustained by Bahian on his forehead was
not inflicted by any of the petitioners, and that petitioners did not initiate an
assault against Bahian. Negating the fact of the alleged perpetrators'
assault and infliction of a potentially fatal injury negates the corpus delicti of
the offense charged.

First, it appears that the location where the altercation occurred between
Bahian and Kagawad Abalde, on the one hand, and petitioners, on the
other, is not as plain and austere as the prosecution made it seem. The
prosecution merely claimed that Bahian and Kagawad Abalde were on their
way to Barangay Captain Yafiez's house when they were suddenly blocked
and assaulted by petitioners.61 However, it was actually settled during trial -
consistent with the defense's contention - that the confrontation took place
in the vicinity of the house of vicente.62
This detail does not intrinsically weigh in favor of either the prosecution or
the defense. For indeed, it may simply have been necessary to pass by
Vicente's house en route to Barangay Captain Yafiez's house and,
consistent with what the prosecution claimed, that it may have merely been
the spot where Bahian's attackers chose to launch their assault. But while
specificity of location may ultimately be inconsequential to the prosecution's
case, it is the genesis of the defense's case. As the defense asserts, the
altercation was precipitated by Bahian and Kagawad Abalde's arrival
outside Vicente's residence, where Bahian then called out and challenged
Salisi.63

Second, while the prosecution painted a picture of a relentless assault that

lasted for as much as 30 minutes64 - with petitioners supposedly not
content with Bahian falling onto a parked jeep, but even attacking him until
he lay on the pavement, and thereafter still continuing to punch and kick
him65

- Bahian's "medical certificate showed no injury other than that on [his]

forehead."66

"Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more

eloquently than a hundred witnesses."67 They have been characterized as
"that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."68 Thus, in People v. Vasquez,69 this
Court refused to undiscemingly lend credence to the incriminating
assertions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged mauling, and stated
that "[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of
perpetrati on of physical violence in the absence of any marked physical
injuries on the various parts of the victim's face and body."70

As the defense correctly points out, if the prosecution's assertion of a

relentless assault were true, the greater probability was that Bahian must
have been "black and blue all over."71 Quite contrary to the sort of physical
evidence that a purported relentless and prolonged assault should have
reasonably yielded, however, there was but one injury that Bahian was
noted to have sustained.

Third, Bahian himself was noted to have admitted that his head injury was
"caused by [him] hitting the edge of the concrete pavement." As the
following excerpt from Bahian's cross-examination reveals:72
Q - And on February of 1995, your forehead was operated on by a certain
Dr. John Mata, is that correct?

A- Yes.

Q - And you told Dr. Mata that the wound on your forehead was caused by
you hitting the edge of the concrete pavement, is that correct?

A - Yes, I told him a lie so that I could be treated.

Q - But nobody in the German Doctors told you that you would not be
operated if that was caused by a stone or in a fight?

A- He asked me the reason why I got this injury?

Q-And then?

A - Then I told him the reason how I got this injury.

Q - That you hit the edge of the concrete pavement?

A- Yes.

Q-And that was the first time you talked to him before the operation?

A- Yes.

Q - The first time you talked to him, you lied to him?

A - Yes, I told a lie because I wanted to be operated.73 (Citations omitted)

As the Court of Appeals has pointed out, it is true that the prosecution has
sought to extenuate the weight of Bahian's admission by having him
explain that he only lied to Dr. Mata because otherwise, "he would not have
been admitted to the hospital and his injury would have not been operated
on."74 However, even this extenuating explanation does not completely
diminish the significance of his admission.

As the same excerpt from Bahian's cross-examination indicated, nobody

intimated to Bahian that he would not have been operated on if his injury
arose from a violent altercation. Confronted with this detail, Bahian never
offered a direct response, and instead appeared to have evaded the
question. He merely reiterated that, "Yes, I told a lie because I wanted to be
operated."75 Thus, the defense's revelation that Bahian's alleged lie was not
predicated on a rational basis stands unrefuted.

Moreover, in the present Petition, the defense points out the curious
parallelism between, on the one hand, the admission or otherwise lie made
by Bahian to Dr. Mata, and on the other hand, the defense's main
contention that Bahian sustained a head injury through his own fault:

There is no showing that petitioners knew that complainant told his doctor
that he hit his head on the edge of the concrete pavement. They came to
know of it only when they heard him admit it on cross-examination. And yet,
that's exactly what they have always been asserting right from the very
start, even during the preliminary investigation, or long before they heard
him say it on the witness stand.

It is too much of a coincidence that petitioners and the complainant should

say exactly the same thing, that he hit his head on the edge of the concrete
pavement - unless it is true.76

Finally, several witnesses - both from the defense and the prosecution -
have belied the prosecution's claim that petitioners Daayata, Malacat, and
Salisi wielded a gun, a bolo and an iron bar, respectively.

The most compromising of these witnesses is the prosecution's own,

Barangay Captain Yañez. He categorically stated that he was well in a
position to "see or identify if they were armed."77 Ultimately, however, his
observation was to the contrary:

Q - They were armed or not?

A- Who?

Q - The three of them?

A - I could see or identify if they were armed.

Q - Nobody brought a bolo?

A - When I arrived there, I did not see anybody holding a bolo.

Q - Nobody brought a steel pipe?

A - I have not seen.

Q - You did not see anybody holding a gun?

Q - No.78 (Citation omitted)

Danzon, a defense witness whom the prosecution never bothered to cross-

examine, stated:

Q - Tell us what was that unusual incident all about?

A - What I could say is that: I heard noise outside and because I was
watching them, I saw Kag. Abalde holding a gun pointing upward and I saw
Rolando Bahian already wounded on his face.79 (Citation omitted)

Two (2) other defense witnesses - Rosemarie and Delfin -were noted to
have made the same observations.80

III

Conviction in criminal actions demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:

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 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.

While not impelling such a degree of proof as to establish absolutely

impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal cases
nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately appeals to a
person's very conscience. While indeed imbued with a sense of altruism,
this imperative is borne, not by a mere abstraction, but by constitutional
necessity:
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an
accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on
the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the
Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution."
Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained in Basilio v.
People of the Philippines:

We ruled in People v. Ganguso:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of
Rights guarantees.1âwphi1 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 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. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course,
mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produce
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must
be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the

accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength
of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence.81 (Citations
omitted)

The details pointed out by the defense reveal how the prosecution failed to
establish the moral certainty and conscientious satisfaction that attends
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While not per se demonstrating the
veracity and blamelessness of the defense's entire version of events, they
nevertheless disclose how the prosecution's case is unable to stand on its
own merits.
They cast doubt on whether the complainant and his companion were
actually stopped in their tracks to be assaulted, and support the possibility
that they may have instead deliberately intended to bring themselves to
Vicente's house to provoke or challenge one (1) of the petitioners.

They also cast doubt on whether the complainant was relentlessly

assaulted, with the specific purpose of ending his life; whether the
ostensible fatal blow was dealt to complainant by one (1) of the petitioners
or was dealt upon him by his own violent imprudence; and whether
petitioners had actually brandished implements for maiming and killing.

Not only do these doubts persist, details disclosed by the prosecution itself
- taken together with how the defense accounted for the events of
December 16 and 17, 1995 - demonstrate the dubiety of the prosecution's
claims.

As Bahian himself recalled to Kagawad Abalde, it was he who threatened

Salisi that "he would just get even with him."82 By his own recollection too,
he acknowledged that it was only upon his utterance of that threat that
Malacat and Daayata responded with correlative aggression. He conceded
having been put in a situation where he had to back off. By his own
recollection, the clash between him and petitioners could have ended there,
yet it did not. It appears that, rather than letting the better part of reason
and modesty prevail, Bahian elected to make good on his threat to
eventually just get even with his adversaries. Along the way, it even
appears that he enlisted the aid of Kagawad Abalde, whose participation in
the clash in the morning of December 17, 1995, as the defense recounted,
was not as a pacifier but also as an aggressor. Unfortunately for Bahian, it
appears that his own hubris and lack of fighting prowess not only prolonged
his quarrel, but even brought him potentially fatal physical harm.

Taking off from the events in the basketball game of December 16, 1995,
the prosecution unravelled a narrative of petitioners' supposed
vindictiveness. Yet the contrary is apparent. The confluence of Bahian's
admissions of a prior altercation, his self-issued threat, how he was
constrained to desist, and his own account to Dr. Mata of how he sustained
his injury, as well as the glaring dissonance noted by the defense and
backed by physical evidence, demonstrate how the prosecution has fallen
far too short of discharging its burden of proving petitioners' guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 27951 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioners Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, and Bregido
Malacat, Jr. are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any amount they each paid by way of
a bail bond is ordered RETURNED.

SO ORDERED.