Presumption of innocence

"The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence, failing which, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted.97 This, despite the fact that his innocence may be doubted, for a 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, as in this case. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.98

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."

G.R. No. 188694               February 12, 2014

RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO, Petitioners,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_188694_2014.html

Circumstantial evidence

"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.77 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 accused’s guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.78"

G.R. No. 188694               February 12, 2014

RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO, Petitioners,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_188694_2014.html

Falsification

"Also, it bears mentioning that the RTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of Criminal Case No. 01-197426 (i.e., the falsification case) since Falsification of Public Document under Article 172(1)90 of the RPC, which is punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years91) and a fine of not more than ₱5,000.00, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2)92 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,93 otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980," as amended by RA 7691.94 While petitioners raised this jurisdictional defect95 for the first time in the present petition, they are not precluded from questioning the same. Indeed, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.96"


G.R. No. 188694               February 12, 2014
RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_188694_2014.html

How Rodrigo Duterte Weakened the Philippine Justice System and the Rule of Law (according to ChatGPT AI app)

"During his presidency from 2016 to 2022, Rodrigo Roa Duterte implemented policies that many argue undermined the Philippine justice system and the rule of law. His administration's approach, particularly the aggressive "war on drugs," led to widespread human rights concerns and had profound impacts on the nation's economy and societal values.

Erosion of the Rule of Law

Duterte's anti-drug campaign resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings, raising alarms about the circumvention of due process. Human Rights Watch reported that between July 2016 and January 2017 alone, over 7,000 drug-related killings occurred, many attributed to police operations or vigilante actions. (Human Rights Watch) This blatant disregard for legal procedures weakened public trust in law enforcement institutions.

Furthermore, Duterte's threats to establish a "revolutionary government" to suppress opposition highlighted his readiness to bypass constitutional frameworks. In October 2017, he warned of declaring such a government to quell dissent, drawing criticism for potentially violating democratic principles. (Wikipedia)

Impact on the Philippine Economy

The administration's focus on the drug war overshadowed critical economic issues. While Duterte initiated infrastructure projects under the "Build, Build, Build" program, the aggressive anti-drug stance and associated human rights concerns led to hesitancy among foreign investors. The Diplomat noted that the Philippines began running significant fiscal deficits, exceeding 3% of GDP even before the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. (The Diplomat)

Shift in Societal Values

Duterte's rhetoric and policies contributed to a culture of impunity and normalized violence as a means of addressing societal issues. This shift challenged traditional Filipino values of compassion and respect for human rights. The climate of fear and lawlessness was evident during his tenure, as Amnesty International highlighted the administration's role in widespread human rights violations and the intimidation of critics. (Amnesty International)

Conclusion

Rodrigo Duterte's presidency marked a tumultuous period for the Philippines, characterized by policies that many contend undermined the justice system and eroded the rule of law. The repercussions of his administration's actions continue to influence the nation's legal institutions, economic stability, and societal values."

ChatGPT AI app