GR No. 123456 | Date: January 15, 2023 | Title: People of the Philippines v. Juan Dela Cruz*

FACTS:
1. Juan Dela Cruz was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
2. During trial, the prosecution presented a single eyewitness, Maria Santos, who testified she saw Dela Cruz stab the victim during a robbery.
3. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Dela Cruz was in a different city at the time of the crime.
4. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Cruz, giving full credence to the eyewitness testimony and rejecting the alibi.
5. On appeal, Dela Cruz argued that his conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness, which was insufficient for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the conviction of the accused for Robbery with Homicide based solely on the positive identification by a single eyewitness, without corroborating evidence, meets the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

*
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction.
1. While the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, can be sufficient for conviction, the evidence must still engender moral certainty and overcome the presumption of innocence.
2. In this case, the eyewitness testimony was found to be inconsistent on material points regarding the perpetrator’s identifying features and the sequence of events.
3. The defense’s alibi was weak, but the weakness of the defense does not strengthen the prosecution’s case. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution.
4. Given the inconsistencies and the lack of any corroborative evidence, the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The guilt of the accused was not established to a moral certainty.
5. Juan Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.

AI Generated.