Peoople vs Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215

Facts: Accused-appellants Leoniza Villagonzalo and Renito Moro were accused for committing a crime of murder and was sentenced guilty by the court. Both were allegedly conspirators in killing Ricardo Tan, the common-law spouse of Villagonzalo and they conspired with other respondents Dela Cruz and Asentista who were not apprehended by the police. Dela Cruz and Asentista were allegedly hired by both Moro and Villagonzalo to kill Tan as evidenced by the testimony of Tito Alquizar and Prescilla Villarin who also work for Tan. Villarin is the helper and Alquizar is both the helper and farmhand of Tan. According to Alquizar and Villarin, they were present when the four accused were contemplating a plan on how to kill Tan. They alleged to be present from the time Moro and Villagonzalo offered Dela Cruz and Asentista money to kill Tan and also during the time Moro provided a gun to both men before the victim was shot. They alleged that Moro and Villagonzalo are having an affair and want to kill Tan so they can live together. The court rendered a judgment of guilty for murder to Villagonzalo and Moro. The appellants now pray for the reversal of the judgment contending that the lower court erred in believing prosecution witnesses Alquizar and Villarin whose testimony are patently false and contrary to human experience and assailed the credibility of the witnesses whose testimonies were relied upon by the court in giving judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not the witnesses Alquizar and Villarin credible witnesses? HELD: The court ruled that it cannot give credence to the testimonies given by both witnesses as it invoke the principle that evidence must not

only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but also must be one that is credible in itself. The measure of value and weight of a witness testimony is based on the conformity to the knowledge of common experience of mankind. The court finds it unbelievable that both witnesses were present when they allegedly heard the plot to kill the victim and the court finds it an incredible possibility that all events leading to the killing of the victim were made known to them without any apparent reason. It was apparent to the court that the testimonies given by the witnesses were fabricated or rehearsed. Thus, their testimonies were no longer their own personal experience which forfeits the probative value of their testimony as they no longer speak based on their experience and memory and the court finds it just to maintain the presumption of innocence of the accused. The court ruled that in the criminal justice system the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of an accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If the court is able to entertain a reasonable doubt, then it does not fulfill the test of moral certainty required to support a conviction. The accused were acquitted.

Corpus vs People, 194 SCRA 73

Facts: Generoso Corpuz is the Supervising Accounting Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya. He was designated Acting Supervising Cashier in the said office. In this capacity, he received collections, disbursed funds and made bank deposits and withdrawals pertaining to government accounts. On April 13, 1981 his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated and a transfer of accountabilities was effected between him and his successor. The Certificate of turnover revealed a shortage of P72, 823.00. He was able to pay only P10, 159.50. After a final demand letter for the total of

P50, 596.07 which was not met, a case of malversation was filed against him. Corpuz did not deny such facts but he insists that the shortage was malversed by other persons. He alleged that Paymaster Diosdado Pineda through 1 of 4 separate checks (PNB) issued and encashed such checks while he was of leave. Also, Acting Deputy Provincial Treasurer Bernardo Aluning made made him post the amount on his cashbook although he had not received the said amount. He was convicted in Sandiganbayan. ISSUE: WON Corpus is guilty of malversation. HELD: YES, this conclusion is bolstered by the Solicitor General's observation that: Moreover, petitioner's denial of responsibility for the missing P50,000.00 is negated by the following factors: First. When he entered the said amount in his cash book in March, 1981, he did not make any notation that said amount, though entered, was not actually received. Second. At the time he signed the certificate of turn-over (Exhibit C), he did not make any certification that the amount of P50,000.00 should not be charged against him. Third. Despite his insistence that Pineda and Martinez misappropriated the money, he did not file any case, whether civil, criminal or otherwise, against either or both. The absence of a post-audit is not, as the petitioner contends, a fatal omission. That is not a preliminary requirement to the filing of an information for malversation as long as the prima facie guilt of the suspect has already been established. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. 8 And what determines whether the crime of malversation has been committed is the presence of the following requirements under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code:

(a) That the offender be a public officer. (b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. (c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable. (d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. The petitioner's claim that he is the victim of a "sinister design" to hold him responsible for a crime he has not committed is less than convincing. His attempt to throw the blame on others for his failure to account for the missing money only shows it is he who is looking for a scapegoat. The plaintive protest that he is "a small fry" victimized by the "untouchables" during the Marcos regime is a mere emotional appeal that does not impress at all. The suggestion that the supposed injustice on the petitioner would be abetted by this Court unless his conviction is reversed must be rejected as an warrant presumptuousness. The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. There is no such equipoise here. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50, 310.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. His conviction must be affirmed.