PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARLON ORTILLAS y GAMLANGA G.R. No. 137666, May 20, 2004 FACTS:
An Information was filed against Marlon Ortillas, with the Makati Regional Trial Trial Court Court,, and and assig assigned ned by raffle raffle to Bran Branh h !"" !"" #$as #$as %i&as %i&as', ', then then (resided over by )udge *lorentino M. Alumbres, of the rime of Murder. +es(ite the fat that it is stated in the title of the Information Information that a((ellant was a minor, detained at the Munii(al )ail, $as %i&as, Metro Manila, %resi %residin ding g )udge )udge Alumbre lumbres s failed failed to ase aserta rtain in and and verif verify y the the alleg alleged ed minority of a((ellant and determine if the (rovisions of %.+. o. -/, otherwise known as The Child and 0outh 1elfare Code should be a((lied to Ortillas. After arraignment of a((ellant a((ellant who (leaded (leaded not guilty to the offense offense with whih whih he is har harge ged, d, the the trial trial ourt ourt dis(en dis(ense sed d with with the the (re2tr (re2trial ial and and (roeeded to trial on the merits. The (roseution (resented Russel 3uiraldo, an alleged eyewitness. After this, series of (ost(onements (ost(onements ha((ened. ha((ened. The only other hearing that took (lae after the testimony of Russel on )une 4, 566", was on 7e(tember ", 566" 566" when when BI Medio2 Medio2$eg $egal al Offier Offier Roberto Roberto 3aria testifie testified d for the (roseution. Russel was never ross2e8amined. On the basis of the testimonies of Russel and +r. 3aria, )udge Alumbres finds the aused Marlon Ortillas y 3amlanga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the harge against him in the information #%enalty9 R%, indemnify the heirs of the vitim )ose Mes:ueriola in the sum of %5,.; and to (ay the osts'
#5' 1hether the trial ourt erred in not ommitting the aused2a((ellant to the are of the +e(artment of 7oial 1elfare whih shall be res(onsible for his a((earane in ourt whenever re:uired. #!' 1hether the trial ourt erred in giving weight and redene to the testimony of (roseution witness #3uiraldo' and in disregarding the testimony of aused2 a((elant. RATIO:
#5' 0es. The %residing )udge should be santioned for his negligene in the (erformane of his duties with res(et to aused minor 2 but these (artiular omissions are not suffiient grounds to merit the reversal of the assailed deision. #!' 0es. It is dotrinal that the Court will not interfere with the =udgment of the trial ourt in (assing u(on the redibility of witnesses, unless there a((ears in the reord some fat or irumstane of weight and influene whih has been overlooked or the signifiane of whih has been misa((rehended or misinter(reted. The trial ourt>s assessment of Russel>s testimony is not only (erfuntorily done but its deision is also (artly based on the evidene (resented by the defense, in stark violation of the well2settled rule that the onvition of a((ellant must not at on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the (roseution. 7ettled is the rule that onvition should rest on the strength of evidene of the (roseution and not on the weakness of the defense. The weakness of the defense does not relieve it of this res(onsibility. And when the (roseution fails to disharge its burden of establishing the guilt of an aused, an aused need not even offer evidene in his behalf. A =udgment of onvition must rest on nothing less than moral ertainty . It is thus re:uired that every irumstane favoring his innoene must be duly taken into aount. The (roof against him must survive the test of reason and the strongest sus(iion must not be (ermitted to sway =udgment. There must be moral ertainty in an un(re=udied mind that it was aused2a((ellant who ommitted the rime. Absent this re:uired :uantum of evidene would mean e8oneration for aused2a((ellant. 1