Proving the identity of the suspect is just as important as proving the crime

Dear PAO,

A sought advice from the Hall of Justice regarding the alleged murder of his live-in partner, B, who was murdered several months ago. He was severely beaten. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any witnesses. But A believes that the three owners of a particular shop are the culprits because it was located where B was last seen. B’s body was also found near that store. B is short and thin compared to the shop owners’ three well-built bodies. Thus, A claims that, in terms of strength, B had no chance to defend himself. However, the said owners denied having anything to do with B’s death and claimed that they were home at the time of the alleged incident. A wanted to file a case, but after consulting with several people from the Court of Justice he was told that he could not pursue a case against the owners because there is no evidence about the identity of the perpetrator(s). Is that correct?

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

Murder is considered a heinous crime. Regardless of the reason, no one has the legal right to take another person’s life. So anyone who is clearly and convincingly shown to have committed the crime of murder will be severely punished under our laws. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines states:

“Art. 248. Murder. – Any person who, not subject to the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished with temporary withdrawal for the maximum period until death, if committed with one of the following: accompanying circumstances:

“1. By treachery, abusing superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or using means to weaken the defenses or of means or persons to secure or afford impunity.

“2. In return for a prize, reward or promise.

“3. By flood, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a ship, derailment or attack on a tram or locomotive, fall from an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or by the use of any other means with great waste and ruins as a result.

“4. On the occasion of any of the emergencies listed in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public emergency.

5. With clear premeditation.

“6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly increasing the suffering of the victim, or outrage or ridicule his person or corpse.”

But proving who committed the crime can be extremely difficult, especially if there are no eyewitnesses. It must be emphasized that criminal prosecutions under our laws require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, proving that a crime has been committed is not the same as proving who committed it. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, and independently of that, there must also be proof beyond a reasonable doubt who the perpetrator of the crime is. Merely proving that a crime has been committed is worthless if it cannot be convincingly established that the suspect of the crime is the one who committed the crime. As explained by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Jun Villegas et al. (GR 247002. April 12, 2023):

“It is deeply ingrained in this jurisdiction that the successful prosecution of a criminal action depends largely on proof of two things: first, the identification of the perpetrator of the crime, and second, his or her actual commission of it. Ample proof that a crime has been committed is of no use if the prosecutor cannot convincingly prove the identity of the perpetrator. The constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by a suspect is not destroyed by an identification that is full of uncertainties. (Emphasis added)

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that A may not successfully prosecute a murder case against the three owners of the store. Assuming he is able to file a complaint and information is subsequently filed with the court, this may not successfully lead to the conviction of the said owners if there is lack of evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt , to prove that they are the ones who committed the murder. B, even if it can be proven that B was last seen going to the store and that he died near the said place. We must remember that simply owning the store does not equate to involvement in B’s death. There must still be concrete evidence of their participation in the actions that led to B’s death. While we empathize with A and are hopeful that he will find justice for B’s untimely death, it is our duty to emphasize the need to present sufficient evidence. required by our law, especially when a person’s life and liberty are at stake.

We hope we have been able to answer your questions. This advice is based solely on the facts you have stated and our appreciation for them. Our opinion may vary as other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column from the Public Prosecution Service. You can send questions for chef Acosta to (email protected)