7/22/2019 People v Capuno

1/1

People V. Capuno

640 scra 233

Facts:

In its April 3, 2006 decision, the RTC o !an "atteo Ri#al ound appellant $rlinda

Capuno %uilt& 'e&ond resona'le dou('t o ille%al sale o sha'u under !ec ), Art. 2

o RA *+6) otherise -non as dan%erous dru%s act o 200+. The trial courts

decision as air/ed '& the CA 'ut /odiied the penalt& i/posed.

pon appeal, Capuno clai/ed that the loer court erred in con(ictin% her o the

cri/e char%ed despite the prosecutions ailure to pro(e her %uilt 'e&ond

reasona'le dou't, contendin% that P1+ Antonio and P1I iras conlictin% clai/.

Issue:

hether or not appellants %uilt as pro(ed 'e&ond reasona'le dou't.

eld:

5o. The !C, ater due consideration, resol(ed to acuit the appellant or the

prosecutions ailure to pro(e her %uilt 'e&ond reasona'le dou't.

In considerin% a cri/inal case, it is critical to start ith the las on startin%

perspecti(e on the status o the accuesed in all cri/inial prosecution hich is he is

presu/ed innocent o the char%es laid a%ainst hi/ unless the contrar& is pro(en

'e&ond reasona'le dou't. The 'urden lies on the prosecution to o(erco/e such

presu/ption o innocence '& presentin% the uantu/ o e(idence reuired. In doin%

so, the prosecution /ust rest on its on /erits and not rel& on the ea-ness o the

deense. And i the prosecution ails to /eet the reuired a/ount o e(idence, the

deense /a& lo%icall& not e(en present e(idence on its 'ehal. Ion hich case, the

presu/ption pre(ails and the accused should necessaril& 'e acuitted.