SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124036. October 23, 2001.]

FIDELINO GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE

PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC, GUMACA, QUEZON, BRANCH 62,
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Free Legal Assistance Group and Moncupa Diokno & Delos Reyes for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner Fidelino Garcia and his co-accused Leopoldo Garcia and Wilfredo Garcia were
found guilty of homicide. The accused filed their respective notices of appeal to the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court, in a resolution, ordered Wilfredo Garcia's appeal deemed
abandoned and ordered dismissed for failure to furnish the Court with his forwarding
address. The resolution dismissing Wilfredo's appeal became final and executory. The Court
of Appeals resolved only the appeals interposed by Leopoldo and Fidelino Garcia. The
appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision finding the three accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of homicide. The present petition is the separate appeal of petitioner
Fidelino Garcia. Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction
as a co-conspirator despite the fact that conspiracy was never alleged in the information nor
proven at the trial.

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and
acquitted petitioner. The Court ruled that petitioner Fidelino Garcia cannot be convicted as
a conspirator in the killing of Paulino Rodolfo, for the simple reason that the information
against the accused contained no clear and definite allegation of conspiracy. According to
the Court, conspiracy must be alleged and not merely inferred in the information and the
absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning
any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one
accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED; RIGHT TO BE

INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM; WHEN IS AN
INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY DEEMED SUFFICIENT. — In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The
right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him is explicit in Sec. 1(b), Rule
115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. To ensure that the due process rights of an accused
are observed, every indictment must embody the essential elements of the crime charged
with reasonable particularity as to the name of the accused, the time and place of
commission of the offense, and the circumstances thereof. One such particular circumstance
is conspiracy where two or more persons are charged in an information. Conspiracy
denotes an intentional participation in a criminal transaction, with a view to the furtherance
of a common design and purpose. It imputes criminal liability to an accused for the acts of
another or others, regardless of the nature and extent of his own participation. In a
conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular act of an accused
becomes of secondary relevance. Thus, it is essential that an accused must know from the
information whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts but also for the acts
of his co-accused as well. An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) it follows the
words of the statute creating the offense and reasonably informs the accused of the
character of the offense he is charged with conspiring to commit; or (2) following the
statute, contains a sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy;
or (3) alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the language of the
respective statutes defining them.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSPIRACY MUST BE ALLEGED, NOT MERELY INFERRED IN THE
INFORMATION. — In the present case, the appellate court held that an allegation of
conspiracy is implied in, or may be inferred from, the statement that "the said accused,
armed with a knife, a piece of wood and a broken bottle, with intent to kill, and taking
advantage of their superior strength and with treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously attack, hit with said piece of wood and stab with the said knife
and broken bottle one Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena." But we agree with appellant that here the
information does not satisfy the requirement that the conspiracy must be conveyed in
"appropriate language." The words "conspired," "confederated," or the phrase "acting in
concert" or "in conspiracy," or their synonyms or derivatives do not appear in the
indictment. The language used by the prosecution in charging the three accused contains no
reference to conspiracy. Conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the
information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet
concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy in Criminal Case No. 2307-G renders
the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-
accused. An accused must be furnished with a description of the charge against him to
enable him to make a proper defense and, later, to avail himself properly of either a
conviction or acquittal for his protection against further prosecution for the same cause. In
our view, petitioner Fidelino Garcia cannot be convicted as a conspirator in the killing of
Paulino Rodolfo, for the simple reason that the information against the accused contained
no clear and definite allegation of conspiracy.

3.ID.; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURTS; RULE NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE
AT BAR. — In general, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. The rule, however, does not apply in
the present case. For one, the judge who penned the trial court's judgment was not the same
one who heard the prosecution witnesses testify. For another, our review of the records
indicates that both the trial court and the appellate court have overlooked some material
facts and circumstances of weight which could materially affect the result of this case.
cAHDES

4.ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; NOT
ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — To conclude, there is a dearth of evidence as to the
specific role played by petitioner Fidelino Garcia in the commission of the crime charged.
Petitioner enjoys the presumption of innocence, which can only be overcome by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Mere conjectures, no matter how strong, can never substitute for
this required quantum of proof. Failing to meet the needed quantum of proof, petitioner's
conviction as principal in the killing of Paulino Rodolfo cannot be sustained.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J p:

On appeal by certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 22, 1996, in
CA-G.R. CR No. 13358. The decision affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of
Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 62 in Criminal Case No. 2307-G, finding petitioner Fidelino Garcia
with his co-accused Leopoldo Garcia and Wilfredo Garcia guilty of homicide.

In an Information dated December 13, 1983, Fidelino Garcia, Leopoldo Garcia, and Wilfredo
Garcia were charged with murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 30th day of July 1983, at Barangay II, in

Poblacion, Municipality of Mulanay, Province of Quezon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
armed with a knife, a piece of wood and a broken bottle with intent
to kill, and taking advantage of their superior strength and with
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, hit with said piece of wood and stab with the said knife and
broken bottle one Paulino Rodolfo yOlgena, thereby inflicting upon
the latter the following injuries, to wit:

"Wound lacerated mid parietal area 4cm with linear

fracture of underlying skull;

Wound lacerated 3 cm mid frontal area;

Wound lacerated T shape right frontal 1/2 cm;

Abrasion right nasolridge;

Contusion with laceration nose;

Multiple contusion chest right #3 6cm deep non-

penetrating;

Wound lacerated left temporal 1 cm;

Wound stab left arm medial aspect 1 1/2 cm."

which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law. 1

Petitioner and Wilfredo Garcia are brothers, while their co-accused in Criminal Case No.
2307-G, Leopoldo, is their first-degree cousin. 2

Earlier, a separate charge sheet docketed as Criminal Case No. 2165-G had been filed
against petitioner Fidelino Garcia, charging him with direct assault upon an agent of a
person in authority. On March 8, 1984, he was arraigned in said case and entered a plea of
not guilty. CTEaDc

In 1985, the accused in Criminal Case No. 2307-G were separately arraigned. All pleaded not
guilty to the charge. As Criminal Cases Nos. 2165-G and 2307-G arose from the same
incident, a joint trial ensued.

The facts, as established by the prosecution before the trial court and affirmed by the
appellate court, are as follows:

At around 2:30 P.M., July 30, 1983, P/Cpl. Francisco Rollera was on his way to mail a letter.
He was waiting at the crossing near the police outpost in the town proper of Mulanay,
Quezon, when he saw petitioner, Wilfredo and Leopoldo, ganging up on Paulino Rodolfo y
Olgena. 3 While Leopoldo held the victim, petitioner hit him with an empty bottle. Wilfredo
then stabbed the victim once with a stainless steel fan knife (balisong). The knife got stuck
in Paulino's body. Paulino succeeded in wrestling free from Leopoldo's grasp and pulling
out the knife from his body. He used the knife to stab petitioner in the stomach.

Rollera tried to stop the fight. He pulled out his service pistol and fired three successive
warning shots, calling upon the combatants to stop their fight, but to no avail. Still holding
Wilfredo's knife, the wounded Paulino beat a hasty retreat to the store of one Manuel
Roberto. Wilfredo pursued him. Inside the store, Paulino stabbed Wilfredo twice in the neck
and stomach. Unable to stop the affray, Rollera then asked the other people around to
summon other policemen.

Paulino went back to the street. Seeing that Wilfredo was about to hit him with a piece of
wood, Rollera stepped in and wrestled the stick away from Wilfredo. The latter, however,
managed to get hold of an empty bottle. Before Rollera could react, petitioner approached
him, holding a broken bottle. Rollera moved back and Fidelino chased him around a parked
vehicle.

At this point, two other policemen arrived and pacified the antagonists. A third responding
policeman grabbed and caught petitioner chasing Rollera around the parked vehicle.

Paulino Rodolfo subsequently died. The medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Mario A.
Cuento of the Bondoc Peninsula District Hospital at Catanauan, Quezon, revealed that the
cause of death was "cerebral hemorrhage." 4

Predictably, the defense gave a slightly different version of the incident. Wilfredo testified
that between 2:00 and 3:00 P.M. of July 30, 1983, he was on his way to the tricycle parking
space in Nanadiego St., Mulanay, Quezon, with his two co-accused following a short distance
behind him. He met P/Cpl. Rollera and Paulino, both of whom appeared to be intoxicated.
Paulino put an arm around Wilfredo's shoulder and invited him to have a drink. The latter
removed Paulino's arm and refused, explaining that he had to go to the barrio. Wilfredo was
about to leave, when Paulino suddenly collared him and poked a balisong at his throat.
Wilfredo stepped back, but Paulino nonetheless succeeded in stabbing him in the neck,
chest, and stomach. He did not know what transpired next as he lost consciousness as a
result of his wounds, regaining it only next morning when he found himself at the Quezon
Memorial Hospital where he was confined for four (4) days.
Although petitioner and he were closely following Wilfredo, Leopoldo claimed that he did
not actually see how Paulino attacked Wilfredo. What he heard were the voices of persons
heatedly arguing. When he advanced to investigate, he saw Wilfredo already wounded.
Leopoldo ran towards the municipal hall to get police assistance. On his way, he met police
officers Pobeda and Roadilla and he told them what happened. They then proceeded to the
scene of the incident where Leopoldo allegedly saw Rollera chasing a wounded Fidelino
around a parked vehicle. Pobeda and Roadilla then pacified Rollera and petitioner. Because
Leopoldo and petitioner were both wounded, the peace officers brought them to the
Catanauan Hospital. Leopoldo claimed that he never saw the victim at the scene.

On February 14, 1992, the trial court rendered its decision and disposed of the two cases as
follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, on ground of reasonable

doubt, accused Fidelino Garcia is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime
charged under Criminal Case No. 2165-G for Direct Assault Upon An
Agent of a Person in Authority.

In Criminal Case No. 2307-G, the judgment of conviction is hereby

entered. Accused FIDELINO, WILFREDO and LEOPOLDO, all
surnamed GARCIA are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of HOMICIDE, and this Court hereby sentences them, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer an imprisonment of SIX
(6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

Furthermore, all the accused are solidarily liable and are ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the late Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena, the sum of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) plus the sum of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as actual damages and to pay the
costs of this suit.

SO ORDERED. 5

The accused seasonably filed their respective notices of appeal to the appellate court. 6 The
Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated May 17, 1994 ordered Wilfredo Garcia's appeal
deemed "abandoned and ordered dismissed for failure to furnish the Court (with) his
forwarding address." 7 On September 3, 1994, the resolution dismissing Wilfredo's appeal
became final and executory. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 13358, thus resolved
only the appeals interposed by Leopoldo and Fidelino Garcia.

On February 22, 1996, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision finding them
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, thus:

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the indeterminate sentence

should be from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal as maximum, the decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED in all respects.

Costs against accused-appellants.

 SO ORDERED. 8

Although the three accused were represented by one counsel before the trial court, said
counsel filed an appellant's brief only for accused Leopoldo Garcia. Before us now is the
separate appeal of petitioner Fidelino Garcia filed by a court appointed counsel de oficio
from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). 9 In his brief, petitioner Fidelino Garcia
assigns the following as errors committed by the appellate court:

First Assigned Error

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY WHEN IT WAS NEVER ALLEGED IN
THE INFORMATION NOR PROVEN DURING TRIAL.

Second Assigned Error

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE
FACT, MANNER AND CAUSE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S DEATH.

Third Assigned Error

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING GREATER WEIGHT TO
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND FINDING NO ILL-
MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS.

Fourth Assigned Error

PETITIONER SHOULD BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT ESTABLISH HIS CULPABILITY AS A PRINCIPAL, CO-
CONSPIRATOR OR ACCOMPLICE. 10

In sum, the issues for our resolution are: (1) Whether the appellate court erred in convicting
petitioner as a conspirator in the killing of Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena; and (2) Whether or not
there was sufficient evidence to establish petitioner's guilt with moral certainty.

On the first issue, petitioner contends that an accused cannot be convicted of any offense
not alleged in the information, as he has the right to be informed of the nature of the offense
with which he is charged before he is put on trial. He points out that the Information in
Criminal Case No. 2307-G did not allege that he conspired, confederated, mutually helped,
and/or acted in concert and with consent in committing the offense charged. He submits
that an allegation of conspiracy cannot be presumed or implied in an information. In finding
him to be a conspirator in the killing of the victim, appellant claims that his rights to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to a fair trial; to due process
of law; and to equal protection of law were violated by respondent appellate court.

For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that it is not essential that
the allegation of "conspiracy" be expressly stated in the indictment. It is enough that the
narration in the Information shows that the accused acted in concert in the commission of
the crime.

On this point, we are not in agreement with the OSG.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. 11 The right of the accused to be informed of the charges
against him is explicit in Sec. 1(b) Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 12 To ensure
that the due process rights of an accused are observed, every indictment must embody the
essential elements of the crime charged with reasonable particularity as to the name of the
accused, the time and place of commission of the offense, and the circumstances thereof.
One such particular circumstance is conspiracy where two or more persons are charged in
an information. Conspiracy denotes an intentional participation in a criminal transaction,
with a view to the furtherance of a common design and purpose. It imputes criminal liability
to an accused for the acts of another or others, regardless of the nature and extent of his
own participation. In a conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular
act of an accused becomes of secondary relevance. Thus, it is essential that an accused must
know from the information whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts but
also for the acts of his co-accused as well. 13 An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if:
(1) it follows the words of the statute creating the offense and reasonably informs the
accused of the character of the offense he is charged with conspiring to commit; 14 or (2)
following the statute, contains a sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of
the conspiracy; 15 or (3) alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the
language of the respective statutes defining them. 16

In the present case, the appellate court held that an allegation of conspiracy is implied in, or
may be inferred from, the statement that "the said accused, armed with a knife, a piece of
wood and a broken bottle, with intent to kill, and taking advantage of their superior
strength and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack,
hit with said piece of wood and stab with the said knife and broken bottle one Paulino
Rodolfo y Olgena." But we agree with appellant that here the information does not satisfy
the requirement that the conspiracy must be conveyed in "appropriate language." 17 The
words "conspired," "confederated," or the phrase "acting in concert" or "in conspiracy," or
their synonyms or derivatives do not appear in the indictment. 18 The language used by the
prosecution in charging the three accused contains no reference to conspiracy. Conspiracy
must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement
in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting
conspiracy in Criminal Case No. 2307-G renders the indictment insufficient to hold one
accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. An accused must be furnished with a
description of the charge against him to enable him to make a proper defense and, later, to
avail himself properly of either a conviction or acquittal for his protection against further
prosecution for the same cause. 19 In our view, petitioner Fidelino Garcia cannot be
convicted as a conspirator in the killing of Paulino Rodolfo, for the simple reason that the
information against the accused contained no clear and definite allegation of conspiracy.

It follows that in Criminal Case No. 2307-G, petitioner can only be held responsible for an
act as could be proved to have been committed by him personally. Stated otherwise, his
criminal accountability, if any, should be determined on an individual rather than on a
collective basis. Responsibility for acts done by his co-accused could not be heaped on the
shoulders of appellant unless it be shown that he participated directly and personally in the
commission of those acts.

Thus, anent the second issue, we find merit in petitioner's argument that the prosecution's
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for homicide. There appears no proof to
show the connection between the acts he allegedly committed and the lethal injuries
sustained by the victim. Petitioner points out that the only act he allegedly did was that of
hitting the victim with an empty bottle while the latter was being held down by Leopoldo
Garcia and stabbed by Wilfredo Garcia. He submits that there is no showing whatsoever that
his blow caused any injury to the victim, much less caused his death. He stresses that the
medico-legal certificate prepared by one Dr. Mario Cuento, marked as the prosecution's
Exhibit "B" cannot even be found in the record, nor did the doctor take the witness stand to
identify it. The medical certificate in effect has no probative value.

The OSG counters that while Exhibit "B" cannot be found in the records, nonetheless, the
fact stands that the number and nature of the victim's injuries are enumerated in the
Information, which the petitioner failed to rebut or object to during the trial. Moreover,
petitioner did not object when Exhibit "B" was offered in evidence by the prosecutor before
the trial court to prove the victim's injuries causing his death.

In general, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
binding and conclusive upon this Court. 20 The rule, however, does not apply in the present
case. For one, the judge who penned the trial court's judgment was not the same one who
heard the prosecution witnesses testify. 21 For another, our review of the records indicates
that both the trial court and the appellate court have overlooked some material facts and
circumstances of weight which could materially affect the result of this case.

First, the Court of Appeals heavily relied on the testimony of prosecution eyewitness, P/Cpl.
Francisco Rollera. However, we find his testimony riddled with inconsistencies, particularly
the exact role played by petitioner in the affray leading to Paulino Rodolfo's death. On direct
examination, Cpl. Rollera averred that petitioner struck the victim with a bottle while his co-
accused were ganging up on the latter, thus:

QNow, you stated a while ago that the accused in this case ganged up
on the deceased Rodolfo Olgena. Will you please tell before
this Honorable Court how the accused ganged up on him?

AWhile Leopoldo Garcia was holding Rodolfo Olgena, Rodolfo Olgena

was hit by a bottle by Fidelino Garcia and Wilfredo Garcia
stabbed him on the lower groin with a stainless [f]an knife,
sir. (Italics supplied) 22

The cross-examination of Rollera, however, reveals a contradictory version in that

apparently, petitioner Fidelino Garcia was not the aggressor but the victim of stabbing by
the deceased Paulino Rodolfo. Thus, Cpl. Rollera testified on cross:

QAccording to you, the three were ganging up on Rodolfo Olgena

until Wilfredo Garcia stabbed him. As the three were
ganging up on Rodolfo Olgena, where were Fedelino
Garcia and Leopoldo Garcia when Rodolfo Olgena was
stabbed by Wilfredo?

ALeopoldo was holding Olgena while Fedelino was approaching

Olgena when Wilfredo stabbed Olgena, sir. When Rodolfo
Olgena was stabbed by Wilfredo, as regards Fedelino, he
was then also approaching Rodolfo Olgena and that was
the reason why he was also stabbed by Olgena. Because
when Fedelino approached Rodolfo Olgena, the latter had
 pulled the knife, so that when Olgena pulled out the knife,
he was able to stab Fedelino, sir.

ATTY. CERILLA:

Let us straighten this out. Correct me if I am wrong. This, according

to you, took place.

QRodolfo Olgena while being held by Leopoldo Garcia was stabbed

by Wilfredo Garcia, is that correct?

AYes, sir.

QThe weapon which was used by Wilfredo Garcia got stuck in that
portion of the body of Rodolfo Olgena that was hit?

AYes, sir.

QAnd Rodolfo Olgena was able to pull out that knife and while
Fedelino Garcia was approaching he stabbed the latter?

AYes, sir.

QNow, are you telling us that although Rodolfo Olgena was being
held by Leopoldo Garcia he was still able to pull the knife
from his thigh and then used it in stabbing Fedelino
Garcia?

ARodolfo Olgena was able to get loose from the hold of Leopoldo that
was why when Fedelino approached Olgena the latter who
had pulled out the knife from his body was able to stab
Fedelino, sir. (Italics supplied). 23

That petitioner Fidelino Garcia was stabbed by Paulino Rodolfo is perfectly clear to us. What
is doubtful is whether he had an active, direct and personal role in the killing of Paulino
Rodolfo. On cross-examination, it appears petitioner was still approaching the deceased
when the latter was stabbed by co-accused Wilfredo Garcia. Cpl. Rollera stated under direct
examination that Fidelino had hit Rodolfo with a bottle. But Cpl. Rollera did not say where
and when petitioner struck the victim with a bottle, or if the blow was hard or not. Further,
the prosecution's evidence does not establish any direct link between the petitioner's act
with the bottle and any injury suffered by the deceased, much less the mortal wound which
caused his death. If we are to believe Cpl. Rollera's account, petitioner was merely
approaching the victim, who was then trying to get loose from Leopoldo's hold and ward off
Wilfredo's attack. It appears unclear to us, however, whether petitioner succeeded to hit the
victim, Rodolfo, with a bottle. As it turned out, it was petitioner who was stabbed by
Rodolfo, using Wilfredo's balisong, with the result that petitioner was hospitalized.

Second, the Court of Appeals likewise heavily relied upon Exhibit "B" to establish the
injuries suffered by Paulino Rodolfo. As stated earlier, Exhibit "B" is nowhere in the records.
24 The only mention we find of it is in the transcript of stenographic notes of November 19,
1987.

FISCAL ENCOMIENDA:
 We will now be resting our case.

COURT:

Go ahead.

FISCAL ENCOMIENDA:

But before we do so, we would like to prove the existence of the

medico legal certificate although it has been admitted by
the defense counsel and likewise the fact of death. We
would like to request the same to be marked as Exhibit "B"
in both cases and the findings therein as stated as Exhibit
"B-1" and the signature of Dr. Mario Cuento as Exhibit "B-
2." We are offering, Your Honor, Exhibit "A" and "A-1" the
affidavit of Francisco Llorera [should read Rollera] as part
of his testimony. And we are likewise offering Exhibits "B",
"B-1", and "B-2" to show the fact of death and the nature of
the wounds sustained by the victim.

COURT:

Is that all? Any objection to the annexes of the exhibits?

ATTY. CERILLA:

No objection, Your Honor, except to the affidavit of the policeman.

COURT:

The Court will admit all these exhibits in evidence. 25

Notwithstanding its absence from the records, the Court of Appeals held that said Exhibit
"B" "sufficiently indicates the nature, number, location, and extent of the injuries sustained
by the victim. The cause of death stated therein is purportedly 'cerebral hemorrhage."' 26
The appellate court likewise held that "These were deemed admitted by the accused-
appellants for their failure to make a timely objection at the time the offer was made." 27
We find nothing in the record, however, to support the prosecution's sweeping statement
that the "existence of the medico-legal certificate had been admitted by defense counsel and
likewise the fact of death." In fact, per the transcript quoted above, Atty. Cerilla's response
has a reservation, "except to the affidavit of the policeman," when asked about the annexes
of the exhibits. But we shall not belabor this point, for the decision of the trial court is
barren of any reference to admissions or stipulations. On record now, the medico-legal
report is missing. And we find that the prosecution's evidence nowhere shows that
petitioner by his own act killed the victim or contributed directly to his death. TDCAIS

To conclude, there is a dearth of evidence as to the specific role played by petitioner

Fidelino Garcia in the commission of the crime charged. Petitioner enjoys the presumption
of innocence, which can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere
conjectures, no matter how strong, can never substitute for this required quantum of proof.
28 Failing to meet the needed quantum of proof, petitioner's conviction as principal in the
killing of Paulino Rodolfo cannot be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
February 22, 1996, in CA-G.R. CR No. 13358, which had affirmed that of the Regional Trial
Court of Gumaca, Branch 62, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence to convict petitioner Fidelino Garcia beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, he is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED immediately from confinement
unless held for another lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.