In the trial of every criminal case, a judge must rigidly test the

State's evidence of guilt in order to ensure that such evidence adheres to

the basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of
the crime charged upon such evidence. Nothing less is demanded of the
judge; otherwise, the guarantee of due process of law is nullified. The
accused need not adduce anything to rebut evidence that is discredited
for failing the test. Acquittal should then follow.|||
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, [April 11, 2012], 685 PHIL 376-411

In all criminal prosecutions, the prosecution bears the burden to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and
every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a
finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included
therein.
Andaya v. People, G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 539, 556-557

The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the

accused in the commission of the offense.
People v. Esmale, G.R. Nos. 102981-82, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA 578, 592

In doing all these, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its
own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the
evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution
arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no
less than the Constitution has guaranteed. |

Section 14, (2),Article III (Bill of Rights)

Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of

proof1, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In
other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is
inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not
discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the
crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor
responsible for it.|

1
People v. Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 479, 498
 `In the trial of every criminal case, a judge must rigidly test the
State's evidence of guilt in order to ensure that such evidence adheres to
the basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of
the crime charged upon such evidence. Nothing less is demanded of the
judge; otherwise, the guarantee of due process of law is nullified. The
accused need not adduce anything to rebut evidence that is discredited
for failing the test. Acquittal should then follow.||
Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, [April 11, 2012], 685 PHIL 376-411

The testimony of a single witness, if straightforward and

categorical, is sufficient to convict.
People v. Navarro, supra; People v. Villanueva, 284 SCRA 501 [1998]; People v. Hayahay, 279 SCRA 567 [1997].|

Finding of guilt based on testimony of a lone witness is not

uncommon.
People v. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316, April 21, 1998.|||

For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor

in the appreciation of evidence, preponderance is not necessarily with the
greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the
credible and positive testimony of a single witness.

Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary ‘only when there are

reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or
that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations had been
inaccurate.
People v. Tulop, supra, citing People v. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 632 [1992].||

The court has consistently stated, time and again, that the
testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, will suffice to
sustain a judgment of conviction.
People v. Ocumen y Saludares, G.R. Nos. 120493-94 & 117692, [December 2, 1999], 377 PHIL 567-597.

Where the inculpatory circumstances are capable of two or more

explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other with his guilt, then the evidence does not meet the
test of moral certainty. Necessarily, a judgment of acquittal must issue.
People v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 126998, [September 14, 1999], 373 PHIL 77-102.
 Well-settled is the rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. To be believed, its evidence “must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible
in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead
to the inference of, its probability under the circumstances.”

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a

credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common
experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its
probability under the circumstances. Sometimes, we have no test of the
truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge,
observation, and experience.
People v. Manambit, G.R. Nos. 72744-45, [April 18, 1997], 338 PHIL 57-105.

Verily, guilt cannot be shown by mere speculations or even

probabilities, whether the offense be malum prohibitum or malum in se.
People v. Dela Rosa, 284 SCRA 158, January 16, 1998; People v. Albao, 287 SCRA 129, March 6, 1998.|||