Dear PAO,

Can a conviction for the crime of murder be founded solely on the testimony of one witness?

Markel

Dear Markel,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Apas y Balandra, GR 248873, Aug. 31, 2022, where the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused based on the testimony of a sole witness:

“The assertion is untenable. The failure of the prosecution to present any other eyewitness is not fatal to its case, especially since Bonsato’s testimony sufficiently enlightened the Court on the circumstances surrounding the death of Marcelino. Notably, the physical evidence culled, such as the bladed weapon recovered from the scene of the crime as well as the autopsy report indicating his cause of death as ‘multiple stab wounds, chest and abdomen,’ sufficiently corroborates the material points of Bonsato’s witness account. Apropos is this Court’s declaration in Bautista v. Court of Appeals that:

“x x x criminals are convicted, not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of a doubt; in other words, not quantitatively but qualitatively. It [the prosecution] has the freedom of strategy and exclusive choice of witnesses, whose testimony may either be relevant or merely corroborative. Its failure to present witnesses whom the defense believes should be questioned in court is no failure at all but a matter of prosecutorial discretion.” (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

From the above-quoted portion of the Supreme Court decision, it is clear that a sole witness may be the basis for holding the conviction of an accused because the required proof is not based on the quantity of the witnesses but on the quality of the testimony. If a sole witness can convince the court that the accused should be held guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then a sole witness is sufficient. Further, as stated above, the prosecution has a free hand to determine, exclusively, what strategy it would adopt or the number of witnesses it would present.

To answer your question, yes, a sole witness can be sufficient to hold a conviction if the testimony of that witness could establish, without a shadow of a doubt, that the accused is the perpetrator, even if the case is as grave as murder.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]