GR L 39207; (September 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39207 September 25, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERMIN PADIRAYON and JAIME VICENTE, defendants, FERMIN PADIRAYON, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Jaime Vicente, the driver of a dump truck that ran over and killed Dionisio Lacuata. Vicente testified that on the afternoon of March 28, 1972, appellant Fermin Padirayon, his cousin-in-law, flagged down and boarded his truck. While driving, Padirayon allegedly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the truck to swerve and run over the victim. Vicente claimed Padirayon then remarked, “that was the man who hacked me,” before alighting and fleeing. Vicente reported the incident to authorities. The medical findings confirmed the victim died from crushed chest injuries consistent with being run over by a large vehicle.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution evidence, chiefly the testimony of Jaime Vicente, was sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant Fermin Padirayon for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s conviction and acquitted appellant Padirayon. The Court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence, which requires moral certainty of guilt from proof that withstands the test of reason. The Solicitor General, in a rare move, joined the appellant in seeking acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to meet this stringent standard.
The Court found the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Jaime Vicente, to be inherently unreliable. Vicente was not a disinterested witness; as the driver of the vehicle, he was himself a logical suspect in the killing. His testimony was uncorroborated and appeared to be motivated by a desire to exculpate himself. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish any motive on the part of Padirayon to commit the crime. The evidence presented created only a suspicion of guilt, which is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands a level of certainty that convinces the conscience and leaves no room for reasonable doubt about the accused’s responsibility. Since the prosecution’s evidence was weak, biased, and failed to establish guilt with moral certainty, the Court held that the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. Appellant Fermin Padirayon was acquitted.