G.R. No. 128073 ; March 27, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE MAMALIAS Y FIEL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rene Mamalias was charged with murder and frustrated murder for the shooting death of Francisco de Vera and the wounding of Alexander Bunag. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of SPO3 Manuel Liberato, who narrated that an eyewitness, Epifanio Raymundo, executed a sworn statement identifying Mamalias as one of the assailants. Raymundo himself never testified in court. The prosecution also presented Dr. Remigio Rivera, who treated Bunag’s wound. Despite efforts, the prosecution failed to present the victims’ heirs, Bunag, or the eyewitness Raymundo in court. The defense presented alibi. The trial court convicted Mamalias, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for murder and an indeterminate penalty for frustrated murder.
During the pendency of his appeal, Mamalias escaped from custody. His counsel moved for his acquittal, arguing the conviction was based on hearsay. The Solicitor General recommended acquittal, conceding the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court noted the escape but proceeded to resolve the appeal on its merits to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant should be acquitted based on the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, notwithstanding his escape from custody.

RULING

Yes, the accused-appellant is acquitted. The Court ruled that while escape is a ground to dismiss an appeal, it is not an absolute rule. Dismissal is discretionary, and the Court may still decide the appeal on its merits to serve the demands of justice, especially when a review reveals a clear basis for acquittal. In this case, a review of the evidence compels acquittal.
The conviction was based fundamentally on the hearsay testimony of SPO3 Liberato regarding Raymundo’s extrajudicial identification. The alleged eyewitness Raymundo did not testify, so his sworn statement was inadmissible as evidence of the truth of its contents. It was merely hearsay, having no probative value. The testimony of Dr. Rivera merely established the fact of injury, not the identity of the assailant. The prosecution’s evidence utterly failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional right of the accused to confront witnesses against him was violated. A judgment based on such insufficient evidence is a nullity. Suspicion, such as police reports labeling the accused as part of a notorious gang, is not proof. The prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt with moral certainty, not the accused to prove innocence. Since the prosecution’s evidence was weak and consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay, the accused must be acquitted. The decision of the trial court is reversed and set aside.