GR 70008; (April, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 70008; April 26, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSALITO MOLINA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Rosalito Molina was convicted of murder for the killing of Pedro T. Ong on March 17, 1983, in Baler, Aurora, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution’s case hinged on two eyewitnesses. Felicidad Poblete testified she was on a jeepney when she saw men on motorcycles, heard a conversation about making a “direct hit,” and later saw Molina hiding behind a tree and then the victim fall after a gunshot. She claimed Molina later tapped her and said, “What you saw, you just saw.” Rosalinda Libed, a student, testified she saw Molina hiding behind the same tree, heard a shot, saw Ong collapse, and later that evening, alleged Molina entered her room and threatened her with a shotgun to keep silent.
The defense presented an alibi, asserting Molina was in Manila on the date of the crime. He and corroborating witnesses detailed his activities, including visiting an engineering office and applying for a job, supported by a logbook entry. The trial court rejected the alibi as fabricated, disbelieved the defense witnesses for bias, and speculated Molina could have traveled from Manila to Baler to commit the crime.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Molina. The Court criticized the trial court’s decision for its excessive length and inclusion of irrelevant details, which obscured the issues. On the merits, the Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. The testimonies of the two principal eyewitnesses, Poblete and Libed, were deemed inherently incredible. Their accounts contained improbable coincidences and details that raised serious doubts about their veracity, suggesting the evidence may have been fabricated.
While the defense of alibi may be weak, the burden remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The inconsistencies and incredibilities in the prosecution’s narrative created reasonable doubt. Consequently, Molina is entitled to an acquittal. The decision underscores that a conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense.