G.R. No. L-48929 November 28, 1984
People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Amon and Melchor Amon

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Ponciano Amon and Melchor Amon, were convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Cavite for the killing of Isidro Poblete. The conviction rested primarily on the testimony of the victim’s brother, Filomeno Poblete, who claimed to be an eyewitness. He testified that on the night of October 10, 1973, he saw four persons, including the appellants, attacking a man along a road. He stated that Melchor held the victim from behind while others held his hands, and Ponciano shot the victim with a long firearm. Filomeno claimed he did not initially recognize the victim and only learned it was his brother the next morning. The prosecution also presented the municipal health officer, who confirmed the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the mouth exiting the right cheek.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence, chiefly the testimony of the lone eyewitness, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The Court, adopting the Solicitor General’s recommendation for acquittal, found the testimony of Filomeno Poblete insufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that while trial court findings on credibility are generally respected, they are not binding when the evidence fails to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The Court meticulously detailed fatal inconsistencies and unnatural behavior in Filomeno’s testimony that eroded his credibility. These included his failure to identify the victim at the scene despite being on his way to meet his brother, his lack of immediate concern for his brother’s whereabouts, and material contradictions in his sworn statements and court testimony regarding the positions of the assailants. Notably, the medical evidence indicated the bullet exited the victim’s right cheek, which made Filomeno’s account of the assailants’ positions improbable. Furthermore, defense witnesses provided an alibi, placing Filomeno at a bingo game during the incident, which the Court found lent support to the conclusion that his testimony was unreliable. Since the prosecution’s case hinged entirely on this discredited witness, the evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction. The guilt of the accused was not proven to a moral certainty, warranting acquittal.