GR 125193; (October, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125193 ; October 23, 2001
MANUEL BARTOCILLO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from an incident on December 28, 1982, where petitioner Manuel Bartocillo, along with his father Cesar and others, was charged with frustrated homicide for hacking Dionisio Santillan. The prosecution’s narrative, primarily from witnesses Susan and Orlando Justan, stated that after Vicente Santillan was initially attacked, his father Dionisio went to confront the assailants. Dionisio was then allegedly ganged upon by the group, and during a struggle, petitioner Manuel hacked Dionisio on the head with a bolo. The defense presented a contrary version, claiming that Cesar Bartocillo was himself attacked by Letecia Peruelo and another individual, and that Manuel was merely assisting his wounded father home and was not present at the hacking incident.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Manuel Bartocillo of frustrated homicide, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of petitioner Manuel Bartocillo for the crime of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ACQUITTED Manuel Bartocillo on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime with moral certainty. The Court found the evidence for the prosecution wanting. Critical witnesses gave conflicting accounts: Susan Justan testified she did not see her husband Orlando during the hacking, while Orlando testified he was present and grappled for a gun. Furthermore, the testimonies regarding who accompanied Dionisio to the confrontation and the sequence of events were materially inconsistent.
The Court ruled that these irreconcilable contradictions pertained to significant details of the incident and cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s story. While the defense of denial is inherently weak, it gains significance when the prosecution’s evidence is not credible. The alleged weapon was never recovered, and the identification of petitioner was rendered unreliable by the contradictory narratives. Consequently, the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The decision underscores that a conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s proof, not on the weakness of the defense.