G.R. No. 217721 , September 15, 2021
BENJIE LAGAO Y GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjie Lagao y Garcia was charged with Homicide for the death of Anthony Sumad-ong Nerida. The Information alleged that on February 20, 2008, in Bauang, La Union, the accused, with intent to kill, attacked and assaulted the victim with a hard object, inflicting fatal injuries that caused his death on February 22, 2008. Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented three witnesses: Ricardo de Guzman, Ryan Cruz, and Alfredo Nerida, Sr. (the victim’s father). De Guzman and Cruz testified that on the evening of February 20, 2008, they saw the victim with a bleeding nose and a head wound. During a drinking session, the victim told them he had an altercation with the petitioner about being drunk at work, during which the petitioner boxed him, struck his nose, and hit him on the head with a bottle. The victim refused their advice to seek medical attention or report the incident. Nerida, Sr. testified that the victim also told him the petitioner caused his injuries, which led to his death. He identified the petitioner as his nephew and neighbor and claimed funeral expenses.
The defense presented the petitioner, who denied inflicting any injuries or having an altercation with the victim, and Dr. Bernardo Parado, the Municipal Health Officer. Dr. Parado conducted an autopsy and testified that the cause of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt force injury occipital area, middle.” He clarified this contradicted the death certificate (a common exhibit) which listed respiratory failure, sepsis, acute pancreatitis, and pneumonia as causes.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty of Homicide, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, ruling that the victim’s statements to the prosecution witnesses were admissible as part of the res gestae and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction for the crime of Homicide despite the prosecution’s failure to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The petitioner’s conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses De Guzman and Cruz, which were based solely on the victim’s out-of-court statements identifying the petitioner as his assailant, were inadmissible hearsay. The Court found these statements did not qualify as part of the res gestae under Rule 130, Section 44 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as they lacked the required spontaneity. The incident occurred around 5:00 p.m., but the victim made the statements during a drinking session that started around 7:00 p.m., indicating a sufficient time lapse for reflection. The statements also did not qualify as a dying declaration under Rule 130, Section 38, as there was no evidence the victim believed his death was imminent when he made them.
Without these inadmissible hearsay statements, the only remaining evidence was the testimony of Nerida, Sr., which was also based on what the victim told him, and the medical findings of Dr. Parado. While Dr. Parado’s testimony established the cause of death (blunt force trauma), it did not, by itself, prove the petitioner was the perpetrator. The petitioner’s denial, though a weak defense, prevailed because the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and its failure to present any direct or competent circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime warranted acquittal.