G.R. No. L-6574, March 19, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Three municipal policemen, in civilian clothes with their badges concealed, raided a “jueteng” (a numbers game) at the house of Agustin Clemente. They waited until the game was concluding. As Clemente drew the winning ball, policeman Hipolito de la Cruz seized his hand, fired his revolver, and announced they were officers. A struggle ensued. During the confusion, another policeman, Martin N. Cruz, was fatally shot. The prosecution’s main witness, Hipolito de la Cruz, testified that Clemente had earlier expressed a willingness to resist a raid, and that during the struggle, Clemente wrested a revolver from another policeman, Joaquin Flores, and shot Martin N. Cruz. Clemente and his witnesses claimed the shooting was accidental, occurring while the revolver was in the hands of one of the struggling policemen.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Agustin Clemente of the crime of homicide (atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad con homicidio) or of resisting arrest.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Agustin Clemente.
1. On the Homicide Charge: The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove Clemente’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s narrative was deemed improbable and inconsistent. It was unlikely Clemente would have openly threatened resistance and then proceeded with the game, giving the policemen the perfect opportunity to arrest him. The defense’s theory of accidental shooting during the struggle was more reasonable. The testimony of the principal prosecution witness was discredited.
2. On the Charge of Resisting Arrest: The Court also found insufficient evidence to support a conviction for resisting officers. Having discredited the main prosecution witness on the homicide charge, the Court could not conscientiously rely on his testimony to establish resistance. Clemente and his witnesses denied any resistance after he became aware the men were policemen. Furthermore, after the shooting, the policemen attended to their wounded companion, and Clemente did not attempt to flee or attack but remained until taken into custody.
The Court held there was a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt.