G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ruperto Balderas y Cabusog, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of March 16, 1991, accused-appellant Ruperto Balderas and his companions, Mckinly Diada and Samuel Casido, were invited by William Devila to a dance in Sitio Matambok, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. The three were sugar cane workers carrying cane knives. They arrived at the dance hall at 8:00 p.m., had a drinking session, and consumed a bottle of Añejo Rhum. Around midnight, an altercation occurred between Samuel Casido and Rudy Cadiente, who grappled for a hunting knife held by Casido. According to prosecution witness Vicente Calidguid, as Gilbert Cadiente (Rudy’s brother) approached, presumably to help Rudy, accused-appellant struck Gilbert from behind with a cane knife, hitting him on the back of the head. The wounded Gilbert ran towards his brother’s house. Rudy Cadiente testified about the fight with Casido but stated he did not see his brother attacked. Gilbert was taken to the hospital but was dead on arrival. Dr. Norberto J. Baldado, Jr. certified Gilbert’s wounds: a penetrating stab wound on the chest (most probably fatal), an incised wound on the right foot, and a lacerated wound on the occiput. The defense presented an alibi. Accused-appellant testified that he went home with Diada at around 10:00 p.m., before the incident, and learned of the killing the next morning. His alibi was corroborated by Diada and Devila. Devila added that during the fight, he bumped a lamp post, extinguishing the light, and later saw people at Rudy’s house agog after finding Gilbert wounded. The defense also presented police blotter entries initially reporting the assailant as unknown. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Gilbert Cadiente.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Ruperto Balderas of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the lone eyewitness, Vicente Calidguid, was deemed insufficient and unreliable. The Court noted inconsistencies and improbabilities, such as Calidguid’s claim of witnessing the attack from three to four meters away in a partly dark place after the Petromax lamp went off, and his lack of reaction or report of the incident. The medical evidence showed Gilbert sustained three wounds, but the prosecution did not establish that accused-appellant inflicted the fatal stab wound. The defense of alibi was strengthened by the corroborating testimonies of Diada and Devila and the initial police blotter entries indicating the assailant was unknown. The Court emphasized that the conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Since the prosecution’s evidence did not meet the required quantum of proof, accused-appellant was acquitted and ordered released from custody.