GR 101799; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101799 November 6, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pacifico Dunig y Rodriguez, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Pacifico Dunig was charged with the murder of 14-year-old Marilyn Canatoy for allegedly stabbing her repeatedly on April 5, 1990, in San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The prosecution presented three witnesses: Maylin Montes (ten years old at trial), Katherine Montes (thirteen years old at trial), and their mother, Teresita Montes. Maylin and Katherine testified they were sleeping with the victim in a resthouse when, at about 3 a.m., they saw Dunig stab Marilyn in the neck. Both girls ran to a nearby house, and Marilyn followed, collapsing at the door. Katherine and Teresita testified that Marilyn, before dying, identified her assailant as “Pico” (Dunig’s nickname). Dr. Nicanor Cruz testified Marilyn died from multiple stab wounds in the neck but was uncertain if she could have spoken or run after the attack. Dunig presented an alibi, claiming he was sleeping alone in a nipa hut about a kilometer away. The trial court convicted Dunig.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant, Pacifico Dunig, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Pacifico Dunig. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While alibi is a weak defense, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not the weakness of the defense. The testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses, Maylin and Katherine Montes, were not credible. Maylin admitted the resthouse was pitch dark with no light, making immediate recognition of the assailant impossible. Katherine stated she only saw “what looked like a shadow” (“parang shadow”). The Court found it implausible they could have immediately recognized Dunig in complete darkness. The victim’s alleged dying declaration, identifying Dunig, was also deemed unreliable because, given the darkness, she could not have seen her attacker and may have only surmised his identity. Furthermore, the doctor’s testimony cast doubt on her ability to speak after the wounds. The prosecution’s evidence, based on implausible tales and uncertain identification, was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.