GR 102366; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102366 October 3, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HECTOR VASQUEZ and RENATO VASQUEZ, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Hector Vasquez and Renato Vasquez were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City for the death of Primo Dollete on July 14, 1968, in Panit-an, Capiz. The prosecution alleged that after a day of drinking and attending a cockfight, Hector boxed Dollete, and as Dollete tried to get up, Renato struck him with a cane. The brothers then allegedly dragged Dollete to the riverbank, submerged him in the water, and caused his death. The information was filed only on August 19, 1986, after an 18-year delay due to missing records and procedural issues in the lower courts. The defense consistently maintained that the accused were in Iloilo City at the time and that Dollete’s death was accidental, resulting from a banca capsizing. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Hector Vasquez and Renato Vasquez for the crime of murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the trial court and ACQUITTED accused-appellants Hector Vasquez and Renato Vasquez. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Loreno Ocante, Jesus Diosana, and Jose Daliva) were inconsistent and unreliable regarding material details such as the illumination at the scene, the sequence of events, and the manner of dragging the victim. The Court noted the inherent improbabilities in their accounts and the long delay in reporting the incident by some witnesses. Furthermore, the medico-legal findings did not conclusively establish that the victim’s drowning was homicidal rather than accidental. The evidence presented created reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the duty is to acquit when doubt exists, and the presumption of innocence must prevail unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.