GR 103306; (April, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103306 . April 5, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN BESMONTE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Efren Besmonte was charged with Kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information dated January 17, 1990. The charge alleged that on or about May 28, 1987, in Barangay Estancia, Malinao, Albay, he conspired with others to kidnap Municipal Kagawad Azucena Almonte by force and intimidation, carrying her away on a motorcycle, after which she was believed to have been killed. Only Besmonte was arrested and tried. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of Placido Almonte, the victim’s son, who claimed to be an eyewitness. Placido testified that on the night of the incident, armed men forcibly entered their home. He stated he saw the side of the face of one of the three men who forcibly took his mother, and he later identified this person in court as Efren Besmonte. He admitted he did not know the kidnappers at the time of the incident and only recognized one of them, “Ka Jinky,” by name. He further stated he only saw the accused-appellant again for the first time during the latter’s arraignment on August 31, 1990. The original complaint and Information did not name Besmonte but referred to unknown accused. An amended Information naming him was filed based on a supplemental affidavit by Placido, which stated he learned the identity of one kidnapper by asking “trusted persons.” The prosecution did not present the two children who were reportedly in the room during the incident. The defense presented alibi, which the trial court found inadequate. The Regional Trial Court convicted Besmonte and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Efren Besmonte beyond reasonable doubt based on the identification by the lone eyewitness.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Efren Besmonte on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove Besmonte’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The identification by the lone eyewitness, Placido Almonte, was not clear, positive, and convincing. Placido only saw the side of the kidnapper’s face at night, peeking through a wall, with limited lighting from two lamps held by children. He did not know the appellant prior to the incident and only identified him more than three years later, during arraignment. The prosecution failed to explain how Placido identified Besmonte prior to the arraignment or to present corroborating evidence from the other children who were present. The supplemental affidavit indicated Placido learned the identity from “trusted people,” but the prosecution did not establish the reliability of this secondary identification process. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. While the appellant’s alibi was weak, this did not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt with moral certainty. The inconclusive identification, standing alone, was insufficient to support a conviction.