GR 119014; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119014 October 15, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOJO PEREZ y PAMORCA, alias “Joseph,” LUIS BERJA y VERSOSA and AVELINO BARASONA y CUNDAT, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Luis Berja, Avelino Barasona, and Jojo Perez were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court based primarily on the testimony of lone eyewitness Conchita Zulueta. She testified that on June 23, 1991, she saw Berja and Barasona hold the victim, Eduardo Jimena, while Perez hacked him. She claimed to be four meters away but did not report the incident for five days out of fear, despite being a close friend of the victim’s family.
The accused presented a contrary version. They testified that they were with the victim when two strangers suddenly attacked them. One assailant wounded Barasona, causing him and Berja to flee. The other assailant killed Jimena. Barasona later sought help from Jojo Perez at a nearby mah-jongg parlor, and they returned to find Jimena dead. Berja and Barasona voluntarily gave statements to the police and were initially released.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the lone eyewitness testimony.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all accused. While appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, exceptions exist when the trial court overlooks significant inconsistencies. The Court found Zulueta’s testimony unreliable due to inherent improbabilities. Her claim of being a close friend yet failing to immediately report the crime for five days strains credulity. Furthermore, her delayed disclosure and the natural reaction of the accused—who voluntarily cooperated with police—contrasted sharply with her behavior.
The prosecution’s case rested solely on this dubious testimony, which failed to meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense’s consistent account and the lack of credible evidence for conspiracy warranted acquittal. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which it failed to discharge. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails.