GR 119722; (December, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119722 December 2, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NEMESIO V. GANAN, JR., HARLEY S. FABICON, accused-appellants, DELMAR ALUBOG, accused, VIRGILIO G. GANAN, JOHN DOE, WILLIAM DOE, RICHARD DOE, CHARLIE DOE and HENRY DOE, at large.
FACTS
Salvador Leaño, Sr., an election watcher, was forcibly taken from a precinct in San Andres, Romblon, on May 18, 1986, by armed men led by Nemesio Ganan, Jr. He was loaded into a jeep and later found dead, buried in a shallow grave. An information for Murder was filed. The case was archived due to the non-arrest of the accused but was later revived. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimony of Agustin Tan, the barangay captain, who claimed to have witnessed the kidnapping. However, during the trial, key witnesses Gregorio Panaguiton and Dory Fabella executed affidavits recanting their earlier sworn statements, which had implicated the accused, alleging they were merely made to sign prepared documents.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellants Nemesio V. Ganan, Jr. and Harley S. Fabicon for the crime of Murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The ruling hinged on the insufficiency and unreliability of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Agustin Tan, to be inherently incredible and fraught with inconsistencies. His claim of witnessing the event was contradicted by his own admission that he did not immediately report the crime to authorities or even to his own family for several years, conduct contrary to human nature and experience. The Court emphasized that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from a credible witness but must be credible in itself. Tan’s delayed disclosure, coupled with the recantations of other witnesses which severely undermined the prosecution’s narrative, created reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present any other credible evidence to corroborate Tan’s belated account. Consequently, the evidence did not meet the required quantum of proof for a criminal conviction. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed.