GR 123077; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123077 ; July 20, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIBERATO GIGANTO, SR., REYNALDO GIGANTO, EDGARDO GIGANTO, and LIBERATO GIGANTO, JR., accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants, the Giganto family, were convicted of murder for the killing of Francisco Florentino. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of eyewitness Cristobal Sonio, who claimed that on the night of October 30, 1993, while he and the victim were on their way to a wedding eve celebration, they were waylaid by the four accused. Sonio testified that he saw Liberato Giganto, Sr. shoot the victim with an airgun, after which all four accused hacked Florentino to death. The victim sustained multiple fatal hack wounds. The defense presented alibis and denied the accusations, contending they were preparing for the wedding of Liberato Giganto, Jr. the following day.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused-appellants. The Court found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Cristobal Sonio, insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities. For instance, he claimed to have witnessed the entire hacking incident from a very close distance under bright moonlight, yet he admitted he could not recall specific details about the weapons used or the precise actions of each assailant. The Court also noted the complete absence of motive for the accused to kill the victim. The Gigantos and the victim were compadres, had lived together amicably for a year, and the killing occurred on the eve of a wedding that united their families. The prosecution’s theory that the accused killed the victim because he was a “menace” was deemed speculative and inadequate to explain such a violent act against a relative by affinity. When the prosecution’s evidence is weak and fails to prove motive, and the inculpatory facts can be interpreted in a manner consistent with innocence, the evidence does not meet the required moral certainty for a conviction. The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail.