GR 123455; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123455 January 16, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNOLD HILARIO y IGTING, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Arnold Hilario y Igting, together with three others (Felix Almaden, Antonio Igting, and Obet Bello, who remained at large), was charged with Murder for the death of Juan Placer y Loreno on January 18, 1992, in Kalookan City. The information alleged conspiracy, deliberate intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation. The trial proceeded only against accused-appellant Hilario, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Shermie Maglalang (victim’s niece) and Marwin Aclaw, who testified that during a drinking spree, Antonio Igting struck the victim with a steel chair, after which Hilario, Almaden, and Bello ganged up on him, hitting him with chairs. They further testified that Antonio Igting and Felix Almaden then stabbed the victim, after which three assailants fled, but accused-appellant Hilario remained and continued bashing the victim’s head with a steel chair. The defense denied participation, pointing to Felix Almaden as responsible. The Regional Trial Court convicted Hilario of Murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Arnold Hilario y Igting for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Arnold Hilario y Igting. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings of Dr. Maximo Reyes, the impartial medico-legal officer, contradicted the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses. The autopsy report indicated the victim died solely from stab wounds and showed no contusions, abrasions, lacerations, hematomas, or any signs of blows from a blunt instrument like a steel chair. This belied the witnesses’ claims that Hilario repeatedly hit the victim with a chair on the body and head. The Court also found the credibility of prosecution witness Shermie Maglalang suspect due to inconsistencies between her sworn statement and her court testimony regarding who stabbed the victim. The Court further ruled that conspiracy was not established, as the evidence did not show a unity of purpose and action; Hilario’s alleged acts (kicking, hitting with a chair) were not proven, and the fatal wounds were inflicted solely by others. The alleged dying declaration of the victim identifying Hilario was also not given weight, as it was contrary to the medical evidence and came from potentially partial witnesses. Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed.