G.R. No. 124032. July 20, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MONTGOMERY VIDAD y ORTEGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 28, 1995, Nomer Mandi was stabbed and killed. The postmortem examination revealed multiple wounds, including a lacerated wound on the forehead and several stab wounds to the chest and back. The prosecution presented Rolando de la Torres, who testified that he was arguing with the deceased over a previous misunderstanding when accused-appellant Montgomery Vidad suddenly appeared, placed his arm on the victim’s shoulder, asked if he was angry with de la Torres, and then stabbed him twice in the chest. As the victim tried to flee, Vidad locked him in an embrace and stabbed him several times at the back. De la Torres kicked Vidad, who then ran away. This account was corroborated by Espiridion Bobilles, who stated he heard the victim cry “Agay” and saw Vidad stab the victim from behind before running away when kicked. Roger Vicente testified he witnessed the argument but did not see the stabbing; he later heard a sound and found the victim staggering, exclaiming he was “pounced upon.”
The accused-appellant presented a different version. He claimed he was invited by de la Torres and Bobilles for a drink. Later, they went to Vicente’s house, where he was told to wait outside. He saw de la Torres emerge followed by the deceased, and then Bobilles hit the deceased on the forehead with a stone. Being a stranger, Vidad did not intervene and went home. He was arrested the next day. The Regional Trial Court convicted Vidad of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, primarily relying on de la Torres’ testimony.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Montgomery Vidad for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Regional Trial Court and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Montgomery Vidad. The Court found the testimony of the principal prosecution witness, Rolando de la Torres, lacking in credibility due to inconsistencies. It was noted that Vidad had no known motive to kill the victim, whereas de la Torres had just had a heated altercation with the victim. The victim’s dying declaration that he was “ganged up” did not clearly point to Vidad as the lone assailant. With the principal witness’s veracity in doubt and no other corroborative evidence sufficiently establishing Vidad’s guilt, the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met.