G.R. No. 1298 : May 1, 1905

FACTS:
The defendant, Juan Singuimuto, was charged with the crime of estafa (swindling) before the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The information alleged that on or about July 16 and October 13, 1902, in Batangas, he received from Lieutenant William H. Bell, a U.S. Army commissary, a total of 300 sacks of government rice on commission. He was to sell the rice and remit the proceeds to Lieutenant Bell through the municipal president. The accused allegedly failed to account for or deliver the proceeds and even denied having received the rice.

At trial, the prosecution’s case hinged primarily on the testimony of Isabelo Javier. Initially, Javier testified as a defense witness, stating that the accused only dealt in government rice on two occasions in October 1902 and paid cash. Later, recalled by the prosecution, he recanted his prior testimony. He then testified that he had received the orders (vales) for the rice from Lt. Bell, delivered them to the accused, and that the accused, through agents, subsequently received the 300 sacks from the government warehouse. Javier named several cart drivers who allegedly transported the rice. However, when these drivers were called to testify, they uniformly denied Javier’s allegations and contradicted his account.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove the guilt of the accused for the crime of estafa beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.

The Court held that the uncorroborated and recanted testimony of the principal witness, Isabelo Javier, was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Javier’s testimony was not only inherently unreliable due to his contradiction of his own prior statements, but it was also directly contradicted by all the other witnesses (the cart drivers) he implicated. Given these circumstances, the testimony failed to provide a credible and solid basis for a finding that the rice was in fact delivered to the accused. Consequently, a reasonable doubt existed as to an essential element of the crimethe receipt of the property. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused therefore remained unovercome.

The accused was acquitted, with costs de oficio.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Justice Torres (Dissenting): Believed the new evidence from the retrial, including testimony from witnesses who claimed to have seen the rice being delivered to the accused’s storehouse, corroborated the charges. He maintained his original opinion that the accused was guilty.
Justice Johnson (Dissenting): Concurred with the dissent, stating that the evidence in the record demonstrated the defendant’s guilt and that the trial court’s sentence should be affirmed.