GR 130588; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130588 ; June 8, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO CAPILI y TAGUDAR, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Romeo Capili was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court for the killing of his nephew, Alberto Capili. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of three student eyewitnesses—Angelo Badua, Harlen Ormillo, and Rowena Ancheta. They testified that on October 5, 1994, while on their way home from school, they witnessed from about ten meters away the accused strike the victim twice on the head with a paddle, submerge him in the Cagayan River, and then release his body to the current. After the incident, the accused ferried the three students across the river without any conversation. The victim’s body was later found, and the autopsy indicated injuries consistent with blunt force and drowning.
The defense challenged the credibility of these eyewitness accounts. Accused-appellant argued that the witnesses’ behavior was contrary to human experience, as they did not flee or hide after allegedly witnessing a killing but instead calmly rode in the boat with the accused. He also highlighted the delay in their reporting of the incident to authorities, despite claiming to have been afraid. The defense contended that these improbabilities created reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Romeo Capili. The Court emphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence must be overcome by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty of guilt. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses inherently improbable and inconsistent with natural human behavior. Their failure to immediately flee from an alleged killer, their decision to board his boat alone, and their delayed reporting of the crime, despite claiming fear, eroded the credibility of their account. The Court held that these circumstances created a reasonable probability of innocence. When evidence fails to produce moral certainty and satisfy an unprejudiced mind, acquittal is imperative. The Court reiterated the legal maxim that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent individual. Consequently, the death penalty was set aside, and accused-appellant was ordered released.