GR 142262; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142262 August 29, 2006
GERARDO BIONG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Gerardo Biong was charged with attempted murder based on the sworn statement of Danilo Cayubit, a prison inmate. Cayubit alleged that in the early hours of June 30, 1991, Biong, along with police officers, kidnapped him, brought him to a house in BF Homes, Parañaque, and attempted to kill him. His narrative intricately wove the alleged attempt with the infamous Vizconde massacre, claiming Biong intended to frame him as a member of an “akyat bahay” gang killed in the act. At trial, Cayubit recanted his entire affidavit, testifying he was coerced into signing it by NBI agents who promised his release. He stated he had no personal knowledge of the events and had never met Biong. The prosecution’s case rested solely on this recanted extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Gerardo Biong for attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt, given that its sole evidence was an extrajudicial confession which the declarant had fully repudiated in open court.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Gerardo Biong. The ruling emphasized that an extrajudicial confession, standing alone and subsequently repudiated, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court reiterated the doctrine that an accusation is not synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Cayubit’s judicial recantation completely vitiated the probative value of his prior statement. With the confession withdrawn, no credible evidence remained to link Biong to the crime.
The legal logic is clear: the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. When the very witness upon whom the case depends disavows his own prior statement and provides no other evidence implicating the accused, the prosecution’s case collapses. The Court cannot convict based on an unreliable, retracted confession absent any corroborative evidence. The weakness of the defense does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish guilt through strong and credible evidence. Consequently, the failure of the prosecution to meet this burden mandates an acquittal.