GR 175692; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175692 ; October 29, 2008
ANGEL UBALES y VELEZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Angel Ubales y Velez was charged with homicide for shooting Mark Tanglaw Santos in the head on October 17, 2001, in Manila. The prosecution’s primary eyewitness was Eduardo Galvan, a balut vendor, who testified that he saw Ubales and the victim quarreling around 3 a.m. and then saw Ubales shoot the victim. The prosecution also presented Laila Cherry Cruz, the victim’s sister, who testified that Ubales and the victim were drinking together earlier that night, and that she saw Ubales place a gun on their dining table. A .38 caliber paltik revolver was recovered near the crime scene. The defense presented an alibi, with Ubales and several witnesses testifying that he was with a different group of friends during the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ubales of homicide, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. Ubales appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence for the prosecution proves that petitioner committed the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted petitioner Angel Ubales y Velez on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Eduardo Galvan, to be unreliable and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that Galvan’s account of the incident—that he was merely one meter away during a three-minute argument and shooting, yet did not react or report the crime immediately—defied common human experience and behavior. Furthermore, the trial judge who penned the conviction did not hear the eyewitness testify, as the presiding judge during the trial had been replaced. While this alone does not impair the decision, it imposes a duty on appellate courts to more closely scrutinize the testimonies of witnesses whose demeanor the writer did not observe. Given the inherent weakness and incredibility of the sole eyewitness account, the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The second issue regarding the award of temperate damages was rendered moot.