G.R. No. 183830; October 19, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DELFIN CALISO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Delfin Caliso was charged with rape with homicide for the death of AAA, a mentally-retarded 16-year-old girl, on June 5, 1997. The lone eyewitness, Soledad Amegable, testified that while clearing her farm, she heard a girl’s cries pleading for mercy, followed by sounds of beating. Hiding behind banana trees, she saw a man wearing gray short pants bearing the number “11” drag a limp body into a river, submerge it, and later toss it into deeper water. Throughout the incident, Amegable did not see the man’s face as his back was always turned towards her, but she identified him as Caliso based on his physical features and clothing, having seen him pass by their barangay several times before. The post-mortem examination indicated the cause of death was asphyxia secondary to drowning due to smothering, with various injuries noted. The defense presented an alibi, with Caliso claiming he was plowing a rice field at the time, which was corroborated by the field owner, Alac Yangyang. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Caliso of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, and sentenced him to death. On automatic review, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the identification of the accused by an eyewitness who did not see the perpetrator’s face was reliable and positive enough to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted accused-appellant Delfin Caliso. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The identification by eyewitness Soledad Amegable was deemed insufficient and unreliable. She admitted she never saw the face of the perpetrator during the incident, as he always had his back turned towards her. Her identification was based solely on her familiarity with Caliso’s physical features from having seen him pass by their barangay on prior occasions and on the gray short pants with the number “11.” The Court found this circumstantial and not the level of positive identification required for a criminal conviction. The testimony of Barangay Chairman Leo Bering regarding an alleged extrajudicial admission by Caliso about owning the short pants was also disregarded, as the pants were never presented in evidence and the police officer who allegedly took the statement was not presented as a witness. The defense of alibi, while generally weak, gained strength due to the prosecution’s failure to establish with moral certainty that Caliso was the perpetrator. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.