G.R. No. 1899 : April 14, 1905

FACTS:
Rufino Magsambol was convicted of the crime of brigandage under Section 4 of Act No. 518 by the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of three witnesses: Eugenio Campaner (a Constabulary secret service member), a youth named Eusebio (also a secret service member), and Silvestre Cusar (a prisoner detained on a brigandage charge). During the trial, it was established that witness Eugenio Campaner harbored a “deadly enmity” against the accused, Magsambol. This enmity stemmed from an incident where Campaner’s father was shot as an insurrectionist against the Spanish Government. Furthermore, it was revealed that Campaner, despite presenting himself as a secret-service officer, was actually himself a prisoner charged with the same crime of brigandage.

ISSUE:
Whether the conviction of Rufino Magsambol for brigandage, based primarily on the testimony of witnesses whose credibility and motives are seriously questionable, can be sustained.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the charge against Rufino Magsambol.
The Court found that it was not “fully convinced” of the appellant’s guilt. It emphasized that the only evidence presented against Magsambol came from witnesses whose motives were “open to question,” particularly highlighting the fatal bias of the principal witness, Eugenio Campaner, and his status as a fellow accused. Given the dubious credibility of this uncorroborated testimony, the evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Costs were adjudged de oficio.