G.R. No. L-38790 November 9, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSENDO VELASCO @ “MANGYO”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Rosendo Velasco, along with several others including Federico Relucio and Miguel Padrones, was charged with the murder of Gonzalo Talastas. The prosecution alleged that on June 23, 1971, in Cabanatuan City, the accused conspired to attack and shoot Talastas. The trial court convicted Velasco and Relucio, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Velasco appealed, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient and unreliable. The prosecution’s case hinged primarily on the testimonies of two witnesses: Crispin Angeles and a discharged co-accused, Miguel Padrones.
Angeles testified he was with Talastas at a theater, left ahead of him, and later heard shots. He claimed to see Talastas exit wounded, chased by individuals including one “Ige,” whom he identified as Padrones. His testimony, however, was vague regarding who actually fired the shots. Padrones, after being discharged as a state witness, testified that he, Relucio, and Velasco conspired to kill Talastas, with Velasco providing a firearm. His credibility was severely challenged by a sworn statement he gave to Judge Alfin Vicencio, where he exonerated Velasco and claimed the killing was in self-defense during a chance encounter.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Rosendo Velasco beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Velasco. The Court found the evidence against him utterly insufficient and unreliable. The testimony of Crispin Angeles was deemed inconclusive, as he could not definitively identify Velasco as a shooter and his account of the chase was unclear. More critically, the testimony of Miguel Padrones was completely discredited. His sworn statement before Judge Vicencio, given voluntarily and under oath, directly contradicted his court testimony. In that statement, he absolved Velasco of any involvement and presented a narrative of self-defense, which he later recanted in court without a credible explanation for the drastic change.
The Court emphasized that the sworn statement to Judge Vicencio carried significant weight as it was given under oath to a judicial officer and contained exculpatory details. Padrones’s subsequent testimony was therefore unworthy of belief. With the recantation of the discharged co-accused and the lack of any other credible, direct evidence linking Velasco to the killing, the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The charge of murder could not stand. The Court ordered Velasco’s immediate release and directed copies of the decision be furnished to the Minister of Justice and the Provincial Fiscal for their guidance regarding the conduct of the prosecuting officers involved.