GR 48009; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48009 February 3, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELINO DEVARAS, FELIX CAÑAS, FLORANTE SERRANO and BERNARDO DEVARAS, accused. MARCELINO DEVARAS, FELIX CAÑAS and FLORANTE SERRANO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Marcelino Devaras, Felix Cañas, Florante Serrano, and Bernardo Devaras were charged with Murder for the killing of Teodoro Bisnar on July 6, 1975, in Dulag, Leyte. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Paulita Borja (the victim’s wife), testified that she saw the four accused drinking together at Bernardo Devaras’s house. She heard Bernardo instruct the group to kill her husband, prompting Marcelino, Felix, and Florante to arm themselves with bolos, leave the house, and subsequently attack the victim. The victim sustained fourteen wounds. The trial court convicted the three appellants (Marcelino, Felix, and Florante) of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua.
During the appeal’s pendency, appellants Marcelino Devaras and Felix Cañas died. Their criminal liabilities were extinguished, and the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal cases against them, reserving their civil liabilities. Consequently, the appeal proceeded only for appellant Florante Serrano.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellant Florante Serrano for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Florante Serrano. The Court found the lone eyewitness account of Paulita Borja insufficient to establish Serrano’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Critical portions of her testimony were inconsistent and irreconcilable. She initially stated she saw the three appellants leave Bernardo’s house together to attack the victim. However, on cross-examination, she admitted she did not actually witness the commencement of the assault because her view was obstructed after they left the house; she only heard shouts and later saw her husband already wounded. This negated her claim of having seen the attack unfold.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced, which is essential to prove that the execution of the crime deliberately and consciously adopted means to ensure its commission without risk to the assailants. The evidence did not show that the victim was utterly defenseless at the inception of the assault. With treachery unproven, the crime could only be Homicide. However, since the evidence for the prosecution was deemed weak and unreliable for conviction, and in light of the constitutional presumption of innocence, the Court held that Serrano’s guilt for Homicide was also not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The decision of the trial court was reversed, and Florante Serrano was acquitted.