G.R. No. 74075 . May 12, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE MACASINAG alias “BOTOY”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bernabe Macasinag was convicted of murder for the killing of Jesus Matienzo, Sr., at the Masbate abattoir in the early morning of April 20, 1985. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of Arturo Deocariza and PC Sgt. Cesar Ramirez. Deocariza testified that he and Macasinag were on their way to the slaughterhouse when Macasinag, upon learning a sleeping person was Matienzo, suddenly drew a pistol and shot the victim. Deocariza claimed he fled in fear. Jesus Matienzo, Jr., the victim’s son, testified he heard a shot and saw a man, whom he later identified as Macasinag, scaling a fence. Sgt. Ramirez testified he heard the shot and, while rushing to the scene, encountered Macasinag running away but did not detain him.
The defense presented an alibi, with Macasinag and a corroborating witness, Federico Chua, testifying he was in Bulan, Sorsogon, at the time of the incident. The trial court, finding the prosecution witnesses credible, convicted Macasinag and initially imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Macasinag on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while alibi is a weak defense, a conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found the prosecution’s evidence inherently improbable and insufficient. Deocariza’s testimony was deemed unbelievable; the alleged motive for the sudden, spontaneous killing of a sleeping man upon mere identification was unconvincing. It was also improbable that Macasinag would ignore the presence of a witness. Furthermore, Deocariza’s conduct—remaining silent for thirteen days before giving a statement to the fiscal, delaying its signing for another twenty-five days, and later retracting it—severely undermined his credibility.
The testimony of Sgt. Ramirez was also found illogical. As a peace officer who rushed toward the gunshot with his weapon drawn, his failure to apprehend or even seriously question a man running from the crime scene was contrary to normal police behavior. The corroborative testimony of Jesus Matienzo, Jr., was insufficient, as his identification was based on common attire (a red-striped black T-shirt and denim pants) that was not uniquely linked to Macasinag. The prosecution also failed to produce the alleged murder weapon or any physical evidence, such as distinctive footprints, linking Macasinag to the crime.
The Court held that the trial court’s factual findings are not infallible and may be reversed when the evidence does not support a moral certainty of guilt. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the decision of the trial court was REVERSED and the accused-appellant was ACQUITTED.