GR 74146; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74146; August 2, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REMELITO LUBREO and LUCRESIO LUBREO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On March 10, 1976, Mamerto Sanico was killed in Barangay Antipolo, Del Carmen, Surigao del Norte. Accused Remelito Lubreo voluntarily surrendered to the police that same afternoon, accompanied by the barangay captain, and relinquished the bolo he allegedly used. In his sworn statement, Remelito claimed he acted in self-defense after Mamerto allegedly drew a dagger and attempted to stab him. His brother, Lucrecio Lubreo, also gave a statement claiming he witnessed the altercation from a distance of 150 meters. Initially, only Remelito was charged with Homicide before the municipal court.
Subsequently, the Provincial Fiscal filed an Information for Murder against both brothers, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. During trial, Remelito absconded. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Lucas Sanico, Nenita Monter, and Epifanio Pangatungan, who testified that the appellants, both armed, attacked Mamerto from behind while he was walking, with Lucrecio holding the victim to facilitate the hacking by Remelito. The trial court, after an unusual on-the-spot re-enactment and examination of witnesses, convicted both accused of Murder.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the existence of conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED both appellants. The legal logic centered on the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses, Lucas Sanico and Nenita Monter, to be irreconcilably inconsistent and unreliable. Their accounts on material points—such as the precise location of the incident, the presence and role of Lucrecio, and the sequence of events—were contradictory and could not be harmonized. Epifanio Pangatungan’s testimony was also deemed insufficient to corroborate the prosecution’s theory.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The evidence did not convincingly show that the attack was executed in a manner that deliberately ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The sworn statements of the appellants, suggesting a sudden violent encounter, cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s narrative of a concerted, surprise attack from behind. In the absence of credible and consistent evidence proving conspiracy and treachery, the presumption of innocence must prevail. The guilt of the appellants was not established to a moral certainty, warranting acquittal.