G.R. No. 97495 October 30, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENATO MANCAO, DIOSDADO BANQUESIO, and JOSE MANCAO, accused, JOSE MANCAO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of February 25, 1986, in Banaybanay, Davao Oriental, Rustico Sarabia (84), Candelaria Sarabia (83), and their son Dionesio Sarabia (51) were brutally killed. The police found Rustico dead near a toilet with multiple hack wounds and a severed arm, Candelaria on a road with hack wounds, and Dionesio in a rest house with multiple hack and stab wounds. Initially, seven persons were charged with multiple murder, but only Renato Mancao and Diosdado Banquesio were arraigned as the others were at large. Appellant Jose Mancao was later arrested and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted Renato Mancao and Diosdado Banquesio but convicted Jose Mancao of multiple murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity and moral damages. Hence, this appeal.
The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses. Felipe Estorba testified that on the night of the killings, he was drinking with Renato Mancao when appellant Jose Mancao arrived and was overheard talking about “the liquidation of the octogenarian couple.” Later, Estorba and Renato heard gunshots. While going to buy cigarettes, they met appellant, Diosdado Banquesio (who had blood stains and carried a samurai), and a certain “Angi” (who carried a .45 pistol). Appellant stated, “It is already okay.” The prosecution also presented Olympia Ordoño, a daughter of the victims, who testified that her father told her appellant was one of the men who robbed them on February 13, 1986, and that they wanted to dismiss him as their tuba gatherer. The prosecution argued appellant’s flight with his family the next day indicated guilt.
Appellant testified that on the night of the crime, he saw seven armed men pass his house toward the Sarabias’, heard dogs barking, screams for help, and gunshots, but out of fear, stayed inside. The next day, he left with his family after being threatened by two persons.

ISSUE

Whether or not the prosecution has amply substantiated by circumstantial evidence and beyond reasonable doubt the participation of appellant Jose Mancao in the multiple murder of the Sarabias.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Jose Mancao.
The Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient, all circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, forming an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion of guilt.
The Court found the evidence lacking:
1. The testimony of Olympia Ordoño regarding her father’s suspicion that appellant was involved in a prior robbery was hearsay and therefore inadmissible. A witness can only testify to facts of their own knowledge.
2. Appellant’s presence in the company of Banquesio and “Angi” after the shots, and his statement “It is already okay,” did not conclusively prove his participation in the killings, especially since he was described as being dressed and holding no weapon.
3. Appellant’s flight and failure to report the incident were not conclusive proof of guilt, given the tense and dangerous situation in the locality involving armed groups like the NPA and the Bangsa Moro Army.
4. The trial court itself acquitted Diosdado Banquesio, who was seen with a bloodied samurai, on the basis of insufficient evidence. With even flimsier evidence against appellant, his acquittal was more warranted.
The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the strength of its own evidence. The circumstantial evidence did not form an unbroken chain pointing to appellant as the perpetrator to the exclusion of all others. Where the evidence admits two explanations, one consistent with innocence and another with guilt, the accused must be acquitted.