G.R. No. L-24339 June 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX LAVARIAS alias FELING TAWEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Felix Lavarias alias Feling Tawel, was convicted by the lower court of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries. The case stemmed from an incident on the early morning of May 1, 1963, in barrio Pangascasan, Bugallon, Pangasinan, where a group of individuals stole two carabaos and a cow from Bartolome Malong. During the robbery, shots were fired, resulting in the death of Presentacion de Vera Malong (Bartolome’s wife) and serious physical injuries to their three-year-old daughter, Levi Malong. The lower court, in its decision, relied on affidavits executed by two alleged eyewitnesses, Bartolome Malong and Alejandro Capua, which identified Lavarias as one of the perpetrators. However, during the trial, both witnesses repudiated their affidavits. Bartolome Malong testified that he could not identify the assailants because it was nighttime, he was inside the house, and he was attending to his wounded wife and daughter. Alejandro Capua similarly testified that he did not see or recognize anyone because he was inside his closed store during the incident and did not peep out. The lower court considered both witnesses as hostile and chose to believe their prior affidavits over their in-court testimony, leading to Lavarias’s conviction and sentence of reclusion perpetua, along with indemnities.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of the appellant based on affidavits repudiated by the affiants during trial, instead of their live testimony, violates the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right to confrontation of witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained as it violated the constitutional rights of the accused. The presumption of innocence was bolstered by the positive and categorical testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses, who were the husband of the deceased and a relation by affinity, failing to identify the appellant as one of the perpetrators. Proof beyond reasonable doubt was not established. Furthermore, the constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on affidavits where the affiants have repudiated them on the witness stand. This right ensures that the accused can test the credibility of witnesses through face-to-face confrontation and cross-examination. Conviction based solely on ex parte affidavits, especially when repudiated, reduces this constitutional guarantee to a barren form of words. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted.