G.R. No. L-2500; April 27, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE QUEVEDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of August 2, 1946, in Binalonan, Pangasinan, armed men entered the house of Ulysses Rous. One man, armed with a .45 caliber grease gun, entered the kitchen where family members were dining, warned them not to move, and asked for Ulysses Rous. After being told he was upstairs, the man left. Subsequently, two other armed men entered, one asking for “Paling” (Rafael Rous). The electricity then went out. After a kerosene lamp was lit, automatic gunfire and a whistle were heard. Ulysses Rous was later found dead outside, riddled with gunshot wounds. Teresa Rabena de Rous (the victim’s wife) initially told investigators she recognized one of the intruders as Jose Quevedo from Caaringayan, Manaoag, and later pointed to him when he was brought to her house. However, during the preliminary investigation, she stated she did not recognize anyone that night due to nervousness and fright, and only recalled Quevedo’s face after thinking about it all night and seeing him the next afternoon. Her daughter-in-law, Rosy C. Rous, also gave conflicting statements, initially not naming Quevedo but later identifying him as the first man who entered. Natividad Rous (the victim’s daughter) stated she recognized one man by face but did not know his name, and that he covered his mouth with a handkerchief when he perceived she recognized him. The appellant, Jose Quevedo, set up an alibi, claiming he was gambling in another barrio at the time. The trial court rejected the alibi and convicted Quevedo, citing a possible motive related to a land dispute between the victim and Quevedo’s aunt.

ISSUE

Whether the identification of Jose Quevedo as one of the perpetrators of the crime is sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court found the evidence of identification to be doubtful and inconsistent. The witnesses, particularly Teresa Rabena de Rous, gave conflicting statements about whether she recognized Quevedo on the night of the incident or only later upon reflection and after seeing him. The Court also found the alleged motive—stemming from a land dispute between the victim and Quevedo’s aunt, and a prior incident where Teresa bawled out Quevedo—to be insufficient to prompt the appellant, an educated man, to commit murder. The Court expressed that it could not be morally certain of the appellant’s identity as one of the intruders and hesitated to deprive a man of his liberty based on such doubtful evidence.