GR L 35946; (August 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35946 August 7, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRIMITIVO SALAS, GREGORIO SUSAYA and ALEJANDRINO LASMARIAS, defendants, GREGORIO SUSAYA and ALEJANDRINO LASMARIAS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
This case involves the mandatory review of a conviction for murder. The Court of First Instance found Gregorio Susaya guilty as a principal and sentenced him to death, and Alejandrino Lasmarias guilty as an accomplice. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of the victim’s children, Isidoro Lucino and Felipa Bartido. They claimed to have witnessed the shooting of their father, Fortunato Lucino, on the evening of August 27, 1961, in Lawis, Nasipit, Agusan. Isidoro testified he saw three assailants, identifying them as Susaya, Lasmarias, and Primitivo Salas, running away after the shots. Felipa, however, testified she saw only two persons fleeing, identifying Susaya and Salas but not Lasmarias. Notably, neither witness reported the identities of the assailants to the Philippine Constabulary soldiers who responded that same night. An information was filed over two years after the incident.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether the identities of the slayers of Fortunato Lucino were established beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted both appellants. The legal logic centers on the prosecution’s failure to meet the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, due to the unreliable and inconsistent identification evidence. The Court meticulously analyzed the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, finding serious inconsistencies on material points: the number of windows in the house, the tidal condition, the location and posture of the victim when shot, the number of assailants seen fleeing, and the amount offered for settlement. These were not minor discrepancies but went to the very core of the identification of the perpetrators.
Furthermore, the Court found the delay of over two years in filing the information, unexplained by the prosecution, to engender grave doubts about the witnesses’ sincerity and veracity. The defense also presented evidence pointing to other possible perpetrators, which, while not conclusive, contributed to the cloud of doubt. In criminal cases, the conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. When the testimonies of the principal witnesses are replete with contradictions on crucial details, their credibility is severely impaired, rendering their identification of the appellants untrustworthy. Consequently, the evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, warranting acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.