GR L 39253; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39253 August 24, 1984
REY BORROMEO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ANTONIO G. LUCERO, AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA, JOSE G. BAUTISTA, and CITY COURT OF CEBU CITY, Branch I, JUDGE JOAQUIN T. MAAMBONG, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rey Borromeo, a police patrolman, was charged with grave threats. The prosecution alleged that on March 4, 1968, at Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City, the complainant, Francisco Castillo, accosted his sister Rosa for being escorted by Borromeo. In response, Borromeo allegedly drew his service revolver, pointed it at Castillo, and threatened to shoot him. Rosa intervened, and Castillo reported the incident. The City Court convicted Borromeo, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which even increased the penalty.
The defense presented a contradictory version. Borromeo and Rosa, law students, claimed they were merely retrieving a book when Castillo angrily threatened to kill Borromeo if he continued accompanying Rosa. Borromeo ignored the threat. Rosa testified that no gun was drawn or threat made. This was corroborated by police investigators who stated that the prosecution witness, Renato Castro, initially said he did not witness the incident. Notably, the Solicitor General, in his brief to the Court of Appeals, recommended acquittal, finding Rosa’s exonerating testimony credible and noting the lack of prima facie evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of grave threats was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted Borromeo. The Court emphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail unless overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty. The prosecution’s evidence failed to meet this standard. The Court found the testimony of Rosa Castillo, an eyewitness and the complainant’s own sister, to be highly credible. As observed by the Solicitor General, there was no evidence of bad blood between Rosa and her brother that would motivate her to testify falsely against his interest. Her candid account, given her intelligence as a law student, strongly supported the defense.
Conversely, the prosecution’s narrative was deemed improbable. Given that the complainant himself testified to having no prior ill feelings toward Borromeo, there was no apparent motive for an armed policeman to suddenly threaten an unarmed young man. The Court ruled that where the evidence presents two probabilities—one consistent with innocence and another with guilt—the interpretation favorable to the accused must be adopted. The prosecution’s case, resting on shaky and inconsistent testimony, amounted to mere suspicion and conjecture, insufficient to sustain a conviction. Thus, Borromeo was acquitted.