G.R. No. L-74061 November 3, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JOSE POSTRERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jose Postrero, was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court of Masbate for the killing of Marcos Montemor. Prosecution witnesses Francisco Gonzales, Jr. and Francisco Tanola, both farmers, testified that on March 9, 1983, at around 5:00 PM, they saw Postrero, from a distance of about twenty meters, place his left arm on the victim’s shoulder and then stab him in the abdomen with a knife. The witnesses claimed it was still daylight, they were acquainted with Postrero, and they identified him as the assailant. The victim, before being brought to the hospital where he died, allegedly named Postrero as his attacker and cited jealousy as the motive.
Postrero interposed the defense of alibi and denial. He claimed he was at his home in Barrio Centro, approximately six kilometers from the crime scene, at the time of the incident. Crucially, he asserted he could not have committed the crime due to a significant eye defect that blurred his vision, requiring him to be aided by his son when moving around. Defense witnesses, including his son and a neighbor, corroborated his impaired eyesight, testifying that he had difficulty seeing even at short distances and typically needed an escort.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Jose Postrero. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. While the trial court credited the eyewitness identification, the Supreme Court held that it misappreciated the weight of the appellant’s admitted eye defect. This physical handicap, corroborated by defense witnesses including a prison guard who observed him daily, cast serious doubt on his physical capacity to have committed the crime as described—accurately targeting and stabbing a victim from close range. The alleged motive of jealousy was also weakened by inconsistent prosecution testimony regarding Postrero’s marital status and separation from his wife. The prosecution’s evidence, when viewed alongside the compelling evidence of the appellant’s visual impairment, created reasonable doubt as to his identity as the perpetrator. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and cannot depend on the weakness of the defense. Here, the totality of circumstances, particularly the unrefuted evidence of the eye defect, created a moral certainty that Postrero may not have been the assailant, warranting acquittal.