G.R. No. L-879, November 3, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CIRIACO BALUYUT, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Ciriaco Baluyut and several others were charged with theft of various items. To utilize his co-accused as state witnesses, the charge was dismissed against all except Baluyut, who was convicted of domestic theft for stealing a razor valued at $2.70 from the house where he worked as a cook. He was sentenced to one year and one day of presidio correccional. Baluyut appealed, challenging the sufficiency and competency of the evidence against him. The prosecution’s evidence consisted primarily of Baluyut’s own confession and the uncorroborated testimony of his co-defendant, Camilo Angeles. The record indicated that Angeles’s initial incriminating statement was made only after he was beaten by an individual named Epifanio Carreon. Baluyut then made his confession. Although Baluyut was not physically harmed, his confession was made in the context of Angeles’s beating, which occurred within his hearing and presence.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presentedspecifically, the confession of the accused and the testimony of his co-defendantwas sufficient and competent to prove Baluyut’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.
1. On the Confession: The Court ruled that Baluyut’s confession was inadmissible as it was not freely and voluntarily made. The physical violence inflicted upon his co-defendant, Camilo Angeles, to extract a statement served as an implied threat and intimidation against Baluyut, stripping his subsequent confession of the voluntariness required for it to have value as legal proof.
2. On the Uncorroborated Testimony: With the confession excluded, the only remaining evidence was the testimony of Camilo Angeles. The Court held that this testimony, standing alone and uncorroborated, was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was impeached by other testimony, weakened by the prosecution’s failure to call corroborating witnesses, and rendered unreliable by the witness’s own character as shown by evidence of his prior dishonest conduct.
Therefore, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.