GR 120279; (February, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120279 February 27, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTURO LAGAO y CACAYURAN, VIRGILIO LAGAO y CACAYURAN and ARTURO CATHEZA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
An Information charged Arturo Lagao, Virgilio Lagao, and Arturo Catheza with Murder for the killing of Marcos dela Cruz in Rosario, La Union, in the early morning of June 30, 1991. Only Arturo Lagao was arrested and tried. The prosecution’s case relied on the eyewitness accounts of the victim’s uncles, Alfredo Calonge and Enrique Calonge. Alfredo testified he saw Arturo Lagao repeatedly club the victim with a piece of wood and a lead pipe, followed by Virgilio Lagao and Arturo Catheza also clubbing the victim. Enrique testified he saw Arturo and Virgilio Lagao club the victim while Arturo Catheza kept watch, and that the victim fell into a precipice. The post-mortem examination by Dr. Bonifacio Sales, however, showed the cause of death was a single stab wound, with only a contusion and a stab wound found on the body. The appellant, Arturo Lagao, interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Baguio City working and drinking at the time of the incident, which was corroborated by Asterio Caccam and Eugene Horton. The Regional Trial Court convicted Arturo Lagao of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant Arturo Lagao for the crime of Murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Arturo Lagao. The Court found that the prosecution evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the two eyewitnesses were inconsistent and irreconcilable with the physical evidence. Both witnesses categorically stated the victim was clubbed to death, but the medical evidence established the cause of death was a single stab wound, with no other injuries consistent with a severe clubbing. Furthermore, the witnesses gave conflicting accounts on material points: Alfredo claimed the incident lasted an hour and he was with his wife, while Enrique said it was brief and he saw Alfredo alone; their descriptions of the weapons and the number of assailants also varied. Enrique’s credibility was further damaged by his initial failure to identify the assailants to the police. Given these glaring inconsistencies and the failure of the prosecution’s evidence to align with the medical findings, the positive identification of the appellant became unreliable. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed, and the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was set aside.