G.R. No. 129691 June 29, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE LOMBOY @ “JOSE,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Lomboy was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of frustrated murder and illegal possession of an explosive (a hand grenade). The prosecution alleged that on December 25, 1992, Barangay Captain Benjamin Pidlaoan and two companions encountered Lomboy lying on a roadside. Upon recognizing him, Pidlaoan helped him up and, after a brief exchange, held him by his jacket collar to escort him to a nearby house. A warning was shouted that Lomboy had a grenade, whereupon he allegedly broke free, pulled the pin from a grenade, shouted a threat, and threw it at Pidlaoan, causing an explosion that seriously injured the victim.
The defense presented a starkly different account. Lomboy testified that he was at home when he heard an explosion. Fearing the barangay captain, who allegedly wanted to kill him due to a prior altercation, he hid in a rice paddy. He was later apprehended by individuals who brought him to the barangay captain’s house, where he was beaten and forced to admit to the crime. He denied possessing or throwing any grenade.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for frustrated murder and illegal possession of an explosive beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Jose Lomboy. The Court emphasized that conviction must rest on moral certainty of guilt. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily the testimony of an eyewitness, was found to be inconsistent, unreliable, and insufficient to meet this high standard. The witness gave conflicting accounts regarding the distance from the explosion, his own actions, and the sequence of events. His testimony that he saw the accused pull the grenade pin with a “pulling movement” was deemed unnatural and contrary to common experience, as the pin is typically pulled out, not off.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the inculpatory facts were capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence and another with guilt. The defense’s narrative—that Lomboy was a victim of a frame-up due to a prior grudge—was plausible given the established animosity between the parties. The prosecution failed to rule out this hypothesis of innocence. The alleged flight and hiding of the accused were also ambiguous, as they could be attributed to fear rather than guilt. Consequently, the totality of evidence did not produce an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal was therefore mandated.