[G.R. No. 122934.

January 5, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL PRECIADOS

(At Large), ARTURO ENAD, EMIGDIO VILLAMOR, LEONCIO
ALGABRE and FLORIANO ALGABRE @ LOLOY, accused.
ARTURO ENAD, accused-appellant.

DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

Accused-appellant Arturo Enad[1] assails the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Tagbilaran City, Branch 1, in two consolidated cases, Criminal Case No. 7887 for murder and
Criminal Case No. 7888 for frustrated murder. It convicted and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua in the first case and to a prison terms of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in the
second case.
In Criminal Case No. 7887, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bohol charged Angel
Preciados, Arturo Enad, Emigdio Villamor, Leoncio Algabre, and Floriano Algabre alias Loloy
with murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 12th to the 13th day of May 1992, in the municipality of
Sagbayan, province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping with (sic) one another, with intent to kill and without justifiable cause, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously pour poison into the mouth of
one Primo Hilbero whereby causing the victims untimely death; to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the deceased in the amount to be proved during the trial.

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, with the aggravating circumstances of (1) treachery, the victim being
unaware and unsuspecting and (2) abuse of superior strength, two of the accused
being armed with deadly weapons which they used in intimidating, threatening and
forcing the victim to drink the poison.[2]

In Criminal Case No. 7888, the same persons were charged with frustrated murder. The charge
sheet reads:
That on or about the 12th to the 13th day of May, 1992, in the municipality of
Sagbayan, province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping with (sic) one another, with intent to kill and without justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pour poison into the mouth of one
Antonio Hilbero thereby inflicting serious injuries on the victims body; thus, the
accused having performed in said manner all the acts of execution which would have
produced the crime of Murder as a consequence, but which nevertheless did not
produce it by reason of a cause independent of their will, that is, by the timely medical
attendance and treatment rendered the damage and prejudice of the said offended
party in the amount to be proved during the trial (sic).

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article 248 in relation to Articles 6 and
50 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the aggravating circumstances of (1)
treachery, the victim being unaware and unsuspecting and (2) abuse of superior of
strength two of the accused being armed with deadly weapon which they to used in
intimidating, threatening and forcing the victim to drink the poison.[3]

The informations were both dated July 20, 1992 but the cases were tried before
different salas. Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, tried Criminal Case No.
7887, while Branch 3 tried Criminal Case No. 7888.
On August 26, 1992, the accused in Criminal Case No. 7888 were ordered arrested. But the
police failed to apprehend any of the accused. Preciados and the Algebres were reported to have
gone into hiding in Mindanao, while Enad and Villamor went to Cebu City. It was only on July
20, 1993, when appellant Arturo Enad was arrested. Arraigned in Criminal Case No. 7887, he
pleaded not guilty. He waived pre-trial and the case was set for trial.
On September 13, 1993, Judge Achilles L. Melicor of Branch 4, RTC of Tagbilaran City,
inhibited himself from Criminal Case No. 7887, since the accused were the political leaders of
Mayor Arthur Melicor-Aana, his cousin, while the victims were supporters of the mayors political
rival, Narzal B. Ermac.
On February 14, 1994, Criminal Case No. 7888 was revived and jointly tried with Criminal
Case No. 7887 in Branch 1, RTC of Tagbilaran City. Arraigned in Criminal Case No. 7888 on
February 15, 1994, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, Criminal Cases Nos. 7887
and 7888 were jointly tried, without prejudice to the separate arraignment and trial of the other
accused who continued to evade arrest.
The facts of the case, culled from the prosecutions presentation, are as follows:
Appellant and Antonio Hilbero,[4] the victim in Criminal Case No. 7888, are second
cousins. Both are residents of Ubujan, Sagbayan, Bohol. Appellant is also a cousin of Primo
Hilberos mother-in-law.Primo Hilbero is the victim in Criminal Case No. 7887.
During the May 11, 1992 elections, appellant and Antonio supported rival mayoralty
candidates of Sagbayan. Appellant was a supporter and poll watcher of Arthur Aana, while
Antonio, a barangay councilman of Ubujan, was a partisan of Narzal Ermac. Appellants co-
accused were also identified with Aana who won.
At around 11:00 p.m. of May 12, 1992, Antonio with his common law wife and their two
children, his brother, Primo and his wife, Helen with their three children, Antonios mother,
Dominga, and another brother, Severino were at the second floor of the old rice mill at
Ubujan. Except for Helen, the clan had retired for the night. She was about to go to sleep when she
noticed Antonio go downstairs. Minutes later, her husband Primo, followed him. Then she heard
someone utter, Dont move. Alarmed, she rose from her mat and peeped through a two-inch hole
in the floor.[5] The ground floor was illuminated by moonlight. She saw appellant holding a hand
grenade while his other arm was locked in a stranglehold around the neck of Antonio who knelt
on the floor.[6] Nearby stood Angel Preciados with a gun pointed at Antonio.[7] She then heard
Emigdio Villamor say Dont move so that your family will not die. She saw the latter forcing Primo
to swallow an object.[8] The other accused held her husband to prevent him from
struggling. Shocked, Helen then soundlessly cried and embraced her children. Shortly afterwards,
Helens mother-in-law, Dominga, was awakened by the barking of the family dog. Dominga went
downstairs where she saw Primo lifeless on the floor, reeking of poison.[9] Antonio was nowhere
to be found. Dominga rushed upstairs and woke up Severino, all the while shouting for
help. Minutes later, the barangay captain and some neighbors responded to her shouts for
assistance. They found Primo dead on the floor. Informed that Antonio was missing, they searched
the immediate surroundings for him but to no avail.[10]
Early in the morning of May 13, 1992, the search for Antonio was resumed. He was finally
found by his uncle, Simeon Degamo, holding on to rock in a natural well, some 300 meters away
from the rice mill. A rope was thrown to him and he was pulled out from the well. Noticing that
he smelled of some poisonous chemical, his rescuers made him drink coconut milk.[11] He was
weak and appeared on the verge of death and brought to the hospital at Clarin, Bohol for emergency
treatment.
The next day, prosecution witness Zosimo Viva,[12] a defeated municipal councilor candidate
in the same slate of Ermac, Antonios common law wife, and two police investigators transferred
Antonio to the Gov. Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital in Tagbilaran City.[13] According to
prosecution witness Dr. Mayda[14] Reyes who admitted Antonio to the hospital, Antonio told her
that the latter was forced to drink a certain liquid, which smelled like insecticide.[15] Another
physician, Dr. Maria Luisa Tage, who attended to Antonio diagnosed, Poisoning, Etiology not
determined, Brief reactive psychosis.[16]
Since Antonio appeared to be dying, prosecution witness PO3 Leonardo Inoc, a police
investigator, took his ante-mortem statement[17] in which he named the aforementioned accused as
the persons responsible for poisoning him and dropping him in the well.[18]
Meanwhile, Ermac asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an
investigation.[19] The toxicological examination of Primos body revealed the presence
of methamidophos, the active ingredient of the insecticide Tamaron in Primos organs.[20] The NBI
also recovered two empty bottles, at the scene of the incident. Chemistry tests on them revealed
that the Hoechst bottle was positive for deltamethrine, an insecticide, while the other bottle
revealed traces of methamidophos.[21]
 Appellant denied any involvement in the poisoning incident. He claimed an alibi. He said he
spent the whole night of May 11, 1992, in the municipal hall of Sagbayan, as a watcher for the
party of Mayor Aana. He went home early morning of May 12, 1992 and spent the whole day
repairing his pigpens even if he had not slept the previous night. At around seven oclock P.M. his
wife and he went to the house of his co-accused Angel Preciados to attend the birthday party of
the latters son.[22] Afterwards, they returned home and went to sleep.[23] He woke up at around 9:00
A.M. and learned about the incident. He went to the old rice mill to find out more about the
poisoning incident and saw the Hilberos. When he asked Helen what happened, she said she knew
nothing about the death of her husband.[24] Later that day, he returned to Cebu City where he
worked as a crane operator. He could not think of any reason why he would be suspected for
committing a crime, as he was on good terms with the victims.[25]
The defense offered a different version of the poisoning incident. According to the defense,
Antonio and Primo agreed to commit suicide by taking poison.[26] It presented Antonios affidavit
dated February 28, 1994,[27] where he recanted his story in his affidavit of May 22, 1992.[28] Antonio
testified that he and Primo decided to commit suicide by drinking poison to prevent defeated
candidates Ermac and Viva from harming their families. Antonio refused to follow the orders of
Viva to kill the political leaders of Mayor Aana, including the appellant. Thus, Antonio said, he
and Primo feared for the lives of their relatives. After Primo and he drank poison, Primo
immediately died. When he did not succumb right away, Antonio wrote a suicide note and tried to
drown himself in the well.[29] After his rescue, Ermac and Viva took him into custody and bought
him to Mindanao, allegedly for his safety.[30] The two, however, threatened to kill him and made
him falsely charge the appellant with murder and frustrated murder.[31] Antonio totally repudiated
his ante-mortem statement and his earlier affidavit charging the accused with murder and
frustrated murder.
Testifying for the defense, P/Col. Benjamin Absalon, of the Bohol Provincial Command of
the Philippine National Police, testified that the police investigation revealed that Primos death by
poison was not due to foul play. He declared that they did not finish their investigation because
Antonio disappeared from the hospital before they could interview him.[32]
To rebut Antonios testimony, Dr. Mayda Reyes was called anew to confirm what Antonio had
told her, that he was forced to drink poison by several men.[33] SPO1 Leonardo Inoc testified again
that he took Antonios ante-mortem statement.[34] Apolinario Libranza, barangay captain of Ubujan,
Sagbayan was presented to refute Antonios claims regarding Zosimo Viva.[35] Antonios mother,
Dominga, testified that her son was not afraid of either Viva or Ermac[36]and affirmed the
truthfulness of Helens testimony.[37]
In sur-rebuttal, Antonio maintained the veracity of his suicide account.
Finding the prosecutions version more credible, the trial court on January 2, 1995, convicted
appellant of the crimes charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 7887 and 7888. It concluded:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Case No. 7887 the Court finds the accused
Arturo Enad GUILTY of the crime of Murder punished under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment
of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessories of the law and to pay the costs.
The accused Arturo Enad is further ordered to indemnify the surviving spouse of the
deceased Primo Hilbiro (sic) in the amount of P50,000.00 representing indemnity and
P50,000.00 representing moral and exemplary damages. In both instances without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

In Criminal Case No. 7888, the Court finds the accused Arturo Enad GUILTY of the
crime of Frustrated Murder under Article 248 in relation with (sic) Articles 6 and 50
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences him to suffer an
Indeterminate Sentence from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, the Minimum of
the Minimum Period of Prision Mayor, as Minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY, the Minimum of the Minimum Period of Reclusion Temporal, as
Maximum, with the accessories of the law and to pay the cost.

The Court makes no pronouncement as to indemnity and damages for the Court
viewed the retraction of the complainant Antonio Hilbiro (sic) of his previous
testimony, as a waiver of indemnity.

It appearing that the accused Arturo Enad has undergone preventive imprisonment in
Criminal Cases Nos. 7887 and 7888 he is entitled to the full time of his preventive
imprisonment to be deducted from his term of sentences (sic) if he has executed a
waiver otherwise he will only be entitled to 4/5 of the time of his preventive
imprisonment to be deducted from his term of sentence (sic) if he has not executed a
waiver.

SO ORDERED.[38]

On July 25, 1995, appellant filed his notice of appeal to this Court. On November 20, 1996,
the Office of Legal Aid of the U.P. College of Law entered its appearance as counsel.
Before us, appellant poses the following questions for resolution:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND

CREDENCE TO THE CONTRADICTORY AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES
OF THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND

GIVING WEIGHT TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT

THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND IN DISMISSING THE DEFENSE OF
THE ACCUSED.
 In sum, appellant raises the following issues: First, Did the trial court err in giving credence
to the testimony of alleged eyewitness Helen Hilbero? Second, Did the lower court err in relying
on dying statement of Antonio Hilbero? Third, Did the prosecution evidence successfully
overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
The first issue deals with the credibility of prosecution witness Helen Hilbero. Appellant
argues that the testimony of the sole prosecution eyewitness, Helen Hilbero, is doubtful. He points
out that it was odd that despite witnessing her husband murdered and her brother-in-law poisoned,
Helen did not make a statement to the police on what she witnessed; that while the police took the
sworn statement of Dominga, the mother of Primo and Antonio, they did not take the statement of
the widow, who allegedly saw everything; and that even after meeting appellant face to face on
the morning of May 13, 1992, no confrontation occurred between appellant and her. Furthermore,
the prosecution did not rebut appellants testimony that Helen admitted to appellant that she did not
know what happened to her husband and brother-in-law. The prosecution suggests that Helens
testimony was a mere concoction of the political opponents of Mayor Aana and that Helen was
coached on her testimony when it became apparent to Ermac and Viva that Antonio would not
testify the way they wanted.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for its part, contends that there is nothing unnatural in
Helens failure to immediately disclose what she knew. The failure to reveal the identities of the
perpetrators should not impair her credibility since there is no set standards of human behavior
when one is confronted with a strange, striking, or frightful experience. Moreover, she had her
reasons to keep what she knew to herself. The accused were her neighbors and they could easily
cause her and her family harm. Thus, the trial court, the OSG said, committed no error in relying
on her testimony to convict appellant.
Where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is
accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court. It is in the best position
to determine the issue of credibility of a witness, having heard his testimony and observed his
deportment and manner of testifying.[39] But, where there is a showing that the trial court
overlooked material and relevant facts, which could affect the outcome of a case,[40] the Court will
not hesitate to set aside the lower courts findings and assessments regarding the credibility of
witnesses.
In giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court
explained:

The findings of the court relative to the credibility of the witnesses militate in favor of
the prosecution witnesses (citations omitted). The court took into considerationthe
most important factor(s) (of) each witness, his manner and behavior on the witness
stand and the general characteristics, tone, tenor and inherent probability of his
statement (citations omitted) for in most instancesthe demeanor of a witness on the
witness stand is often a better evidence of his veracity than the answer he gives
(citations omitted) andit is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness
with respect to other parts. Everytime when witnesses are found to have deliberately
falsified some material particulars it is not required that the whole of their
uncorroborated testimony be rejected but some portions thereof deemed worthy of
belief may be credited. (emphasis ours).[41]

On record the lower court heavily relied on the testimony of Helen. However, it did not make
any categorical finding as to her credibility or the veracity of her account.
We find Helens testimony riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities which could affect
the outcome of this case. Helen testified that upon hearing a different voice downstairs, she peeped
through a two-inch hole in the floor and saw, with the moonlight cascading through the windows
of the old mill, the accused forcibly make her husband, Primo, swallow poison. [42] On direct
examination, she stated, she heard the words Dont move.[43] Under cross-examination, she said
what she heard was Dont move so that the grenade will not be exploded. As the cross-examination
progressed, however, she declared that what she actually heard was Dont move otherwise your
family will be included. She initially admitted that the first words were uttered by a voice unknown
to her. On further grilling by the defense, she claimed she recognized the voice as
appellants. Relentless cross-examination, however, yielded an admission that it was the voice of
accused Villamor she heard first.[44] The identification of an accused through his voice is
acceptable, particularly if the witness knows the accused personally.[45] But the identification must
be categorical and certain. We observed that the witness changed her version a number of times. A
startling or frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the mind such that the experience
can be recalled vividly.[46] Where the witness, however, fails to remain consistent on important
details, such as the identity of the person whose voice she heard, a suspicion is created that material
particulars in her testimony had indeed been altered. If an eyewitness contradicts himself on a vital
question, the element of reasonable doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded.[47]
Helens testimony contained contradictory statements. In one instance she said she witnessed
the fatal poisoning of her husband by the accused because the mill was lit by moonlight. In another
instance she said the mill was dark and unlit.[48] On further cross-examination she claimed that she
witnessed the events because of the bright moonlight.[49] First, she said the moonlight was very
bright[50] then later she said the moon was not very full.[51] The defense showed that during that
night, five nights before its fullness, the moon was in its first quarter[52] and it was not as bright as
a full moon. Note also that Helens view of the event was limited because she was only peeping
through a small hole. Under these conditions, Helens flip-flopping testimony created serious
doubts regarding its veracity and credibility.Thus her testimony concerning the destruction of the
bamboo slats in one window of the mill invites serious doubt. The mill had two windows covered
with bamboo slats. To enter the mill through the windows, the bamboo slats must be
destroyed. Yet, Helen did not hear the sound of the bamboo slats being destroyed, which was the
only way the intruders could have entered.
Her testimony regarding the murder of her husband, Primo, is less than credible. She said that
while Primo struggled not to imbibe the poison, he did not utter a sound. According to her, Primo
could not utter a sound as his neck was clipped, or headlocked as the trial court puts it. [53] There
was no showing, however, that the victims mouth was muffled to prevent him from shouting for
help. From her testimony, she could have easily asked for help. It will be recalled that barangay
captain and their neighbors quickly responded to her mother-in-laws shout for help after seeing
Primos corpse.[54] Helens account, that her husband violently struggled against his murderers
yet soundlessly gulped down the poison they made him drink, is unnatural. It evokes
disbelief. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but
it must also be credible by itself, and must conform to the common experience and observation of
mankind.[55]
As a rule, an eyewitness testimony cannot be disregarded on account of the delay in reporting
the event, so long as the delay is justified.[56] In this case, Helen kept silent for almost two
years. She had no affidavit during the preliminary investigation.[57] It was only at the trial that she
came out to say she witnessed her husbands murder. She did not explain why. Her long silence is
out of character and appears inconsistent with her behavior in immediately reporting to the police
and the barangay captain an incident when an unidentified man accosted her on the whereabouts
of Antonio.[58]
Additionally, on direct testimony, she declared that she knew that Antonio was found in a hole
filled with water on the morning of May 13, 1992.[59] Yet, on cross-examination, she declared that
she did not know where his rescuers found Antonio that morning.[60] Such contradictory statements
tend to erode Helens credibility as a prosecution witness and raise serious doubt concerning the
prosecutions evidence.
On the second issue, appellant submits that the trial court erred when it admitted and gave
much weight to the probative value of the ante mortem statement of Antonio.[61] Appellant
contends that the statement can neither be considered as dying declaration under Rule 130, Sec.
37[62] nor part of the res gestae under Rule 130, Section 42[63] of the Rules of Court. It is
inadmissible for being hearsay.Furthermore, he avers it was error for the trial court to give weight
to the first affidavit of Antonio,[64] since Antonio repudiated the same, stating that its contents were
false. According to appellant, Antonio claimed said affidavit was given under duress.
The Solicitor General, for its part, argues that Antonios actions during and immediately after
the incident were completely inconsistent with those of a person who allegedly wanted to commit
suicide.Hence, his retraction should be looked at with jaundiced eye, following our ruling
in People v. Junio, 237 SCRA 826 (1994), where we held that retractions are generally unreliable
and looked upon with considerable disfavor.
A dying declaration is the statement which refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances
of the declarants death, made under the consciousness of an impending death.[65] It is admissible in
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule[66] because of necessity and trustworthiness. Necessity,
because the declarants death makes it impossible for him to take the witness stand[67] and
trustworthiness, for when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced
and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.[68] The requisites
for the admissibility of a dying declaration are: (1) the death is imminent and the declarant is
conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death; (3) the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify; (4) the
declarant thereafter dies; and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarants
death is the subject of inquiry.[69]
In the present case, the foregoing requisites were not met. A dying declaration is essentially
hearsay, because one person is testifying on what another person stated. This is because the
declarant can no longer be presented in court to identify the document or confirm the statement,
but more important, to be confronted with said statement by the accused and be cross-examined
on its contents.[70] It was patently incorrect for the trial court to have allowed prosecution witness
PO3 Leonardo Inoc to testify on Antonios so-called dying declaration because Antonio was alive
and later even testified in court.
But was the purported ante-mortem statement part of the res gestae? Where a victims
statement may not be admissible as an ante mortem declaration, it may nonetheless be considered
as part of the res gestae, if made immediately after a startling occurrence in relation to the
circumstances thereof and when the victim did not have time to contrive a falsehood.[71] For res
gestae to be allowed as an exception to the hearsay rule, the following requisites must be satisfied:
(1) that the principal act or res gestae be a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous
or was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statement is made during
the occurrence or immediately prior or subsequent thereto; and (3) the statement made must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[72]
In this case, the element of spontaneity is lacking in the alleged ante-mortem statement.
Antonios statement was taken by PO3 Inoc at around 3:00 oclock P.M., May 14, 1992 or some
thirty-nine (39) hours after the incident. Thirty-nine hours is too long a time to be
considered subsequent immediately (stress supplied) to the startling occurrence. Even as
contemplated by the rules, statements given a day after the incident in answer to questions
propounded by an investigator cannot be considered part of the res gestae.[73] Furthermore, the
testimony of the declarant, that the statement was made under threats and with coaching from
losing candidates Ermac and Viva in order to get even with the winning candidate, Mayor Aana,
is uncontroverted.[74]
Dying declarations and statements which form part of the res gestae are exceptions to the
hearsay rule, thus they must be strictly but reasonably construed and must extend only insofar as
their language fairly warrants.[75] Thus, doubts should be resolved in favor of applying the hearsay
rule, rather than the exceptions. Under said rule, Antonios so-called ante-mortem statement should
not have been admitted in evidence, for it is neither a dying declaration nor a part of res gestae.
Next we consider whether the trial court could properly rely on Antonios affidavit dated May
22, 1994 naming the persons responsible for the poisoning incident, notwithstanding his
subsequent repudiation of said affidavit. As a rule, retractions are generally unreliable and are
looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts[76]because of the probability that recantation
may later on be itself repudiated.[77] Furthermore, retractions can easily be obtained from witnesses
through intimidation or for monetary consideration,[78] and a mere retraction does not necessarily
negate an earlier declaration.[79] When faced with a situation where a witness recants an earlier
statement, courts do not automatically exclude the original testimony. The original declaration is
compared with the new statement, to determine which should be believed.[80]
In this case, the trial court rejected Antonios retraction of his affidavit dated May 22, 1992,
for being contrary to human experience and inherently unworthy of belief. The trial court cited, by
way of illustration, the portion of the affidavit where Antonio claimed that after he and Primo
agreed to commit suicide and drinking a bottle of insecticide, Antonio wrote a farewell letter to
his barangay-mates. We note, however, that Antonios second affidavit should have been rejected
together with the first affidavit. Unless an affiant himself takes the witness stand to affirm the
averments in his affidavit, the affidavit must be excluded from the judicial proceeding for being
inadmissible hearsay.[81] In this case the affiant expressly refused to confirm the contents of his
first affidavit. Instead, he testified that said affidavit, Exhibit E was prepared under grave threats
and severe pressure from Ermac and Viva.[82] His earlier affidavits contents were hearsay, hence
inadmissible in evidence.
Noted further that Exhibit E and its sub-markings were offered, to prove that Antonio testified
in detail before NBI Agent Atty. Amador Robeniol about what happened to him and his brother
Primo in the hands of the five accused.[83] Even if said Exhibit was admissible, all that it proves is
that Antonio testified and executed an affidavit before the NBI. It does not prove the truthfulness
of the allegations made and contained therein.
Coming now to the third issue: has the prosecution succeeded in proving appellants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt?
The records show that the only direct evidence linking appellant to the crimes charged and for
which he was convicted are the direct testimony of eyewitness Helen Hilbero and the contents of
Exhibit E. But as discussed earlier, neither can be given much probative value. As to the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, we find them insufficient to convict appellant as
none of them had any personal knowledge of facts that would directly link appellant to the offenses
charged. Even if these witnesses testified in a straightforward and categorical manner, their
testimonies contained insufficient evidence to establish appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellants defense of denial in the present case is inherently weak.[84] Denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of any weight in law.[85] But such weakness does not excuse the prosecution from
presenting the adequate quantum of proof of the crime charged. The guilt of the accused must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. And the prosecutions evidence must stand or fall on its own
weight. It cannot rely on the weakness of the defense. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of appellant with moral certainty. The testimony of its single purported eyewitness,
while positive, was less than credible. It did not meet the test such testimony of a lone witness to
sustain a judgment of conviction, must be both positive and credible.[86] In our view, the burden of
proof required for conviction of appellant has not been adequately discharged by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 1, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 7887 and 7888, finding appellant Arturo Enad guilty of murder and frustrated
murder is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for insufficiency of the evidence to convict him
beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement
immediately unless he is held for another lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.