PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AVELINO PISALVO Y SAPIGAO AND ANDRES BALATCHICA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, in Criminal Case
No. 1748 which found appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to death
penalty.

From the records, it appears that on or about 10:30 in the night of November 16, 1969, one Narciso
Orines, a resident of Barrio Carusocan
Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan, was shot to death in front of the house of
Benito Florendo in Barrio Piaz,
Villasis, Pangasinan (pp.
65-67, t.s.n., Vol. I).  Lt. Alberto Ordoñes,
Cpl. Hilario Caliboso and
Pat. Leonardo Abriam of the Police Department of Villasis, to whom Benito Florendo
reported the shooting incident, arrived at the scene of the crime (pp. 11 &
24, t.s.n., Vol. I). 
The police officers found the body of the victim lying face up at the
rear side of a Mercedes Benz cargo truck parked in front of the house of Florendo (pp. 12, 26 & 73, t.s.n.,
Vol. I).  They recovered a set of seven
[7] empty shells of caliber .45 about five or six meters from the body, six [6]
empty cartridges of caliber .45 near the body and a garand
slug embedded in the wooden post of the cargo truck (pp. 12-16, 29, 30 &
35, t.s.n., Vol. I).  Orines died
from two gunshot wounds described as follows:

“External Findings:

“1.  Gunshot wd. perforating at left arm. POE, Circular 7 mm. in dia­meter, at the lateral portion of arm, 3½
cms. above from the
line of the elbow traversing the skin and muscle, POX, lacerated wd. 2 cms. long at the posterior portion
of left arm, 3½ cms. above
elbow.

“2.  Gunshot wd. oval, POE, 1.3 cm. in diameter at
the back, 2 cms. to
the left from the midspine at level of 9th left
posterior rib. Wd. directed medially and upwards POX, 3 x 2 cms.
at the 3rd rt. ICS along the rt. mid clavicular line.

“Internal Findings:

“1.  Whole
right lung lacerated.

“2.  8th and 9th left posterior ribs fractured at
its vertebral ends” (p. 116, CFI rec.).

On November 26, 1969,
Chief of Police Rafael Bascos filed a complaint for
murder with the Municipal Court of Villasis against
accused-appellants, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1748 (Exh.
“F”, p. 1, CFI rec.).  Said complaint was supported by a certificate
of death (Exh. “B”, p. 2,
CFI rec.) and affidavits of:  Aniceta Iglesias Orines dated November 24, 1969 (Exh. “H”, p. 3, CFI rec.), and another dated November 26, 1969 (Exh. “2”-“2-a”, pp. 6 & 7, CFI
rec.); Basilio Orines dated
November 30, 1969 (Exh. “G”, p. 4, CFI rec.); and Hilario L. Caliboso dated November 26, 1969 (p. 5, CFI rec.).

On the same day, Judge Guillermo Manantan,
finding that the crime charged has been committed and that the two accused are
probably guilty thereof, directed the
issuance of a warrant of arrest for the apprehension of said accused, fixing a
bond of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for the temporary release of the
accused (p. 8, CFI rec.).  The warrant of
arrest that was actually issued fixed the bail at Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) each (p. 9, CFI rec.).

Thinking that the bail fixed was still P30,000.00 for each of
them, accused thru counsel, petitioned the municipal court on January 21, 1970
for the reduction of aforesaid amount to P20,000.00 (p. 10, CFI rec.).

In an order dated January 23, 1970, the said court denied the
petition for reduction of bail bond and affirmed that the original bail is
P40,000.00 each and that the said amount had already been reduced to P30,000.00
(p. 12, CFI rec.).

On February 3, 1970, accused Balatchica,
thru counsel Dominador Sison,
filed a motion praying that the municipal judge of Binalonan
or Urdaneta, Pangasinan be
authorized to determine the solvency of the bondsmen and receive the bail since
“after effort has been exerted by his family, bondsmen could only be found
at Binalonan and Asingan, Pangasinan,” and “in order to avoid unneces­sary
expenses on the part of the accused, considering his financial status” (p.
46, CFI rec.).

In his order of February
4, 1970, the municipal judge of Villasis
authorized the municipal judge of Urdaneta to
determine the solvency of the bondsmen and accept the bail bond of accused Balatchica subject to the former’s
approval (p. 47, CFI rec.).

On February 5, 1970,
both accused posted their respective bails for P30,000.00
consisting of real property; and the court ordered their release on same date
(pp. 13, 45, 48 & 70, CFI rec.).

On March 23, 1970,
the municipal court of Villasis forwarded this case
to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan at Urdaneta with the information that the two accused had
waived their rights to the second stage of preliminary investigation (p. 75,
CFI rec.).

Asst. Provincial Fiscal Proculo Viernes filed the information for murder dated May 28, 1970
on June 3, 1970 before Branch V of the aforenamed
Court of First Instance (pp. 77 & 78, CFI rec.).

Upon arraignment on June
24, 1970, both accused entered a plea of not guilty (p. 94, CFI
rec.).

For the prosecution, this case was handled by Asst. Provincial
Fiscal Proculo Viernes
assisted by Atty. Alfonso Bince, Jr. as private
prosecutor; and for the defense, Atty. Antonio Belen pursued the case.

The trial court heard the case on July 9, August 10, August 13,
and August 26, all in 1970.

The prosecution presented these witnesses:  Dr. Filo­mena S.
Lopez, 51 years old, married, municipal health officer of Villasis,
Pangasinan and resident of said muni­cipality; Cpl. Hilario Caliboso, 40, married,
member of the police department of Villasis and a
resident therein; Rafael Bascos, 59, married, Chief
of Police of Villasis and also a resident of said
municipality; Basilio Orines,
55, married, farmer and resident of Barrio Carosucan Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan;
Aniceta Iglesias Orines, 30, widow of the victim, housekeeper, also a
resident of Barrio Carosucan Sur,
Asingan; and Cecilio Torralba, 58, married, barrio captain of Carosucan Sur and residing in
said barrio.  As rebuttal witnesses, the
prosecution presented Osmundo dela
Cruz, 43, married, Chief of Police of Asingan and a
resident therein; and Chief of Police Rafael Bascos
of Villasis.

The witnesses for the defense were Samuel Pisalvo,
25 years old, brother of accused Pisalvo, farmer and
resident of Carosucan Sur, Asingan, Pangasinan; Avelino Pisalvo, 36, accused,
married, farmer, also of Barrio Carosucan Sur; Apolonia Balatchica,
46, single, sister of accused Andres Balatchica, employee and resident of No. 61 K-3, Kamuning, Quezon City; Andres Balatchica, 43, accused, married, farmer, also residing in
Barrio Carosucan Sur; Mrs. Purisima T. Dumaual, widow, Chief
of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI and
resident of 1242 Makata, Manila.

Finally, on August 31, 1970, the lower court handed down its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the
Court finds and so holds the accused Ave­lino Pisalvo y Sapigao and Andres Balatchica, alias Inciong, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, as co-principals, of the crime of Murder, as charged,
and there being present the generic aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, nighttime and abuse of superior strength, with­out any
mitigating circumstance to offset any one or all of them, here­by sentences
them to die in the elec­tric chair, to indemnify the heirs of the victim Narciso Orines the sum of
P12,000.00 and the further sums of P10,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages, P500.00 as actual damages, and to pay the costs” (pp. 177 and
178, CFI rec.; pp. 46-47, rec.).

The accused-appellants now allege that the trial court erred in
giving credence to the testi­monies of Aniceta I. Orines, Basilio Orines, Chief of Police Rafael Bascos
of Villasis, Cpl. Hilario Caliboso and Police Chief Osmundo
dela Cruz of Asingan; in
discrediting barrio captain Cecilio Torralba; in resolving against Avelino
Pisalvo the negative result of his paraffin test; in
generalizing that flight, for want of bail, indicates a guilty conscience; in
unwarrantedly determining credibility exclusively on the basis of demeanor and
appearance of witnesses; in considering the evidence for the defense too
lightly and in belittling their defense of alibi; in finding the accused guilty
beyond reason­able doubt; and, in denying the accused a new trial.

This Court finds the entire case wholly and solely dependent on
the credibility of the testimony of the victim’s widow, Aniceta
Orines, the lone principal witness for the
prosecution, who was presented as an
eyewitness to the crime.  The
testimonies of all the other prosecution witnesses were presented merely to corroborate the testimony of
aforenamed widow. 
Hence, this Court does not intend to inquire or look into each of
the assignment of errors as alleged by
appellants but will review the lower court decision which is primarily based on
the widow’s testimony.  It now becomes
evident that Aniceta Orines‘ testimony
is decisive and crucial in the determination of the guilt of the accused.

Let Us now consider Aniceta Orines‘ version of
the alleged murder of her husband. 
She stated that both accused are uncles of her slain husband and they are her neighbors in Carusocan Sur, Asingan; that on November 4, 1969, the accused threatened to kill the victim when the latter
failed to bring out a lost gun which
the former wanted to get from him; that their house was fired at by the accused
on the night of November 6 and at noon of November 13, 1969, and these alleged
firings were not reported to the police; that at about 10:00 to 10:30 on the
night of November 16, 1969, they (she and deceased) were loading their belongings into a big truck owned by a certain Benito Florendo
and parked in front of said owner’s house facing the road; that they were bound
for Diffun, Nueva Vizcaya that same night because of the threat hurled by the accused; that while they were loading the said
belongings into the cargo truck, she heard gunshots from the rear side of the
truck; that her husband was going up the big truck when he was shot and fell
with his face upward; that she tried to look at the
direction from where the gunshots came and saw the two accused-appellants; that
she was one and a half meters from the truck and one meter from the victim at
the time of the firing; that the place was lighted for there was an electric bulb from the nearby
house which reflected light and the truck was lighted; that after the shooting, she looked at her
husband who lay face up and was
already dead; that when she saw her husband was dead, she proceeded to the
house where her children were (pp. 65-73, Vol. I, t.s.n.
dated August 10, 1970).

Upon her cross-examination, however, Aniceta
declared that at the time she
allegedly saw the accused, they were holding
guns and they were actually
firing at him and
that was the time she was hearing the shots (p. 77, t.s.n.
of August 10, 1970, Vol. I); that at the time the accused were firing at her
husband, they were near a big tree (p. 80, t.s.n.,
Aug. 10, 1970); that she was about one and a half meters from the truck at the
time of the firing (pp. 80-81, t.s.n., Aug. 10,
1970); that she did not become scared when she heard the first shot; she
even looked at the direction where she heard the gunshot (p. 81, t.s.n., Aug. 10, 1970); that she did not run towards the Florendo house at the time of the incident (p. 81, t.s.n., Aug. 10, 1970); and at the time she ran inside the
house, she only came out after everything was silent and peaceful (pp. 81-­82, t.s.n., Aug. 10, 1970).

In her earlier statements before the Chief of Police (taken on November 16, 1969
when the events were still fresh in her mind), she positively declared thus:

“Q
– What did you do when you heard those
shots fired?

“A
–  I looked from the direction where the
shots which I think originated after which I ran inside the house to seek
cover or for safety measure.

“Q
– What have you noticed from the direction
which you knew the shots came from if any?

“A
–  Yes sir, after hearing some shots
fired, I saw Avelino Pisalvo
and Andres Balatchica alias Inciong
holding their guns aimed to the direction where my husband was.

“Q
– How did you see them?

“A
–  I saw by the light of a kerosene lamp lighted which was placed on the ground and
by the light coming from a bulb which was lighted while we were loading, as
we requested Mr. Benito Florendo to put on the light
on the truck while we were loading, and further there was moonlight already
at the time.

“Q
– Is it not a fact that there were bushes
between the house of Mr. Benito Florendo and another
house where the assailants of your
husband were?

“A –  Yes
sir, but the leave of the bushes (santal) were
high up to their head but they were in stooping posi­tion when they were firing
at my husband and there were no leaves which cover them (Exh.
“H”, p. 3, CFI rec.).

xx                                
xx                                xx

“Q –  Where
was Jesus Castillo at that instant?

“A –  He ran to the house first ahead of me”
(Underlining supplied).

Then ten [10] days
after the alleged killing, or on November 26, 1969, Aniceta gave the following answers to questions during the preliminary investigation
conducted by the municipal judge:

“Q
– Do you have any personal knowledge of
the death of your late husband, the deceased Narciso Orines whom you alleged to have been killed and murdered on
the night of November 16, 1969,
at the barrio of Piaz, Villa­sis,
Pangasinan?

“A –  xx                             
xx                                xx

At around 10:30 o’clock
on the said night of November 16, 1969, after my deceased husband and one,
Jesus Castillo, were through loading the truck of Benito Florendo
with our per­sonal belongings as we were then supposed to start for Diffun, Nueva Vizcaya
early the following morning, my deceased husband was entering the said truck of
Benito Florendo when he was shot and fired upon, the
first fire shot was very strong, then followed by several fire shots but not as strong as the first shot.  My late husband, the deceased Narciso Orines was hit by the
fire shots and fell down from the truck. 
I looked at the direction from where the fireshots
came and there I saw Avelino Pisalvo
and Andres Balatchica holding long firearms and were already getting away after they saw my husband fell down dead.

xx                                 xx                                 xx

“Q – How
were you able to recog­nize these two persons who fired and shot your husband
when it was nighttime?

“A  –There was a kerosene lamp at the back
of the truck and that the truck was also lighted inside with the battery light
of the truck so that it was very bright near the truck and besides that it was
also moon­light so I was able to recognize Avelino Pisalvo and Andres Balat­chica as
the one who fired the fire shots killing my husband.

xx                                 xx                                 xx

“Q
– How far were you from your husband when
he was fired upon?

“A  – Around one [1] meter sir” (Exh.
“2”, pp. 6-7, CFI rec.; underlining supplied).

However, on August 10,
1970, Aniceta thus testi­fied on direct
examination:

“Q
– What did you do when you heard this
gunshot and your husband was shot?

“A  – I tried to look at the direction from
where the gunshot came.

“Q
– What did you see where the shot came from?

“A  – I saw it because I was a little bit facing
towards them.

xx                                 xx                                 xx

“Q
– How did you see these two accused shoot
your husband?

“A  – The place was lighted for there was an
electric bulb from the nearby house which reflected light and the truck was
lighted.

“Q
– You said that there were lights that is why you saw the person of the accused.  Can you tell this Honorable Court how many
lights were there at that time?

“A  – There were two lights.

“Q
– Where was one light situated?

“A  – On the side of the house.

“Q – How about the second
light?

“A
–  Just behind us, sir” (pp. 72-73, Vol. I, t.s.n. dated July
9, 1970; underlining supplied).

Confirming the darkness at the scene of the crime, witness police
corporal Caliboso thus testified on
cross-examination:

“Q
– When you went there to inves­tigate, you
brought with you your flashlight and used it in conducting the investiga­tion?

“A
–  None, sir, but we borrowed flashlight.

“Q
– You used flashlight because in the place
it was dark?

“A –  Yes, sir” (p.
22, t.s.n. of July 9, 1970, Vol. I).

The prosecution failed to present evidence which would definitely
show the distance between Florendo’s house (alleged
to have been lighted) and the cargo truck from which the victim was fired at. 
Witness Caliboso earlier testified on direct
examination:

“Q
– Did you find out if there was any house
near the body of the victim Narciso Orines?

“A  – Yes, sir, there
was.

“Q
– Did you inquire whose house was that?

“A
–  Yes, sir.

“Q
– Whose house was that?

“A
–  Benito Florendo,
sir.

xx                                 xx                                 xx

“Q
– Aside from the house of Mr. Florendo which was near the body of the victim, what
else did you find within the premises if any?” (pp.
16-17, Vol. I, t.s.n. of July 9, 1970).

Relative to the position of the victim when he was shot, witness
Dr. Filomena Sibayan Lopez
gave the following clarificatory statements upon her
cross-examination:

“Q
– Doctor, from this medical certi­ficate
you testified to that in wound No. 1, the point of entrance is lower than the
exit, is it not?

“A  – No, sir. 
I said the same level as the point of entrance.

“Q
– So when you said the same level as the
entrance, the relative position of the assailant when this wound No. 1 was
inflicted is the same level with the deceased, is it not?

“A
–  It could be possible because it is
straight.

“Q
– And the entrance of wound No. 1 is in
front of the left arm?

“A
–  Yes, in the lateral side” (p. 9,
Vol. I, t.s.n. of July 9, 1970).

Aniceta’s declaration as to the
victim’s posi­tion at the time of the shooting patently contradicts the aforequoted expert testimony indicating the straight
trajectory of the bullet.  She stated
thus on direct examination:

“Q
– What was your husband doing when you
heard this gunshot from the rear side of the truck?

“A
–  He was going up the big truck [witness
demonstrating with her two hands raised] (p.
72, Vol. I, t.s.n., July 9, 1970).

Of puzzling significance, too, is the fact that when Aniceta testified during the trial, she never mentioned nor
did the fiscal bring out the presence of one Jesus Castillo at the time of the
shooting.  In her early statements before
the Chief of Police (actually taken on November 17, 1969) and those taken by
the municipal judge on November 24, 1969, she declared that Jesus Castillo was
assisting her husband in loading their belongings and that the former ran to
the house ahead of her when the shooting started.  Why did the prosecution not present Jesus
Castillo who was another witness to the alleged murder?  His testimony would have been vital and
crucial in con­firming the story of Aniceta.  Could it be possible that if made to testify,
Castillo would have impugned or damaged the story which the prosecution tried
to build up?

The foregoing manifestly reflects the uncertain and conflicting
testimony of Aniceta, the lone eye­witness.  Her very own declarations reveal that what
really happened was:  While Aniceta, her late husband, and a certain Jesus Castillo
were loading their belong­ings into the cargo truck, they were suddenly fired
at.  The night was dark and there was no
moon.  Only a kero­sene lamp and a
lighted bulb in the truck illuminated the place.  Instinctively and impulsively, on hearing the
gunshots and sensing real danger, she ran towards the house, sought cover, then came out when everything was already quiet.

As she aptly stated, she tried to look in the direction from
where the firing came and since she was not certain of what she saw and
considering the in­adequate lighting, the distance of six to seven meters from
her and the presence of santan bushes, she came out
with different versions.  She could not
be consistent nor certain with her narrations.  Upon hearing the firing, her natural impulse
was to run to the nearest safe place which was Florendo’s
house where her children were.  Her
maternal instinct and her instinct for self-preserva­tion told her to run for
safety and be near her children.  How
then could she be definite as to what happened that night of the incident and
how then could she positively identify the culprits?

Also, if, as she claimed, she was then barely one and one-half
meters from the truck and one meter from the victim, why was she not hit by any
of the thirteen shots fired by the alleged assailants?  Was it sheer luck or simply because she
instantly ran away from the target area or she was not anywhere near the truck
or the victim?  Only when the assault was
over did she come out of the house and found her husband dead.

Another prosecution witness, Chief of Police Bascos,
testified that in between the rear of the truck where the body of Orines lay and six to seven meters away where the empty
shells were found, there stood a house and flowering bushes (p. 36, Vol. I, t.s.n. dated July 9, 1970). 
From where Aniceta stood, it was thus
unbelievable for her to have positively identified the accused considering the
pervading darkness, the distance of six to seven meters from where the alleged
assailants fired the shots and the fact that her view was obstructed by Florendo’s house and the santan
bushes.  Likewise incredible was her
claim that she did not become scared upon hearing the gunshots.  Being suddenly fired upon from a dark place,
an average person would immediately duck and run for cover.

Initially, she alleged that there was moonlight on the night of
November 16, 1969 when the alleged killing occurred.  However, in her later statements, she already
discarded the moonlight.  Only the kero­sene
lamp and a bulb in the truck lighted the place. 
This was corroborated by Chief of Police Rafael Bascos
when in answer to Fiscal Viernes‘ question, he cate­gorically
stated:  “It was very dark
but there was a kerosene lamp lighted” (p. 30, Vol. I, t.s.n.
dated July 9, 1970).  Even Cpl. Caliboso testified that when he arrived in Barrio Piaz to investigate the shooting, it was still dark
(p. 15, Vol. I, t.s.n., July 9,
1970; underscoring supplied).

Witness Bascos thus confirmed:

“Q
– In the place where these empty shells
were found, when you conducted the investigation, which is six to seven meters
away from the body, was dark, is it not?

“A –  Yes,
sir.

“Q
– When you were informed that Pisalvo and Balatchica were
suspected or when you were told rather by the wife that she saw Balatchica running from the crime scene, what did you do?

“A
–  I asked her if she will give me her
statement that very night but she told me that because she was still upset she
requested me that she will give her statement the following day” (p. 37,
Vol. I, t.s.n., July 9, 1970).

Aniceta’s testimony is cluttered with con­tradictions and
so humanly unnatural and unrealistic that her credibility is heavily
damaged.  The testimony
of the other prosecution witnesses are not supportive of her version of
the story.

In the recent case of People vs. Pampaluna,
et al. [L-33805-9, March 31,
1980], where the only woman-eyewitness’ testimony was also impugned, this Court
stated thus:

“As a consequence
of Our finding that Besa’s
testimony does not deserve full faith and credit, appellants’ defense of alibi
assumes importance since there is a
total absence of positive and clear proof that the appel­lants were the ones
responsible for the crimes charged in the information which gave rise to the
instant appeal.  Of course, We have time and again stressed that alibi is the weakest of
all defenses.  It is easy to con­coct,
difficult to prove (People vs. Cunanan, L-17599,
April 24, 1967, 19 SCRA 769, 783, citing U.S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil. 828; People vs. Pili,
51 Phil. 965; People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, 272;
People vs. Bau­tista, L-17772, Oct. 31, 1962, 6 SCRA
522, 529; People vs. Dayday, L-20806 & L-20807,
Aug. 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 935, 942). Nonetheless, where,
as in the cases at bar, the evidence for the prosecution is inherently weak and
betrays lack of concreteness on the question of whether or not appellants are
the authors of the crimes charged, alibi as a defense becomes sig­nificant.  It is noteworthy to reiterate here what
former Justice J.B.L. Reyes, speaking for this Court
in the case of People vs. Fraga, et al. (L-12005,
Aug. 31, 1960, 109 Phil. 241, 250) said: 
‘The rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to
change the burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise, we will see the absurdity of an accused
being put in a more difficult position where the pro­secution’s evidence is
vague and weak than where it is strong’ (cited also in People vs. Bulawin, 29 SCRA 710, 722).”

Even as the prosecution tried to establish the motive for the
killing, this alone cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The widow of the victim claims that the two defendants who are
uncles of the victim, threatened and attempted to kill him before the fatal
night because the victim failed to bring to them a lost gun they wanted.

This Court has emphatically ruled that even when there exists an
apparent motivation for the murder — that the accused was impelled to
instigate the crime as the victim was a brother of the then mayor, who
presumably reneged on his promise to give way in the 1971 election for the
position of mayor in favor of the accused — there is still need for evidence,
both competent and credible, to prove his guilt and that of his co-accused
(People vs. Roa, L-35284, Jan. 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 51).  The
alleged failure of the victim to turn over a lost gun desired by the two appellants, is not a sufficient motive for them to kill
their own nephew.  It is unnatural for
two uncles to accord more value to a gun than the life of their nephew.  In that same Roa
case, this Court further said in reversing the judgment of conviction:

“There is, in People vs. Dramayo,
decided not too long ago, a restatement of what the constitutional presumption
of innocence signifies:  ‘Accusation is
not, according to the funda­mental law, synonymous with guilt.  It is incumbent on the prosecu­tion to
demonstrate that culpability lies. 
Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their
behalf.  Their freedom is forfeit only is
the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in exist­ence.  Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt.  To such a standard, this Court
has always been committed.  There is
need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state,
both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the
accused.  Only if the judge below and
appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been
committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should
the sentence be one of conviction.  It is
thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into
account.  The proof against him must
survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to
sway judgment.  The conscience must be
satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the
offense charged; that not only did
he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime.  What is required then is moral certainty” (underscoring supplied).

Thus, again, in the
recent case of People vs. Aquino (L-36020, Oct. 30,
1979, 93 SCRA 772), this Court reiterated that
assuming arguendo that the accused had a very
strong motive to eliminate Benigno Pascua,
such motive cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient
to over­throw the presumption of innocence. 
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system
of criminal justice.  As previously
enunciated in People vs. Basuel (L-2815, Oct. 31,
1972, 42 SCRA 207), only by proof beyond doubt which
requires moral certainty a “certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it” may the presumption
of innocence be overcome.  By reasonable
doubt is meant “doubt engendered by an in­vestigation of the whole proof
and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of guilt.”

In the instant case, the
evidence for the pro­secution indubitably and sadly falls short of that
requisite sufficiency and certainty which can persuade the human mind to agree
with the conclusion of guilt of the appellants.

WHEREFORE, THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED NOT HAVING BEEN
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A QUO
IS HEREBY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AVELINO PISALVO Y SAPIGAO AND ANDRES BALATCHICA,
ARE HEREBY ACQUITTED OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST THEM, AND THEIR RELEASE IS
HEREBY ORDERED, UNLESS THEY ARE HELD ON SOME OTHER VALID CHARGE.

NO COST.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., votes with Mr. Justice Aquino.

Aquino, J., see dissent.