PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PACIFICO DUNIG Y RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

There were two witnesses who allegedly saw the killing, not to mention
the victim herself, who identified her assailant shortly before she died. Yet the Solicitor General, who is usually
for sustaining the conviction by the trial court, is unconvinced and has asked
for its reversal.

Pacifico Dunig was formally charged with the murder of Marilyn
Canatoy, then 14 years old, in an information filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan. The allegation was
that on April 5, 1990, in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, he repeatedly stabbed and
thus killed the said girl, the attack being accompanied with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength.^[1]

To prove its case, the
prosecution presented three witnesses, besides the doctor who testified on the cause of the victim’s
death. These were Maylin Montes, her
sister, Katherine Montes, and their mother, Teresita Montes.

Maylin Montes, who was ten years old at the time of the trial,
said that at about 7 o’clock in the evening of April 4, 1990, she, Katherine, a
certain Flory, and her Ate Marilyn went to sleep at the resthouse belonging to
one Atty. Andrade. Marilyn slept in a bamboo bed, and the rest of them
slept under the bed. Maylin said that
at about 3 o’clock in the morning, she saw Dunig stab Marilyn in the neck three
times. The three girls ran to Andrade’s
house about 8 meters away where her father and mother were staying. Marilyn did, too, and collapsed at the door.^[2]

Katherine Montes, thirteen years old at that time, corroborated
her sister’s testimony. She said she
also saw Dunig running away
after she heard her Ate Marilyn screaming. She said she ran to the house ahead of Marilyn and she heard the stricken girl say,
“Nanay, nanay, sinaksak ako ni Pico.”^[3]
“Pico” is Dunig’s nickname.

Teresita Montes, the girls’ mother, declared on the stand that at
about 9 o’clock in the morning of April 4, 1990, she saw Pico and her niece
Marilyn quarreling. At about 3 o’clock
the following morning, she was awakened when Marilyn knocked at her door. Marilyn’s neck was bleeding, and she cried
to her: “Nanay, nanay, bigyan ninyo ako ng katarungan dahil sinaksak ako
ni Pico.” A minute later, she died. Behind Marilyn were Maylin, Katherine and Flory.^[4]

Dr. Nicanor Cruz informed the court that Marilyn died of
hemorrhage due to multiple stab and incised wounds in the neck. He opined uncertainly that the victim might
or might not have been able to
speak or run to the house after the stabbing.^[5]

Dunig’s defense was alibi. He said that on the night
in question, he was alone in a nipa hut in Matinbubong, San Ildefonso, Bulacan,
where he went to sleep at 9 p.m. and awoke the following morning at 6
o’clock. He swore he was not in the
resthouse where, and at the time, Marilyn was killed.^[6]

Judge Amado M. Calderon, disbelieving him, found him guilty as
charged.^[7]
This Court, after considering the evidence, holds that the conviction cannot
stand.

Alibi is unquestionably a
weak defense, and it is clearly so in the case at bar. Dunig has not presented a single witness to corroborate
him. There is also the admitted fact that the nipa hut where he supposedly
slept was only a kilometer away
from the scene of the crime.

However, we have repeatedly stressed that a person’s conviction
must rest not on the weakness of
his defense but on the strength of the prosecution. The accused can rely on the constitutional presumption of his
innocence. It is for the prosecution to
overcome that presumption with convincing proof that the accused is guilty; otherwise, he must be
absolved. In the case at bar, we find
that the prosecution has not proved its case.

The testimonies of the two alleged eyewitnesses to the killing
are not believable. While insisting
that she saw Dunig stab Marilyn, Maylin also admitted that it was pitch dark
when they awoke and there was not a single light in the resthouse or nearby. (Or from the moon either, for that
matter.) Katherine said she only saw
“what looked like a shadow” and concluded it was Dunig. Assuming the sisters did wake up when
Marilyn screamed, it would have taken some time before their eyes could get
accustomed to the darkness. Yet both
said they immediately recognized the accused-appellant.

If there was anything certain about their testimonies, it was
their certainty that the resthouse was dark when they allegedly saw Dunig
stabbing their cousin.

Maylin agreed it was “so dark.”

Atty. Ramirez:

Q:   This
resthouse where you and Marilyn, Flory and Katherine were sleeping, there was
no inside light in that early morning of April 5, 1990?

A:    None,
sir.

Q:   There was no outside light in that
resthouse?

A:    None,
sir.^[8]

x   x       x

Atty. Ramirez:

Q:   It
was dark inside that resthouse?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   It
was so dark inside that resthouse that early morning that you could not see
anyone who would enter the resthouse itself?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   It
was so dark that you could not even see or you could not recognize anyone who
could enter the resthouse?

A:    Yes,
sir.

COURT:

How could you see if it
was dark?

Atty. Ramirez:

No more question, Your
Honor.^[9]

Katherine demurred, saying “it was not too dark.”

Q:   You
want to impress upon us that immediately before your Ate Marilyn was stabbed,
you had seen Dunig?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   Are
you sure of that?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   In what particular place did you see Dunig
immediately before your Ate Marilyn was stabbed?

A:    In
the resthouse, sir.

Q:   Outside
or inside the resthouse?

A:    Inside,
sir.

Q:   The resthouse was unlighted at that
time, was it not?

A:    No,
sir.

Q:   It
was pitch dark because you could not see anyone or recognize anyone?

A:    It was not too dark and a shadow passed
by me, sir.

Q:   You
mean to tell us that you actually saw a shadow that passed?

Fiscal:

The witness said “parang shadow.”

Atty.
Ramirez:

What I saw something
passed looked like a shadow.

Witness:

A:    It
was really a person, sir.^[10]

So much for the sisters for
the nonco. Now for their mother.

There is some confusion as to who arrived first in the house,
Katherine saying it was she, Maylin and Flory who did while Teresita Montes,
her mother, said it was Marilyn. But
that is not really important. What is
is Teresita’s testimony that Marilyn
said to her a minute before the girl died: “Nanay, nanay, bigyan ninyo ako
ng katarungan dahil sinaksak ako ni Pico.”

If   it is true that the victim did make that statement before she
died, it should qualify as a dying declaration and so can be considered an
exception to the hearsay rule. Nonetheless, it cannot be automatically accepted as a truthful accusation and is still subject to the test of credibility.

A dying declaration is
entitled to the highest credence on the theory that a person who knows he is on the verge of death is not likely to make a false accusation. However, the
declaration, albeit presumably in good faith, may still be based on an erroneous
identification of the declarant’s killer.

In the case at bar, it
has been established by the testimonies of the Montes sisters that the
resthouse was dark, if not, indeed, completely dark. Like the other three girls who were sleeping there with her,
Marilyn could not possibly have seen the person who was attacking her. At best, she could probably only surmise it
was Dunig, but that was a most uncertain identification. A surmise is not evidence. A
man’s honor and liberty cannot
be forfeited because the victim supposedly pointed to him as her killer
although she could not possibly have seen the person who was stabbing her in the dark.

At that, we cannot even
be certain that the dying Marilyn really made that declaration against
Dunig. By corroborating their mother’s
testimony, Maylin and Katherine may have instead
enfeebled it because their own credibility regarding what they said they saw in
the dark resthouse is also suspect. It
must also be noted that the doctor who autopsied the victim’s body was not sure
if Marilyn would have been able to speak at all after she was stabbed because
of the severity and location of her wounds.^[11]
Significantly, the statement she supposedly made to Teresita was strenuously
long for a person who died a minute later.

It would seem that the mother
and her daughters have put two and two together and come out with a sum of five. Teresita makes much of the quarrels of
Marilyn and Pico to bolster her belief that Dunig is the girl’s killer. Such quarrels, if true, may be evidence of motive but not necessarily of
murder. In fact, Katherine said that
the day before Marilyn was killed, Dunig was in the resthouse and apparently in good spirits, as he
was strumming his guitar and singing.

It is noteworthy that Katherine, seeing what looked like a shadow
(“parang shadow”) pass by her in the dark that morning, immediately
concluded it was Dunig who had stabbed Marilyn. As for Maylin, she was sure
Dunig was the killer for the preposterous reason that he was in the resthouse in the afternoon of April 4, 1990.

Thus –

COURT:

Q:   You
stated, Maylin, that it was Pacifico Dunig who stabbed Marilyn. And
you also said that there was no light whatsoever that time. How did you know that it was Pacifico Dunig
who stabbed Marilyn?

A:   Because in the
afternoon, he was already there, Your Honor.

Q:   Where
was he?

A:    He
was seated in the pavement, Your
Honor.

Q:   Pavement
of what?

A:    This
is a bamboo and it was encircled with cemented seat, Your Honor.

Q:   Is
that the only basis in saying that it was Pacifico Dunig who stabbed Marilyn?

A:    Yes,
Your Honor.^[12]

The evidence of the prosecution is a slender reed. It cannot sustain a conviction. The defense is weak, but the prosecution is
even weaker, based as it is mainly
on the narration of the alleged eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen the
killing, one in total darkness and another in near total darkness that enabled
her to see a shadow that passed by her. The tales are implausible. We
cannot accept them. The Court has no choice but to
exonerate the accused-appellant because his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

The following observations in People v. Pecardal^[13]
are appropriate:

A life has been taken and justice demands that the wrong be
redressed. But the same justice that
calls for retribution cannot convict the prisoner at bar whose guilt has not
been proved. Justitia est duplex, viz., severe puniens et vere praeveniens. Even
as this Court must punish, so too must it protect. Conceivably, the conviction of the accused-appellant could add
another victim in this case.

Accordingly, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The accused-appellant is
ACQUITTED and must be released immediately. It is so ordered.

Padilla,
Griño-Aquino, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 9.

^[2]
TSN, February 20, 1991, pp.10-14.

^[3]
TSN, April 24, 1991, pp. 1-30.

^[4]
TSN, February 25, 1991, pp. 1-9.

^[5]
TSN, March 13,1991, pp. 4, 9, 11.

^[6]
TSN, May 22, 1991, pp. 1-19.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 18.

^[8]
TSN, February 20, 1991, p. 29.

^[9]
TSN, February 20, 1991, pp. 33-34.

^[10]
TSN, April 24, 1991, pp. 13-14.

^[11]
TSN, March 13, 1991, p. 9.

^[12]
TSN, February 20, 1991, pp. 30-31.

^[13]
145 SCRA 647.