Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Libunao y Mariano
Case
G.R. No. 247651
Decision Date
Mar 24, 2021
Appellant acquitted of homicide after Supreme Court found unreliable witness identification due to tinted windows, distance, and distraction, upholding presumption of innocence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247651)

Applicable Law

The relevant constitutional framework guiding this decision derives from the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly concerning the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Charges and Initial Proceedings

Mark Ian Libunao was charged with homicide in the Information filed on January 5, 2015, alleging that he used his motor vehicle to unlawfully inflict harm on Acosta, resulting in fatal injuries. After his arraignment on January 26, 2015, where he pleaded not guilty, Libunao filed a Motion for Bail, asserting wrongful identification as the basis for his defense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted bail, allowing Libunao to post a bond of P100,000.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Traffic Constables Liberty Tongco and Lourdes S. Liton, and a civilian barker named Rommel P. Montipio. Their testimonies revealed that Acosta apprehended Libunao for traffic violations before the latter drove away, leading to Acosta falling and sustaining serious injuries. Specifically, Montipio testified he observed Libunao as the driver of the offending vehicle during the incident. The prosecution also included testimony from Acosta's wife regarding the impact of his death on their family and forensic evidence that established the cause of Acosta's fatal injuries.

RTC's Findings and Judgment

On February 16, 2017, the RTC convicted Libunao of homicide, ruling that all elements necessary to establish the crime had been proven. The RTC's judgment highlighted the intent to kill, as evidenced by Libunao's actions when he left the scene while Acosta was still partially within his vehicle. The court emphasized Libunao's flight from the scene as indicative of his guilt and acknowledged the financial and emotional damages suffered by Acosta's heirs, ordering significant monetary compensation payable to them.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Libunao appealed the RTC’s decision, maintaining that his identity was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On May 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. The CA's findings reiterated that Montipio's identification of Libunao, despite the tinted windows of the vehicle, was compelling enough to uphold the conviction.

Appellate Analysis and Supreme Court Decision

In assessing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted significant issues concerning the reliability of the so

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.