Title
People vs. Vergara
Case
G.R. No. L-1804
Decision Date
Dec 2, 1948
Maximo Vergara was acquitted of robbery with homicide after the Supreme Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable due to inconsistencies, a moonless night, and potential personal grudges, while his alibi was corroborated.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1804)

Factual Background

The appellant, Maximo Vergara, was charged with robbery with homicide resulting in the death of Amando de los Santos on June 27, 1943. The trial court convicted him based on testimonies from three prosecution witnesses, leading to a sentence of reclusion perpetua, damages, and costs.

Prosecution Witnesses

  • Dolores Galicia: Amando’s common-law wife, provided primary testimony indicating that Maximo Vergara entered their home, assaulted Amando, and participated in the subsequent robbery. She described the assailants as having ties to the local community but could only identify Maximo.
  • Felipe De Leon and Margarito Hecate: Both corroborated Dolores's narrative, stating they were also tied up and forced to witness the assault on Amando. Their accounts supported the prosecution's claim regarding the robbery and threats made by the Vergaras.

Defense and Alibi

Maximo Vergara contended his innocence, asserting a strong alibi supported by various defense witnesses. Key witnesses testified that on the night of the crime, he was on Ronda duty, a militia involved in local security under Japanese occupation. These testimonies presented credible evidence regarding his absence from the scene during the alleged commission of the crime. The claims of his involvement were further undermined by doubts regarding the prosecution witnesses' ability to observe events in the dark.

Credibility Issues

The prosecution witnesses faced significant credibility issues:

  1. The improbability of their ability to identify Maximo during a moonless night cast doubt on their testimonies.
  2. Dolores Galicia’s delay in reporting the crime—over three years—without justifiable explanation raised questions about her motives and veracity.
  3. The history of rivalry and strained relationships between the accused and prosecution witnesses suggested possible motives for false testimony, including revenge or personal grudge.

Acquittal Decision

The appellate court found that while the testimonies of the prosecution initially appeared compelling, they lacked sufficient corroboration and fell short under scrutiny. The defense successful

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.