Before us on automatic review is the case for murder arising from the senseless killing of one Samson Cristobal. The dispositive portion of the decision dated June 22, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, 2nd Judicial Region Branch 32, Cabarroguis, Province of Quirino in Criminal Case No. 847 is as follows:

The antecedents upon which the decision under review was based are as follows:

On January 9, 1991 at about 9:00 o’ clock in the evening at Manglad, Maddela, Quirino Province, a drinking spree was held at the house of Jerry Cristobal in celebration of his son’s birthday.2 [TSNs, November 25, 1992, pp. 2-3; November 17, 1992, p. 7.] Among the visitors who attended the affair were the deceased Samson Cristobal, Renato Marquez, and accused-appellants Rodolfo dela Cruz and Dominador Guillermo.3 [TSNs, November 25, 1992, p. 3; May 4, 1993, p. 3.]

During the affair, Renato Marquez and Samson Cristobal had an altercation.4 [TSNs, November 25, 1992, pp. 3-5; May 4, 1993, pp. 8-9.] Renato boxed Samson on the face.5 [Ibid.] In turn, Samson took hold of Renato’s hand and they grappled.6 [Ibid.] This prompted Renato to ask accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo for help.7 [Ibid.] Accused-appellant Dominador ran to the succor of Renato and stabbed Samson.8 [Ibid.] Accused-appellant Rodolfo dela Cruz also joined the fray by throwing a gas lamp and hitting Samson with a guitar.9 [Ibid.] Thereafter, the group dispersed.10 [TSN, November 25, 1992, pp. 5 and 18.] Then came accused-appellant Romulo dela Cruz looking for Renato and threatening to kill the Cristobals if they do not bring out Renato. Teresita Cristobal prevailed upon accused-appellant Romulo and said that Renato had already left for home.11 [TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 4-5 and 10.]

Brandishing clubs and bladed weapons, Romulo dela Cruz, together with the other accused-appellants, roamed around Jerry Cristobal’s house.12 [Ibid.] Thus, Jerry waited for the accused-appellants to leave before deciding to bring Samson to the hospital and have the latter’s profusely bleeding leg treated.13 [TSN, November 25, 1992, pp. 5, 17 and 19.] On their way, about five meters from Jerry’s house, Jerry went back to get a flashlight leaving Joel and Samson by the road.14 [Ibid., pp. 6-7 and 19-20.]

On the road, Joel and Samson were met by accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo dela Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz.15 [TSN, November 17, 1992, pp. 3-5.] Upon seeing the group, Samson advised Joel to run for safety.16 [Ibid.] Joel heeded the advice and ran for cover behind some guava trees.17 [Ibid.] After losing sight of Joel, Renato and the accused-appellants went back for Samson. Renato was the first to stab Samson followed by accused-appellants Rodolfo and Romulo dela Cruz.18 [Ibid., pp. 4 and 20.] Accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo clubbed Samson after Renato stabbed him.19 [Ibid.] From his hiding place, Joel was able to witness the incident with the illumination from the flashlights of the accused-appellants.20 [Ibid., pp. 18-20.]

After the incident, Joel went home and reported the matter to his mother and to his brother Jerry.21 [Ibid., pp. 5 and 21-22.] Joel, together with Jerry, went to the place where Samson was attacked but failed to find the latter.22 [Ibid.] Samson’s body was seen floating in the Cagayan River three days thereafter.23 [TSN, November 25, 1992, p. 23.]

On March 13, 1991, Renato Marquez together with accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo dela Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz and four (4) John Does were charged with Murder before the court a quo in an information which reads:

While accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Rodolfo dela Cruz and Romulo dela Cruz were at-large, trial proceeded against Renato Marquez.25 [RTC Decision, p. 85, Records.] In its decision, dated August 8, 1991, the court a quo acquitted Renato Marquez.26 [Ibid., p. 117.] Thereafter, the three accused-appellants were apprehended and the case against them revived.27 [Motion to Revive, p. 118, Records; Order, p. 119, Records.]

Upon arraignment on October 29, 1992, accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Romulo dela Cruz and Rodolfo dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged.28 [Certificate of Arraignment, p. 123, Records.]

In disclaiming liability, accused-appellants denied the offense charged and interposed their respective alibi. Dominador Guillermo claimed that he was in his house at the time of the incident.29 [Appellant’s Brief (DOMINADOR GUILLERMO), p. 87.] Rodolfo dela Cruz claimed that he assisted Renato Marquez to the hospital and stayed there the whole night.30 [Appellant’s Brief (ROMULO DELA CRUZ and RODOLFO DELA CRUZ), p. 145.] On the other hand, Romulo dela Cruz insisted that he was in their house that fateful night.31 [Ibid., p. 145-146.]

After trial on the merits, accused-appellants were found guilty as charged and were sentenced accordingly. Separate appeals were filed by Dominador Guillermo and the Dela Cruz’ brothers, thus:

In essence, the appeal of Dominador Guillermo on one hand, and Romulo and Rodolfo dela Cruz on the other, are anchored on the credibility of the lone prosecution eyewitness Joel Cristobal. Since Joel’s testimony will determine the outcome of this case, the same is challenged in Guillermo’s first assigned error, and the dela Cruzes’ first and second assigned errors.

We find for accused-appellants.

Joel’s testimony is indeed self-contradictory. The more glaring inconsistencies that we cannot simply overlook are set below.

At the start of Joel’s cross examination, he testified that he was not yet sleeping when the altercation between accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo and the deceased Samson Cristobal started, 34 [TSN, November 17, 1992, pp. 9 and 11.] and that he already knew that Samson was stabbed before he went to sleep.35 [Ibid., pp.10 and 11.] In fact, he saw how accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo stab Samson.36 [Ibid., p. 13.] Towards the end of his cross examination however, Joel changed his story and claimed that he was already sleeping when the first incident happened.37 [Ibid., p. 23.] This shows the unreliability of the first witness. He cannot even decide whether or not he was awake during the first incident. The lapse in memory, when it comes to things the witness ought to know, instills disbelief.38 [Marco vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 276, 285 (1997)]

On direct examination, Joel said that while he was sleeping in his own house he was awakened by his brother Jerry Cristobal in order to bring the wounded Samson Cristobal to the hospital.39 [TSN, November 17, 1992, p.2.] Under cross examination, however, Joel testified that he was then sleeping in his brother Jerry’s house.40 [Ibid., p. 13.] Again the unreliability of the witness is manifested here, casting serious doubts on his credibility.

Next, Joel narrated that he only slept for an hour after the first incident,41 [Ibid., pp. 9 and 11.] and yet he subsequently testified that he slept from 7:30 pm to 10:00 pm that fateful evening.42 [Ibid., p. 24.] While the discrepancy as regards time is often disregarded, we cannot do so in this case for the fatal incident purportedly happened at around 9:00 pm – clearly within the time Joel was allegedly asleep.

Aside from being self-contradictory, Joel’s testimony does not also jibe with the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. According to Joel, Samson’s body was fished out from the Cagayan River the day after the incident.43 [Ibid., p. 5.] After further inquiry, he clarified that they saw Samson’s body on January 10, 1991.44 [Ibid., p. 25.] On the other hand, Jerry Cristobal disclosed that they were able to recover Samson’s body only after three (3) days from the day of the incident,45 [TSN, November 25, 1992, p. 23.] and their mother Teresita Cristobal said that they saw Samson’s body after two (2) days.46 [TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 6 and 11.]

Finally, Joel’s account of the second incident – the fatal assault on Samson Cristobal – is likewise unconvincing. In his narration, it appears that the alleged assailants, herein accused-appellants, attacked the deceased in succession. They allegedly hit Samson one after the other.47 [TSN, November 17, 1992, p. 20.] No details were offered to show how the assailants helped one another in the assault. Neither was it shown that the attack was treacherous. Moreover, there was no account of how the deceased tried to fend off his attackers. Indeed, the picture is incomplete.

Since the above-mentioned inconsistencies are neither trivial nor inconsequential, these are more than enough to engender some doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellants. Lest we forget, "the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. The burden must be discharged by it on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense or the lack of it. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence."48 [People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432, 444 (1997)]

Stated otherwise, "the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."49 [People vs. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407, 423 (1994) as cited in People vs. Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215, 230 (1994); People vs. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17, 24 (1997)]

With this in mind, we are not bound to believe the court a quo’s appraisal of the prosecution’s lone eyewitness especially where his testimony defies human experience.50 [People vs. Igpas, 232 SCRA 521, 524-525 (1994); People vs. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160, 177 (1997)]

Consequently, discussion of the second and the third assigned errors of accused-appellant Dominador Guillermo is no longer necessary. With the prosecution’s failure to discharge the burden of proof, the accused-appellants should be set free, and this Court is constitutionally bound to acquit them.51 [People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127, 155 (1997); citing People vs. Cordova, 224 SCRA 319, 348 (1993)]

While the killing is deplorable, especially the manner in which it was done, the accused-appellants should not be loosely persecuted and condemned in the absence of the required quantum of proof.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the accused-appellants Dominador Guillermo, Romulo dela Cruz and Rodolfo dela Cruz are ACQUITTED of the crime charged and are ordered released unless they are detained for some other lawful cause. Costs de officio.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and to report to this Court immediately the action taken hereon but not later than five (5) days from receipt hereof.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.