Accused-appellant PO1 ASPALAN MAING was charged with murder for the death of Inspector Edmundo C. Angeles in an Information1 [Records, p. 49.] which reads:

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. Scncä m

Thereafter, the lower court found accused-appellant guilty as charged of the crime of murder and accordingly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his victim P50,000.00.2 [Decision penned by Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena.]

In convicting accused-appellant, the lower court gave credence to the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution. Emilia Angeles, widow of the deceased, testified on the expenses incurred during the wake. Dr. Henry Cawley, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, reported on the autopsy he conducted on the body of the deceased. According to his findings, the deceased suffered four fatal gunshot wounds. SPO1 Arturo delos Angeles, brother of the deceased, was presented to establish motive on the part of accused-appellant. He testified that accused-appellant harbored a grudge on the deceased because he was kicked and boxed by the latter for his alleged insubordination.

PO3 Jamlang Buddih was presented as the main prosecution eyewitness. According to him, on the night of December 22, 1992, he was in the house of a certain Boling Mohammad located near the seashore of Sirawai, Zamboanga del Norte waiting for the deceased as they were about to depart for Zamboanga City. When the deceased arrived, they proceeded to the beach. But before reaching their motorized vinta, the deceased decided to go back as he left something in his house. A short while later Buddih heard gunshots and saw the wounded Angeles fall to the ground. Buddih also saw a figure of a man pointing a gun towards Angeles. Buddih was about three (3) meters away from Angeles. NcmmisÓ

Buddih immediately reported the incident and stated in the police blotter that Angeles was gunned down by an unidentified assailant. On January 8, 1993, Buddih executed an affidavit, this time pinpointing accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. However, when placed on the witness stand, Buddih categorically denied having identified the assailant. He clarified that he only heard rumors among his townmates that it was accused-appellant who killed Angeles. Ncmâ

Accused-appellant denied all the accusations against him. He averred that at the time of the incident, he was inside the mosque praying. The mosque is located about five hundred (500) meters away from the scene of the incident. Imam Sali Jamad corroborated his alibi. SdaaÓ miso

As stated above, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged. Hence, this appeal, wherein accused-appellant submits the following: Oldmisâ o

These submissions are impressed with merit. Maniksâ

Basically, accused-appellant was convicted based on the testimony of PO3 Jamlang Buddih, the only alleged eyewitness to the crime. Significant note, however, should be taken of the fact that this eyewitness has flip-flopped on his testimonies several times over. Immediately after the killing, Buddih supposedly stated, as reflected in the police blotter, that Angeles was shot and killed by an unidentified gunman.3 [TSN, June 3, 1994, p. 3.] Several days after the incident, or on January 8, 1993 to be exact, Buddih executed an affidavit4 [Records, p. 5.] pinpointing the accused-appellant as the assailant. But when placed on the witness stand he clarified that he did not actually see the gunman. What he saw was only a figure of a man. He did not positively identify the gunman as accused-appellant. He only assumed it was accused-appellant from rumors among his townmates. Thus, when Buddih was placed on the witness stand on June 18, 1993, he testified in this wise -

During his cross-examination, Buddih was asked to explain the inconsistency between his affidavit, executed several days after the incident wherein he tagged accused-appellant as the gunman, and his declaration in open court during direct examination disclaiming the fact that he positively identified accused-appellant as the gunman. Thus -

In short, Buddih failed to positively identify accused-appellant as the gunman. He only concluded it was accused-appellant as it was the rumor in town. When questioned further by the trial court, he affirmed his testimony that he was not able to identify accused-appellant, thus -

Despite his familiarity with accused-appellant’s figure, he still failed to identify the assailant of Angeles. He only based his statement on what he heard from his townmates. In short, Buddih did not have first-hand knowledge of the identity of the assailant. Therefore, his testimony that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime was purely hearsay and merits no evidentiary weight at all.8 [People v. Franco, G.R. No. 118607, March 4, 1997, 269 SCRA 211.]

Without any testimony positively identifying accused-appellant as the gunman nor any evidence directly linking him as the author of the crime, PO1 Aspalan Maing can not be convicted of the murder of Angeles. Accused-appellant enjoys the presumption of innocence, which can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt.9 [People v. Hilario, 284 SCRA 344 (1998).] Mere suspicions or conjectures, however strong, can never become substitutes for this required quantum of proof.10 [People v. Dela Rosa, 284 SCRA 158 (1998).] This Court cannot affirm his conviction merely on unfounded conclusions or conjectures. To do so, this Court must be convinced that accused-appellant’s conviction is based on competent evidence and his guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.11 [Cosep v. People, 290 SCRA 378 (1998).] This means a moral certainty that the accused is guilty.12 [People v. Gil, 284 SCRA 563 (1998).]

Indeed, accused-appellant’s alibi may be the weakest of all defenses. Nonetheless, this weakness ought not to be used as proof of his guilt. The prosecution must rest on the strength of its evidence and not rely on the weakness of the defense.13 [People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997, 270 SCRA 432.]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, convicting accused-appellant of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of his victim P50,000.00, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant PO1 Aspalan Maing is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless held for some other legal grounds. No costs. Nexâ old

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.