G.R. No.

L-68969 January 22, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 

vs.
USMAN HASSAN y AYUN, respondent.

[Note: This case also discusses topics concerning procedural law and constitutional rights, but since this
case is under Intent v Motive the digest’s Facts, Issue/s, and Rulling will only be about this topic. For a
better understanding of the whole case (baka tanong din kasi ni Judge yung about sa others) please
read the whole text.]

FACTS:

As recounted by the lone witness at 7:00 in the evening of July 23, 1981 Jose Samson
who is the sole eyewitness for the prosecution went to Fruit Paradise near the Barter Trade
Zone in Zamboanga City together with the victim Ramon Pichel Jr., while Samson was selecting
mangoes he saw a man stabbed Pichel only once while the victim was seated on his
motorcycle. The assailant then fled the scene towards a PNB building. The victim was then
rushed to a hospital where he is declared dead on arrival. While on the hospital Samson was
questioned by the police regarding the appearance of the assailant. According to him the
assailant was wearing a white short-sleeved t-shirt and maong pants. Afterwards the victim’s
body was brought to Funeraria La Merced, after sometime Usman Hassan who was confiscated
from him a knife with a blade measuring more or less 7 inches which the accused claimed was
used for slicing mangoes, was brought by the police to La Merced where Samson was for
identification. Samson then positively identified Usman Hassan as the one who stabbed the
victim while Usman denied such allegations. Usman was then convicted on the basis of this sole
testament and a sloppy police investigation.

ISSUE/S:

WHETHER OR NOT the accused should be acquitted on the basis of lacking proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

RULLING:

Yes the accused should be acquitted because he was not proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The court held that Usman Hassan a poor, illiterate 15-year old pushcart
cargador was wrongfully convicted since the sole witness testimony was weak and unconvicing
and that the police investigation that was conducted was sloppy. The sole witness testimony
carries inconsistencies like for example Samson claimed that Pichel was only stabbed once
while an expert medico-legal officer pointed out that there two stabs, furthermore the location of
the stab wounds is at the front of the chest and another at the left arm posterior, significantly
different from the stabbed from behind that the eyewitness claimed. The police investigation’s
method of identification which was not a police line-up but a mere confrontation can only be
described as “pointedly suggestive, generated confidence where there was none, activated
visual imagination, and, all told, subverted his reliability as eyewitness. This unusual, coarse,
and highly singular method of Identification, which revolts against the accepted principles of
scientific crime detection, alienates the esteem of every just man, and commands neither our
respect nor acceptance.” A fact was also left-out that would help testify for the innocence of
Hassan was that he was still near the location after the stabbing happened. He was still found
sitting at the pushcart with a companion. If he was truly the assailant surely by then he would
have fled far-away from the scene, the trial court only focused on the possibility that the
accused remained near the scene for some psychological reasons criminals often have while
ignoring the fact that the accused has no criminal records. It would then be apparent that there
is a total absence of motive ascribed to Usman for stabbing Ramon a total stranger to him, as a
general rule, motive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction, because, after all,
motive is a state of mind, however procedurally, however, for purposes of complying
with the requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the lack of motive on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards his
acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt as to the Identity of the culprit.
Hence the accused is acquitted.