27/08/2025
| The Supreme Court (SC) held that not all denials and alibis to the commission of a crime should be regarded as fabricated, most especially if the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a 25-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division has acquitted Marvin Nuguid of murder for allegedly shooting Dutch national Wilhelmus Johannes Joseph Geertman to death on the grounds of reasonable doubt and for the failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish his guilt.
Geertman was the executive director of Alay Bayan, Inc., a non-government organization engaged in disaster preparedness. Initially, Nuguid, along with three others, was indicted for murder and robbery stemming from an incident that happened in 2012. The victim, Geertman, was gunned down by two assailants who entered the Alay Bayan Inc. premises.
The unidentified men escaped by riding a motorcycle driven by a third man, parked just outside the compound. Geertman was immediately rushed to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. It was only in 2014, or roughly two years after the incident, when the police searched Nuguid's house and arrested him for the crime.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Nuguid for robbery due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But on the other hand, he was convicted for murder, giving great weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The said ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.
In acquitting Nuguid, the SC held that the lower courts committed reversible error in hastily convicting him based on questionable evidence. It noted the basic and immutable principle in criminal law that an accused individual cannot be convicted if there is reasonable doubt in his commission of a crime.
"Indeed, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced by the prosecution; otherwise, the accused must be acquitted, even if, on the face of it, he or she appears to be most suspicious or even if there is no other possible or identifiable perpetrator [on] the records despite there having been a crime committed," the Supreme Court said.
It took into consideration the admission of some of the supposed witnesses who said that they did not personally witness the shooting of the victim and they cannot testify as to the real identity of the shooter.
Meanwhile, some supposed eyewitnesses also failed to give a concrete description of the assailant they purportedly saw and eventually acknowledged that they did not see who fired the gun that caused the death of Geertman.
The court found that the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, as well as in the evidence on record, are vital to the integrity of the case. It emphasized that the said inconsistencies were not based on minor details that greatly affect the credibility of the witnesses.
"The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt," the Supreme Court said.
"The inconsistent statements inexorably lead this Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of Nuguid for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is elementary that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that of the defense," it added.
The high court also underscored that while Nuguid relied on mere denials in asserting his innocence, and while these are the weakest evidence of all, it said not all alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Due to this acquittal, the court ordered the immediate release of the Nuguid from detention.
