Court clears Naga resident of attempted murder charge

CEBU, Philippines - For lack of evidence, the Regional Trial Court dismissed a case for attempted murder filed against a man by his neighbor. 

Judge Estela Alma Singco of Branch 12 acquitted Mario Sayadoc, a resident of West Poblacion, Naga City, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

“In this case, the quantum of proof required to justify a conviction for a criminal offense was not satisfied by the prosecution. Thus, the court has no option but to uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused,” read the decision.

The victim, Senon Omambac, alleged that Sayadoc attempted to kill him on September 21, 2005.

According to Omambac, Sayadoc was riding a motorcycle at past 11 a.m. that day when he shot him, hitting his right forearm. 

Prior to the incident, the victim said he sued the suspect for slight physical injury for another incident and for grave threats for allegedly attempting to stab his wife. 

Sayadoc, however, denied the accusations, alleging that he was not in Naga City on the said date as he was at the house of his girlfriend in San Fernando town since September 20. He allegedly returned home on September 22, at around 8 p.m.

 He claimed to have no knowledge about the shooting incident. 

To clear his name, Sa-yadoc said he went to the police station and was subjected to a paraffin test.

Singco ruled in favor of Sayadoc. 

“Although defense of alibi is inherently weak, the prosecution is not released from its burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. More important, before a court can apply the rule that positive identification prevails over alibi, it is necessary to first establish beyond question the credibility of the eyewitness as to the identification of the accused,” the decision read. 

Singco added that the aforementioned “credibility” was not established. 

“Hence, there can be no positive identification to speak of, and no application of the aforementioned rule,” the decision further read. — (FREEMAN)