A man accused of killing a Dutch national in 2012 was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to lingering doubt, as the witnesses presented during trial gave inconsistent statements.

In its 7 May 2025 decision, the SC Third Division said the lower courts had been too quick to brush off the alibi of suspect Marvin Nuguid, which had “stronger ground” given the absence of legitimate and compelling evidence against him.

The high bench reversed the earlier conviction of Nuguid and ordered his immediate release, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.

Earlier, the lower court convicted Nuguid of killing Dutch national Wilhelmus Johannes Joseph Geertman, Executive Director of Alay Bayan, Inc., which is involved in disaster preparedness programs in poor communities.

Two assailants had entered the office of the NGO in San Fernando, Pampanga, and shot Geertman dead before fleeing on a motorcycle driven by a third person.

The conviction of Nuguid was upheld by the Court of Appeals, though Nuguid denied involvement in the killing, saying he was with his common-law wife in their junkshop, fixing refrigerators, when the victim was shot.

In his argument, Nuguid questioned the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, saying these failed to prove that he committed the crime.

In the decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the Court said that while the tribunal generally relies on trial courts’ observations regarding witness credibility—since they are able to observe them firsthand—the facts in Nuguid’s case show “several glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies” as well as in the evidence on record.

The high bench said the inconsistencies were substantial enough to raise reasonable doubt about Nuguid’s involvement, and pointed out that the witnesses' statements revealed they did not see the shooter and failed to give a description of the assailant.

Their statements make it “highly doubtful” that the prosecution was able to pinpoint Nuguid as the shooter, it said.

The SC emphasized that the inconsistencies are far from minor, as they pertain to the capability of said witnesses to ascertain the identity of the shooter who committed this heinous crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court said that since the prosecution’s evidence was weak, Nuguid’s denial becomes important—highlighting not only his vehement denial of involvement but also the physical differences between him and the photos recovered from CCTV footage of the incident.

It also noted that the prosecution presented no legitimate and compelling evidence other than the witnesses’ testimony, which the Court found too unconvincing.