evidence s3.pdf

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601.August 11, 2005 MERCEDES G. DUDUACO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, Respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J: On March 4, 2002, complainant Mercedes G. Duduaco charged1 respondent Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum2 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabacan-Carmen, North Cotabato with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and/or gross ignorance of the law. Complainant alleged that on April 27, 2001, respondent brought her vehicle to the Toyota Service Center in Davao City (Toyota-Davao) for repairs and replacement of parts that were damaged due to a vehicular mishap. Upon being advised that her vehicle is ready for pick-up, respondent went to Toyota-Davao on June 23, 2001 at around 11:00 a.m. She was met by Jeson M. Garao, a service advisor, who told her that the vehicle would be released upon payment of deductible franchise. Respondent allegedly refused to pay insisting that the same will be paid by the insurance company. She then asked to speak with the manager, herein complainant, but the latter was in a meeting. At 3:00 p.m., respondent was referred to Randy A. Saragoza, Toyota-Davao’s Administration and Marketing Head. Saragoza claimed that he tried to explain to respondent that the payment of the deductible franchise was upon instruction of the insurance company but the latter got angry and raised her voice while demanding to see the manager. She was eventually referred to Vicente U. Yñez,3 Service Department Manager, who alleged that respondent heatedly disagreed with him and shouted that she was a judge and insisted on seeing the manager. Upon being told that complainant was in a meeting, respondent furiously replied that she should be given preferential treatment over said meeting.4 At this point, respondent asked for a demand letter and upon presentation thereof, she paid the amount stated therein under protest. Thereafter, Saragoza required respondent to sign the Release of Claim with Subrogation but she again refused. She allegedly became enraged and said that as a judge, she knew better than to sign a blank form. Yñez offered to fill in the blanks but respondent curtly informed him that she will not sign just the same. Judge Laquindanum left the service center without the car. On July 4, 2001, she filed a case for Replevin, Damages and Attorney’s Fees, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Replevin.5 In her Comment,6 respondent denied that she threw her weight around and abused her judicial authority. She claimed that upon being informed by Garao about the deductible franchise, she instructed the latter to communicate with her insurer. After the lapse of two (2) hours, Garao told her that he could not contact the insurer’s office because it was closed on Saturdays. She was referred to Saragoza and Yñez but when no agreement was reached, she suggested that they put in writing the demand for the deductible franchise before she would pay. She eventually paid7 the deductible franchise under protest. She averred that she requested for the execution of a demand letter8 to serve as proof of her claim for refund. Thereafter, Garao brought out the vehicle and gave the key to her driver, who inspected the car to make sure that everything is in order. She then directed Salvador Caducoy to transfer her belongings from another vehicle.9 When respondent and her party were about to leave, Garao ran after them and told her that she needed to sign a release form.10 She was given a blank Release of Claim with Subrogation11 form which she refused to sign. When Saragoza advised her that the vehicle will not be released, she retorted that she will only sign if the form has been properly filled up. The parties were at an impasse when Yñez angrily said "di fill up-an!", then took back the form and went to his office but did not return.12 It was already 6:50 p.m. and respondent was still at the Toyota-Davao premises. She wrote a letter13 to complainant detailing her ordeal. The letter was received by a lady employee who gave her another demand letter14 stating that in addition to the payment of deductible franchise, she is also required to sign a release form which she refused because some portions were blank. She left Toyota-Davao without her car. On July 19, 2001, Yñez, Saragoza together with complainant and Joe Linaza (Linaza) from FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance, Co., came to see respondent in her sala to apologize.15 In his report, the Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals recommended16 the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt. He observed that respondent’s refusal to pay the deductible franchise was not intended to violate the law. No fault can be attributed on respondent for refusing to sign a blank form. Had respondent grossly humiliated or berated Garao, Yñez or Saragoza, they would not have gone to her office, together with complainant and Linaza, to apologize. The OCA adopted the Investigating Justice’s recommendation with modification that complainant Duduaco be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for filing this baseless harassment suit. The OCA opined that complainant’s insistence on pursuing her unsubstantiated charges despite lack of personal knowledge wasted the time and resources not only of respondent but also of the Investigating Justice and this Court. We agree with the recommendations of the OCA. In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints.17 Administrative proceedings against judges are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.18 To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.19 On the other hand, misconduct is any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.20 Respondent’s refusal to pay the deductible franchise was justified. Her insistence that the demand to pay be in writing, together with her refusal to affix her signature in the blank form, did not amount to grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office or gross ignorance of the law. She was only exercising her legal right. Had respondent signed the blank form, she would be deemed it appears that it was more than eight (8) months after the incident that complainant and Toyota-Davao filed this complaint against an alleged "erring" member of the bench. in the verification portion of the complaint. but for the sole purpose of degrading respondent’s reputation and exposing her to public ridicule.25 she informed this Court about a similar complaint filed before the Judicial and Bar Council "for the purpose of objecting to (respondent’s) application for appointment as Regional Trial Court in Midsayap.26 this Court penalized respondent-lawyer for filing a groundless suit against a former client in order to harass and embarrass her by suspending him from the practice of law for six (6) months. . This should not be countenanced. Indeed. Human nature dictates that redress for a wrong done is ordinarily sought by the aggrieved with zeal. Verily. however. Yet. More specifically. the instant complaint was filed only on March 4.23 Significantly. In complainant’s letter dated January 21. she also went to respondent’s office and apologized.to have waived her earlier protest and would have lost the right to claim for refund. 2001. Clearly. no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. she claimed that all the allegations therein were true and correct of her own knowledge and belief. 2002. Moreover. the delay militates against the veracity of their allegations."24 The filing of the instant administrative complaint was not done in good faith. Yet. however mistaken it may be. she admitted that she was absent when the event transpired on June 23. must be exercised in good faith. We agree with OCA’s recommendation that complainant be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. This right. Gorduiz. complainant filed the instant administrative case after ToyotaDavao lost possession of the vehicle in favor of respondent and after she refused to settle the replevin suit she filed against them.22 which means that she has no personal and direct knowledge of the incident. 2001. North Cotabato or elsewhere". "the timing couldn’t be worse. this administrative case was filed not for the purpose of obtaining justice to the aggrieved persons.21 During the formal investigation. In Retuya v. 2002 or about eight (8) months after respondent filed the replevin case and secured the writ on July 4. As the Investigating Justice fittingly observed. now Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court.000.00 for having filed this baseless and unfounded suit. SO ORDERED.28 WHEREFORE. Duduaco is FINED in the amount of P10. however. Inc. the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. attorney’s fees and litigation expenses imposed against petitioner for filing an unfounded suit in bad faith. This Court could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench. is commensurate under the circumstances. exemplary damages. Laquindanum. This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. Cotabato City. The fine of P10. Complainant Mercedes G.In Industrial Insurance Company. as recommended by OCA. Midsayap. by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation. Bondad.00. v. is DISMISSED for lack of merit. At the same time.000. Branch 24. in view of the foregoing.27 we affirmed the award of moral damages. the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Lily Lydia A. . however.: The instant administrative case arose when Yolanda S. Municipal Trial Court. SR. fraud and deception. on the assurance that he would dismiss the case after their arraignment.M. Reyes filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint dated January 16. She entertained and gave the visitors some snacks. 1997. REYES. 1998 charging Judge Marvin B.A. the respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest and a writ of preliminary attachment. instead of setting the case for preliminary investigation as required under Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. No. Bulacan. of September 18. double jeopardy would then set in. Chona Guzman. Guzman informed her that the respondent Judge and his two companions were waiting for her. The complainant was apparently in Manila attending a conference at the Department of Public Works and Highways. 2005 YOLANDA S. JUDGE MARVIN B. to their advantage. conducted. to file an ex-parte motion for the lifting of the preliminary attachment and to request the court to conduct a preliminary investigation. vs. Chona Guzman contacted her through radio. MANGINO. happened to be there. No preliminary investigation was. 200-97 entitled "People of the Philippines v. extortion. complainant. The respondent then spoke to the complainant and told . Spouses Felix and Yolanda Reyes. The complainant further narrated that at 11:00 a. the respondent and two unidentified companions went to their residence in Norzagaray. DECISION CALLEJO. Mangino with gross ignorance of the law. Upon receipt of the criminal complaint and after the filing of an exparte motion for the conduct of preliminary investigation. The complainant also alleged that the respondent Judge convinced her and her husband not to pursue the issue of the absence of preliminary investigation and the lack of jurisdiction of the court. and Ms. Branch 1. relative to Criminal Case No. J. MTJ-05-1575 January 31. Only their secretary.. This prompted the complainant to post a cash bond. The respondent Judge merely directed the private prosecutor to oppose or comment on the motion. Tarlac.m." for other deceits punishable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The complainant averred that she was one of the accused in the said case. Tarlac. respondent. graft and corruption. Wilfredo Garcia at his office in Intramuros. which I placed inside a white envelope in P1. This matter of giving money happened at around 3:00 p.m. Judge Mangino whispered to me for a "little representation" that he needs. and immediately contacted her lawyer. who all saw and heard Judge Marvin Mangino of his promises and assurances. The complainant acquiesced. Diokno.000. and after that he advised us not to present our evidence or defense anymore and let the case be submitted for early decision on the basis of demurrer to evidence on file. At the Manila Hotel lobby. Garcia. That with Judge Marvin Mangino’s personal commitment and assurances done in the presence of my counsel.her that he wanted to see her regarding the case. the prosecution finished the presentation of their evidence and rested their case. Such order of the court is actually . considering that he is on an official business for three (3) days to attend the conference of judges at Subic and he just beg (sic) off that day so that he could see and talk to me personally about our case. Manila. who came ahead of us and seated at the sofa with an unidentified male companion.000. 20.00 peso bill denomination. He again assured us of his commitment to dismiss the case in our favor and this will happen immediately after the prosecution had rested their case. Garcia. as witnessed by our counsel and Ms. He further told us that in order not to detect his biases in our favor. and suggested that they meet at the lobby of the Manila Hotel at 2:00 p.00. after submission. I came together with my counsel Atty. He further advised my counsel to file immediately a Demurrer to Evidence which will be his legal basis for dismissing the case. Judge Marvin Mangino ordered the denial of the same on the ground of prohibited pleadings or motions. Wilfredo T.m. I also instructed my Liaison Officer Nida Diokno to proceed at the said place to bring some money for expenses. he proposed that the Demurrer to Evidence will be dismissed first. That at the scheduled place and time. That I agreed to give him that "little representation" in the amount of P20. Thereafter. Atty. to inform him of the impending meeting with the respondent Judge. The complainant narrated the succeeding events that transpired as follows: 19. My counsel. Atty. after we had taken our snacks at the coffee shop of the Manila Hotel. 21. my Liaison Officer Nida Diokno. then submitted his Demurrer to Evidence which. 22. we met Judge Marvin Mangino. the prosecution moved that this case be deemed submitted for decision based on the evidence obtained. Motion to Dismiss and our respective Counter-Affidavits as our defense evidences. 1997 at 1:30 p. there is an earlier order of the court dated October 27. setting the promulgation on November 24. and this was coupled by the fact that Judge Marvin Mangino even called me at our residence in Bulacan to convey his assurances of the dismissal of the case. 1997 is hereto attached as Annex "L" and copy of the Demurrer to Evidence as Annexes "M. Copy of the said Court Order is hereto attached as Annex "O." 25. a Notice of Promulgation of Judgment was sent by Judge Marvin Mangino to my counsel Atty. That prior to that. 1997. as he would be waiting for an ." 23." 24. Copy of the said Manifestation is hereto attached as Annex "N. Whereupon.erroneous. 1997. Which order will show that we were made to believe that Judge Marvin Mangino is following to the letter his proposal that we don’t have to appear and have the case submitted for decision without any presentation of defense evidence. Garcia and Private Prosecutor Atty. That on October 29. Judge Marvin Mangino called up and relayed to us not to appear anymore. stating that both accused and counsel failed to appear. Then my counsel submitted the said Manifestation dated October 29.m. 1997. That on November 12. Teddy Macapagal. because the rules on summary procedure do not include Demurrer to Evidence as one of those prohibitive pleadings. He even suggested not to appear anymore and just file the manifestation of not presenting anymore our defense evidence pursuant to the proposed strategy he laid out. 1997." 27. Such order by Judge Marvin Mangino will show his gross ignorance of the law." 26. the court issued an order noting the absence of the accused and the manifestation filed by our counsel of not filing any defense evidence other than the Demurrer to Evidence. 1997." "M-1" to "M-5. Copy of the said notice is hereto attached as Annex "Q. That again on November 24. That relying in good faith on Judge Marvin Mangino’s assurances and promises that he would eventually dismiss the case on the arguments raised at the Demurrer to Evidence. Copy of the said Order dated October 20. Copy of said Order is hereto attached as Annex "P. 000.969. Upon receipt of the money. heeding the advice of Judge Marvin Mangino to bring the P40. 1997. de Castro that he would just send the copy of the decision through mail. Moreover. and was issued in violation of their right to due process.00 plus the P20. who delivered the money at Judge Marvin Mangino’s chamber office. as well as for the accused.00 is contained in the affidavit of Mr. a pre-trial conference. 30.033. my husband and I waited for the promulgation of judgment through mail as promised by Judge Marvin Mangino. The complainant averred that the promulgation of judgment in the said case was a direct violation of Section 6.000.000.additional sum of money in the amount of P40. stating that my husband and I were found guilty of the crime of Other Deceits and liable to pay the civil liability of P7. 1998. and. Ruel de Castro. Ruel de Castro. surprise of all surprises. tricked and fooled us to get our trust and money with the total amount of P60. The matter of giving the P40. an arraignment. These were totally contrary to the promises and sweet words of Judge Marvin Mangino who has deceived. due process of law was applied in the instant case. I received a copy of the Decision through mail.000.62.000. Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. the order of conviction was bereft of truth. where the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine .00 cash. my counsel’s liaison officer. which requires the promulgation of judgment to be read in the presence of the accused." 29. thereafter. Contrary to the allegations of the complainant. The respondent explained that there was a valid criminal complaint and preliminary examination considering that there was an application for a writ of attachment. 1997.00 in cash. 28. trial on the merits. Bulacan. as it is no longer practical that he should promulgate the decision in open court.00 initially requested when he visited our residence in Norzagaray. That on December 23. That on November 27. as part of the "goodwill money" for the favor that he would be giving to us. I sent the same through Mr. copy of which is hereto attached as Annexes "R" to "R-1. he promised Mr. The respondent Judge denied the complainant’s allegations in his Comment1 dated April 16.000. That having received the amount of P40. factual and legal basis. a supersedeas bond for the said writ. There was.00. likewise. and the records. The respondent stressed that the accused filed an appeal. forwarded to the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac for review. the judgment of conviction by Judge Mangino was appealed to the Regional Trial Court. With respect to the charge of extortion. then the lawyer of complainant. The undersigned rendered a decision acquitting the spouses Felix and Yolanda Reyes.00 while at the Manila Hotel. of the same day. thereafter. Regional Trial Court. however. graft and corruption. 1997 but since she was in Manila. admitted that on the promulgation date of the decision. Judge Mangino received the P20. thereafter. The respondent insisted that he only had the opportunity to talk with the parties and their respective counsels at the scheduled pre-trial conference. Judge Mangino also received the sum of P40. submitted a Report dated February 14. for investigation. Tarlac.2 The administrative matter was referred to Executive Judge Arsenio P. Branch 63. Adriano.000. and agreed among themselves that they would just receive copies of the decision. While hearing was set for the accusedcomplainant to present her evidence. at 2:00 p. The respondent Judge. This decision therefore contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the undersigned which need not be repeated herein. A copy of the decision is attached with the records (Pages 122 to 125). the complainant. the private prosecutor and the counsel for the accused appeared. the liaison officer of Atty.the witnesses for the prosecution. they agreed to meet at the Manila Hotel. Judge Mangino went to her house at Norzagaray.000. He claimed that the complainant’s allegations were false.000. considering that even the latter’s counsel would know that the practice of making "assurances" to a party is a breach of professional ethics and worse. Tarlac.00 in consideration of a favorable decision or acquittal. Wilfredo Garcia. only the prosecutor.00 from Ruel de Castro.3 The Executive Judge. complainant Yolanda Reyes alleged that Judge Marvin Mangino received from her P60. presided by the undersigned. Bulacan on September 18. which was given due course. she failed to do so. report and recommendation. a contemptuous one.m. . 2001 and made the following findings: With respect to the charge of gross ignorance. Atty. 1997. which was given to them sometime after September 4.-Vicente Lagadi. 1997 but on September 4.m.m.To disprove the charge. Dulce David even invited the attention of her co-teachers on the error. He could not have reached Manila Hotel by 2:00 p. They were positive that it was not on September 18. of that day. 1awphi1. Balete. The marriage contracts were submitted as pages 65 and 66 of the records.-Ricky Quinto Dulce David San Manuel. 1997. 1997 solemnized by the respondent Judge and not on September 18.nét . The undersigned also wrote letters to the contracting parties appearing in the marriage contracts namely: 1. Tarlac City It is the intention of the undersigned to verify from them as to whether or not their marriages were solemnized by the respondent Judge on September 18. 2001. She thought it was a mere typographical error. The undersigned set the hearing on February 5 and 12. 2001. 1997 because he solemnized two marriages at 10:00 a. Jr. Wilfredo Garcia received the notice personally on January 18. as shown by his signature on the face of the notice. Spouses Ricky Quinto and Dulce David affirmed before the undersigned that they were married on September 4. 2001 but only respondent appeared. Tarlac City 2. the undersigned personally went to see them at their residences. The undersigned learned startling revelations. Judge Mangino alleged that he could not be at the Manila Hotel at 2:00 p. Since they have not appeared before the undersigned as of February 12. 1997 that was why they were wondering why when they received the copy of the marriage contract. The complainant did not appear although her lawyer.m. 1997. since he has to travel from Tarlac City to Manila after the solemnization of the marriages. of September 18. It is known that he solemnizes marriages even before the licenses are issued. Perez.000. Dulce David and Vicente Lagadi. was taken because they were hesitant to talk. 1997 because he went to Manila to meet the complainant and to receive the P20. Jr. Probably in this case. and Eliza Bustamante is August 27.5 Pursuant to his . 1997 was affirmed by Atty. through Deputy Court Administrator Jose P.Vicente Lagadi. It is not September 18. Wilfredo Garcia is near the Manila Hotel and he came there upon the request of complainant.4 The Executive Judge then recommended that the respondent Judge be dismissed from the service. In a Resolution dated March 28.00 from the complainant. Vicente Jr.000. opined that considering the gravity of the offense charged. also showed me the birth certificate of his daughter and the date of his marriage with Eliza Bustamante as appearing therein is August 27. he placed the date of the marriages as September 18. 1997 because this is the birthday of Eliza Bustamante. Wilfredo Garcia and one who is a lawyer will not easily attest to it if it is not true. the presence of Judge Mangino at the Manila Hotel on September 18. the Executive Judge should have exerted earnest efforts to compel the attendance of the complainant and the witnesses during the scheduled hearings. 1997 because that was the time he went to Manila and received the P20. it is not therefore true that Judge Mangino solemnized two marriages on September 18. and his mother Carmen Gabriel told the undersigned that the date of the marriage of Vicente Jr. noticed the error because they received a copy of the marriage contract sometime after the marriage. He also thought that it was a mere typographical error. Only after the undersigned assured them that whatever they will tell will be treated with utmost confidentiality that they started to talk. 2001. The law office of Atty. 1997 as stated in the marriage contract. No transcript of the testimonies of Ricky Quinto. Further. He did this to provide him with a ready alibi because he expected to be sued by complainant as he never really intended to acquit her. 1997.00. the Court resolved to refer the said report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for recommendation. The OCA. Vicente Jr. The undersigned already received derogatory informations about Judge Mangino. With these informations gathered personally by the undersigned. Jr. the process server of the Court was requested to serve the notice to the complainant. Bulacan are her political opponents. demanded and received money from the complainant. Atty. 2001. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She was only motivated by the truth of her charge. the case was referred back to Executive Judge Adriano for a more thorough investigation. Mrs. Wilfredo Garcia. Melo. The undersigned is now more convinced that the respondent Judge Mangino. Wilfredo Garcia and Judge Marvin Mangino. Jose A. Yolanda Reyes and Atty. 2001.recommendation. Only Mrs. indeed. In the same manner. there is nothing more that the undersigned could add.R. only Judge Mangino appeared. 1997 and he saw the respondent Judge received the money from the complainant is worthy of belief. Judge Mangino did not appear on said date. Yolanda Reyes. the Executive Judge made the following findings: The undersigned set the investigation to August 20 and 27.m. 2001. and the detailed findings of the Honorable Court Administrator dated May 11. At the expense of the undersigned. It was revealed that the complainant did not receive the previous notices sent to her because the municipal officials of Norzagaray.nét The undersigned sent another notice to Judge Mangino because of the assurance of Mrs. 2001. in his Memorandum addressed to Hon. Wilfredo Garcia appeared. His testimony that he was at the Manila Hotel on September 18. He stated that since he already submitted a counter-affidavit. Reyes that she will attend the setting of August 27. so that notice was sent to Mrs. 2001 both at 10:00 a. Atty. has no sinister motive to testify for the complainant. he has nothing more to add to it. Yolanda Reyes has no reason to proceed with this administrative case considering that she was already acquitted of the charge before the respondent judge (Decision. On August 20. 1awphi 1. The undersigned conducted clarificatory questioning on said date and the transcript of stenographic notes is attached herewith.6 In his Report filed with the OCA on September 10. pages 122 to 125 of the Records). being a brother in the law profession. . 2001.. FINDINGS: In view of the previous report submitted by the undersigned dated February 14. The undersigned complied with the instruction of Honorable Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez that the investigation be private and confidential. Yabut. the Court stressed – It is all too obvious from the foregoing that there is a dearth of evidence which would in any way prove the commission of blackmail and extortion. Thus. it is imperative that their truthfulness and veracity be tested in the crucible of thorough examination. It could be the conference for Municipal Trial Court Judges but the undersigned has no way of verifying this. Also. Dulce David.. It is not difficult to manufacture charges in the affidavits. The other party whose marriage was solemnized allegedly by Judge Mangino on September 18. much less incriminate respondent for those offenses.9Expounding further. for he is not under obligation to prove his negative averment.7 Boyboy v. hence. much less disprove what has not been proven by the complainant. We do not agree. The hornbook doctrine is that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their . the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. Jr. This will corroborate the claim of the complainant that Judge Mangino was in Manila on said date and he even attended the conference for MTC judges elsewhere. the Court Administrator has a record of that conference and the names of the Judges who attended the said conference. 1997. also was reluctant to narrate the truth that the date of his marriage was August 27. the undersigned did not reduce the testimonies of Ricky Quinto. Mrs. without more. The Executive Judge reiterated his previous recommendation that the respondent be dismissed from the service. fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim. Jr . It is settled that in administrative proceedings. the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. 1997. Mr. upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action. Reyes said something that respondent Judge attended on that date. 1997. September 18. Said spouses were assured of the confidentiality of the investigation. The Court ruled therein that it is enough for the respondent to deny complicity in the alleged blackmail or extortion.8 a case involving a lawyer accused of blackmail and extortion who was exonerated of the charges against him for lack of evidence. Probably. Vicente Lagadi. To repeat. 1997 and not September 18. Even the baseless postulations in the affidavits would certainly not carry the day for complainants in view of their lack of evidentiary value. if the complainant. is instructive on this point. or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.10 Indeed. the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. willful neglect.15 Anent the conviction of the complainant and her husband in Criminal Case No. the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of such an accusation. 1997. made corrupt overtures and blatantly demanded money from the complainant. competent evidence should be presented.11 Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent Judge connotes a misconduct so grave that. the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. She did not even present a receipt of the expenses she incurred when she and the respondent judge took "snacks" at the coffee shop near the lobby of the Manila Hotel to at least prove that she had been there on September 18. Moreover. indeed. Such is the rule where the charge on which removal is sought is misconduct in office. if the respondent had. since the charge is penal in character. or her counsel’s liaison officer Ruel de Castro to testify as to the particulars of the alleged extortion incident. or other disinterested witnesses. the Rules of Court requires that if a judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense.13 The Court further notes that the complainant even failed to present her liaison officer Nida Diokno. Before any of its members could be faulted. such as testimonies of waiters.14Thus.16 To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable. as in this case.12 In this case. the complainant’s counsel should know that even in administrative cases. to prove the alleged meeting with the respondent Judge. or incompetence. those affidavits must be excluded from the proceedings for being inadmissible and hearsay. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. corruption. the rule is that only judicial errors tainted with fraud. gross ignorance. The judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. it would entail dismissal from the bench.affidavits. considering that an accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. 200-97. As a member of the bar. the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial. her secretary Chona Guzman. the complainant could have easily gathered enough extrinsic evidence. restaurant employees. bad faith. if proven. for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in . dishonesty. good sense would dictate that the matter be immediately reported to the authorities to set up entrapment operations against the culprit. the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. However. the counsel for the accused or a representative may stand for him. no matter how erroneous. criminal or administrative – for any of his official acts. corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge. There are two instances when judgment may be promulgated even without the personal presence of the accused: (1) when the judgment is for a light offense. the imposable penalty being arresto mayor. In such a case. It bears stressing the importance of the promulgation of decisions in criminal cases. The evident purpose of this latter exception is to afford the offended party the opportunity to enforce the award of civil indemnity which could not otherwise be effected if the decision cannot be pronounced on account of the absence of the accused. as admitted by him in his Comment on the complaint. Suan:18 l^vvphi1. and (2) in cases where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and counsel.the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.19 Hence.17 As we held in Balsamo v. considering that a judgment or sentence does not become a judgment or sentence in law until the same has been read or announced to the . the respondent cannot be held administratively liable on that ground. Thus. The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.20 Criminal Case No.net … [A]s a matter of policy. in the absence of fraud. as long as he acts in good faith. since the accused therein were charged and convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable. 200-97 does not fall under any of the exceptions. dishonesty or corruption. the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the decision. the Court finds that the respondent Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law in not requiring the presence of the accused during the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case No. Good faith and absence of malice. which is a less grave felony. the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. in which case. He cannot be subjected to liability – civil. 200-97. unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. 22 Under Canon 1. integrity.23 When questionable orders are issued by a magistrate of law. and.21 Parenthetically. for gross ignorance of the law. must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof. . He should so behave at all times as to promote confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. keeping in mind that the irresponsible or improper conduct of judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. as such. the erring judge must be sanctioned therefor.defendant or has become part of the record of the court. Mangino is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. when there is no valid promulgation of judgment. SO ORDERED.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. WHEREFORE. a judge is expected to be "the embodiment of competence. respondent Judge Marvin B. no right to appeal accrues.00). and independence" to maintain public confidence in the legal system.000. casting doubt as to his integrity and impartiality.24 in accordance with Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 1991. 2007 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Appellant. a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Murder. CR No. The rest of the group took cover. 1991. armed with an M16 armalite rifle. the rest of the group took cover and Rellios while in a crawling position. When Enojarda stood up from the circle where they were eating to drink water. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. an Information was filed against Cesar Galvez (Galvez). took a break from making copra to eat leftover dinner inside the copra kiln in the farm of Perez in Matarling.: For review before this Court is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.3 On May 28. No. 2001. guilty of Murder. Philippines. I am hit). with treachery and evident premeditation. Basilan finding the accused-appellant Cesar Galvez (Galvez). 18255 dated March 30. After the attack. Danilo Perez. saw Galvez . which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Isabela. shots rang out and Enojarda fell to the ground shouting "Dan ya tupa comigo" (Dan. did then and there willfully. CESAR GALVEZ.R. 157221 March 30. The facts are as follows: At around 11 o’clock in the evening of July 27. J. Province of Basilan. at Matarling. Rosalio Enojarda. Appellee. Basilan. four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum" to reclusion perpetua. viz. Lantawan. Municipality of Lantawan. and with intent to kill. Ricardo Francisco and Wilfredo Rellios.4 The prosecution presented evidence showing that: after Enojarda fell. crawling to different directions. 1992.G. which reads: That on or about the 27th day of July. Noel Cugal.R. but modifying the penalty of the RTC from a sentence of "seventeen (17) years. attack and shoot one Rosalio Enojarda with the said M16 armalite rifle. Rellios reported the incident to the barangay captain and they brought Enojarda’s dead body to his family. the above named accused. vs. thereby inflicting gunshot wound on the body of the latter which caused his death. unlawfully and feloniously assault. who was wearing a fatigue uniform and armed with an armalite rifle. 8 He also presented Athena Elisa Anderson. xxx . to wit: 1) That at the late night of July 27.9 and Police Inspector Lemuel Caser. this Court finds the following facts to be undisputable. He went home and slept with his wife soon after. 1995 with the following findings: From the foregoing facts as well as from the records of this case. Ballistic Examiner. the RTC rendered its Decision dated February 27.5 Perez. who testified that the paraffin test conducted on both his hands showed that there was no nitrate present. 1991 and drank tuba at around 10:30 p. his cousin. at a nearby store. he also saw that Galvez had three armed companions but did not recognize them nor the firearms they were carrying because they were about nine meters from Galvez. the accused Cesar Galvez has not fired any firearms.7 To corroborate his testimony. he presented SPO2 Danilo Ramillano. a visitor at his father-in-law’s house and Wilhelmina Espinosa. he recognized Galvez. Lantawan. the evidence is found wanting. Rellios also saw that Galvez had companions but did not recognize them as well as the firearms they carried because they were approximately nine meters away. also crawled and hid in the bushes about 5 meters away. while making copra in the coconut land of Danilo Perez at Matarling.6 Galvez put up denial and alibi as his defenses. Basilan. Zamboanga City. Document Examiner and Forensic Analyst of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Region 9. 2) That a day before the incident and on the date of the incident which was July 27. when the firing stopped. a sari-sari store owner.about 5 meters away holding an armalite rifle and firing at their direction.10 After trial. one of the attackers passed by about two meters from where Perez was hiding and because the moon was bright. He testified that he was staying at his father-in-law’s house on July 27. 1991. 1991.m. How many gunshot wounds he suffered and what part of his body was hit by the gunfire. Rosalio Enojarda. was shot to death by one of the four (4) men. who testified that the shells found at the scene of the crime were not fired from the firearm issued to Galvez. all factual and circumstantial matters surrounding the commission of the crime. were credible and trustworthy as there was no motive to perjure themselves. that the testimony of defense witness SPO2 Ramillano was full of loopholes. and that the testimony of the store owner was insufficient to disprove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.13(emphasis supplied) Despite the fact that the Information failed to allege conspiracy and the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and armed band. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. (citations omitted).11 Further.14 The trial court also held that the offer of Galvez to have the case settled out of court is an indication of his guilt. 117460. this Court finds the accused SPO2 Cesar Galvez. being carefully and meticulously examined and studied.12 The RTC concluded: xxx since this accused.3) That the five (5) empty shells of armalite rifle…allegedly found by Barangay Captain Inocente Manicap from the scene of the crime and later turned over to PFC Samuel Omoso. to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum. and those five (5) empty shells were not fired from his armalite. the RTC still convicted Galvez of murder based on conspiracy since Galvez was seen by two witnesses at the scene of the crime carrying a firearm together with his unidentified armed companions. Cesar Galvez. FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum. did not come from the M16 armalite rifle with Serial No. the trial court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS. 1991 at the copra kiln of Danilo Perez came from the gun fired by any of the three (3) unidentified persons who were the companions of the accused. the Police Investigator of this case. then xxx the bullet that hit and instantly killed Rosalio Enojarda on that night of July 27. a member of the Philippine National Police GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal in committing the crime of Murder as alleged in the Information and which crime is defined and penalized under Art. 1991. has not fired his M16 armalite rifle on that night of July 27. Cesar Galvez at the night of the incident xxx. but considering his good military records after the commission of the crime.15 The RTC then disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE. the gun issued to the accused Cesar Galvez. which is the minimum period of Reclusion . Rellios and Perez. 00 as judicial costs and other accessory penalties attached to the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. 2001.22 . And upon the promulgation of this decision. the accused shall immediately be committed to the Provincial Jail where the Provincial Warden is directed to immediately transfer him to the National Penitentiary at San Ramon Penal Colony at Zamboanga City for commitment thereat. alibi.00 as moral damages and to pay the Court the amount of P500.19 The CA further held that since there was no mitigating circumstance. 2001 affirming his guilt but modifying the penalty to be imposed. CR No. However. with the MODIFICATION that appellant CESAR GALVEZ is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. thus: WHEREFORE. which rendered its Decision on March 30. the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua. docketed as CA-G. the amount of P50. And to indemnify the heirs of the late Rosalio Enojarda. And the property bail bond he has posted for his provisional liberty is hereby ordered cancelled and its pertinent papers returned. upon receipt to the bondsman.18 The CA reasoned that: the negative results of the paraffin and ballistic tests do not negate the possibility that Galvez used another gun in shooting the victim. the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. unexpected and did not accord the victim an opportunity to defend himself. stating that it was a mere rehash of the arguments already addressed in the decision. is the weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over positive identification.R. the offer of Galvez to the wife of the victim to have the case settled is also a strong indication of Galvez’s culpability. 18255. And further this accused is hereby stripped of all the military ranks he now hold [sic] in the Armed Forces of the Philippines.Temporal in its maximum period to death. and treachery was adequately established as the attack was sudden.17 The CA held that the RTC erred in holding Galvez criminally liable based on conspiracy when such fact was not alleged in the Information.000. it still found Galvez guilty of Murder.16 Galvez appealed the case to the CA. the eyewitnesses of the prosecution identified Galvez as the perpetrator if not one of the perpetrators of the crime. which was offered by Galvez.20 Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 which the CA denied in its Resolution dated August 21. OF 27 JULY 1991 DESPITE DANILO PEREZ’ [sic] POSITIVE ASSERTION THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE OF HIS (SIC) TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED WHEN ASKED TO DEMONSTRATE IN OPEN COURT IN THE MANNER AND CIRCUMSTANCE NARRATED BY HIM.25 In his Supplemental Appellant’s Brief. Galvez argued that the trial court erred: I … IN HOLDING THAT (HE) THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR MURDER FOR THE DEATH OF ROSALIO ENOJARDA ON JULY 27. 2003.24 In his Appellant’s Brief. Galvez further claims that it was seriously erroneous: I. HAD SEEN THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ARMED WITH M16 ARMALITE RIFLE IN THE NIGHTIME. the Court issued a Resolution23 accepting the case. committing the accused to the Davao Prison and Penal Farm. …TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE OTHER MALEFACTORS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRESENT CASE.The entire records of the case were forwarded to this Court pursuant to Section 13. On April 8. WHILE IN CRAWLING POSITION WHOSE CHESTS WERE ALMOST TOUCHING THE GROUND AND UNDER CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BY THEM. and informing the accused and the Solicitor General that they may file additional briefs with this Court. II. Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1991 DESPITE ITS EXPRESS FINDINGS THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT FIRE HIS RIFLE ON THAT FATAL NIGHT AND THAT THE BULLET THAT HIT AND KILLED ROSALIO ENOJARDA COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM ANY OF THE GUNS OR RIFLES BELONGING TO ANY OF THE THREE UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WHO WERE NOT CHARGED NOR INDICTED TOGETHER WITH THE ACCUSED IN THE SAME CRIMINAL INFORMATION IN QUESTION. II … IN HOLDING THAT DANILO PEREZ AND WILFREDO RELLIOS. . THERE BEING NO OTHER PERSONS CHARGED IN THE PRESENT CASE.26 Galvez also filed an Addendum to Supplemental Appellant’s Brief adding that: VII THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RESULTS OF THE PARAFFIN AND BALLISTIC TESTS AND IN ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT SHOT THE DECEASED USING AN M16 RIFLE OTHER THAN THE ONE ISSUED TO HIM.27 Galvez contends that: the degree of proof required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt because an accused is always presumed to be . …TO MAKE UNSUBSTANTIATED.…TO BE SELECTIVE IN APPRECIATING MATTERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATION. IN EFFECT DENYING ACCUSED-APPELLANT [THE] RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM. VI. …TO FIND THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE INFORMATION. MORE SO THE THEORY OF CONSPIRACY AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT. IV. BASELESS PRESUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED. V. III. …TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE TWO ALLEGED EYE WITNESSES WHOSE DECLARATIONS WERE CLEARLY BELIED DURING THEIR CROSS EXAMINATION. …NOT TO CONSIDER THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI OF ACCUSEDAPPELLANT. 32 .30 For the plaintiff-appellee. one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other compatible with the finding of guilt.000. as shown by the negative results of the paraffin and ballistic tests. in this case. the statement of Danilo Perez that he saw the accused on the night of July 27. while alibi is the weakest defense.28 when circumstances yield two or more inferences. 1991 and the firearm that was used in killing the victim was owned and possessed by another man. the statement of the trial court that the offer of the accused to have the case extra-judicially settled is a tacit admission of guilt is also unsubstantiated as there is nothing in the records that shows that the accused made an offer to settle the case out of court. between Galvez’s alibi and the positive declarations of witnesses whose testimonies have not been assailed nor discredited by improper motive.00 since pecuniary loss has been suffered although its exact amount could not be determined. who corroborated his (Galvez’s) alibi are unbiased and unrelated to him.29 the two defense witnesses. the paraffin test was conducted on Galvez two days from the date of the incident. 248 of the Revised Penal Code as there was no mitigating circumstance. Galvez was also positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of four armed men who attacked them during the incident. Perez clarified that while he was in a crawling position.00 awarded by the trial court for moral damages. the amount of P50. who penned the decision could not have assessed the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses while testifying as it was another judge who heard and received their testimonies. the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua under Art.000. the trial court correctly convicted Galvez of murder as there was treachery since the victim was not in a position to defend himself from the attack of the accused.000. it is the only defense if it is the truth and it assumes importance where the prosecution evidence is weak. and exemplary damages of P25. the RTC found undisputed the fact that he did not shoot the victim on the night of July 27. he was able to identify Galvez. in this case. thus.31 Galvez is also liable for temperate damages of P25. the Solicitor General argued that: the paraffin test and the ballistic examination are not conclusive proof that Galvez did not fire a gun during the incident.000.00 due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. the court must side with that which will acquit the accused.innocent unless proven otherwise. Judge Memoracion. he was looking upward.00 as civil indemnity should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim together with the P50. the latter deserves greater credence. 1991 is not credible since Perez was in a crawling position with his chest almost touching the ground at the time he allegedly saw the accused. in particular. Tampis. regardless of the nature and extent of his own participation. not merely inferred. it is equally essential that such accused has been apprised when the charge is made conformably with prevailing substantive and procedural requirements. if not excepted from or objected to during trial. In People v.33 As explained in People v.After reviewing the entire records of the case. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. of conspiracy. or one that would impute criminal liability to an accused for the act of another or others. the Court explained: Overwhelming. equally guilty with the other or others in the commission of the crime. In the absence of any averment of conspiracy in the information. of the 1987 Constitution. mandates that no person shall be held answerable for a criminal offense without due process of law and that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Section 14. Where conspiracy exists and can rightly be appreciated. Article III. Conspiracy must be alleged in the information in order that an accused may be held liable for the acts of his co-accused. evidence of conspiracy is not enough for an accused to bear and respond to all its grave legal consequences. such as it may have been thought of by the trial court.34 The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged. an allegation. Quitlong. each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense. x x x xxx x x x Quite unlike the omission of an ordinary recital of fact which. the Court resolves to acquit Galvez.35 The rationale for this rule has long been settled. in the information. is indispensable in order to hold such person. Thus. The right to be informed of any such indictment is likewise explicit in procedural rules. the individual acts done to perpetrate the felony becomes of . however. an accused can only be made liable for the acts committed by him alone and such criminal responsibility is individual and not collective. may be corrected or supplied by competent proof. facts and circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or misapprehended. the prosecution failed to do. the CA ruled. Rosalio Enojarda.secondary importance. has more weight than the negative results of the paraffin and ballistic tests. an accused must know from the information whether he faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co-accused as well. The CA. . this Court cannot shirk from its duty to render the law and apply justice. Q: Do you know who was that companion of yours who was hit? A: Yes. This. however. 1991 what happened? A: Suddenly we heard shots and we could not determine where it came from and one of our companion was hit. Verily. gave weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Rellios and Perez that they saw Galvez fire an armalite rifle in their direction on the night in question. in holding Galvez guilty of Murder. The prosecution witnesses never actually saw Galvez shoot the victim. when there appears on the records.37 We disagree.36 Since conspiracy was not alleged in the Information in this case. sir. what did you do? A: I dropped and crawled. xxx Q: After you heard the gun fire which hit your companion Rosalio Enojarda.38 During his direct examination. Perez testified as follows: Q: While you were eating your merienda at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening on July 27. it is imperative that the prosecution prove Galvez’s direct participation in the killing of the victim. While this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the lower courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses. the act of one being imputable to all the others. The positive identification of these witnesses. sir. xxx COURT: After you heard the shots how long after you saw him passed by? xxx Q: Was it 30 minutes after? xxx A: In my own estimate about 20 to 25 minutes. xxx Q: Did you see him really shoot? A: No. when you were already hiding among the grasses? A: I recognized the culprit sir because he passed by where I was hiding about two meters from me. Your Honor. Q: You said you recognized the culprit when he passed by where you were hiding. who was that culprit? A: Cesar Galvez. Q: What happened after the firings stopped. Your Honor.xxx Q: And then did the gunfire stop after you hid yourself among the grasses? A: Yes sir. Q: In other words more or less you saw him (accused) passed by together with his companions around 20 to 25 minutes after you heard the shots. is that what you want to impress this Court? A: Yes. 39 (Emphasis supplied) . Perez. ATTY. Q: And how many minutes after you heard firings you saw this accused and companions pass by? A: I am not sure Your Honor about the exact time but I think it has about 20 to 25 minutes. Since you did not actually see Mr.41 (Emphasis supplied). A: No. when you said the explosions came from different directions. Galvez shoot at Mr.40 xxx Q: Mr. what we did was to drop and crawl.During his cross-examination. COURT: (To the witness) You did not see the one firing? Yes. was not true? A: We heard shots but we do not know where it came from. Galvez shoot at the victim. Your Honor. MARTIN: (Continuing) Did you understand the question when you were asked by the Court. I saw him. Enojarda? A: No sir. Perez further testified: Q: So. COURT: (To the witness) In other words you were only presuming that it was him. your Honor. Enojarda? A: No sir. Rellios also admitted during his cross-examination the following: Q: You did not actually see Mr. and . because I crawled. you did not see the accused shot at Mr. .m. you only presume Mr. Perez and their two companions ducked and crawled to seek cover. Enojarda? A: Yes sir. was seen firing at Rellios. Galvez. (4) about five minutes after the first burst of gunfire. and (5) about 20 to 25 minutes after the first burst of gunfire. Perez and their two companions as well as in the direction of the copra kiln. Enojarda. and their two companions were eating merienda near the copra kiln when they were sprayed with gunfire. It is well to emphasize the four basic guidelines that must be observed in assaying the probative value of circumstantial evidence: x x x (a) It should be acted upon with caution. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one (1) particular piece of evidence.44 and that every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. armed with an M16 armalite rifle. (d) The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused as to convince beyond reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the offense. their group left the scene of the crime. these circumstances are not sufficient to establish the guilt of Galvez beyond reasonable doubt. However.42 (Emphasis supplied) Based on the above testimonies. (c) The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt of the accused. It is more like a puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime. Perez. (3) Rellios. after which. Galvez to have shoot Mr. Galvez was again seen clad in fatigue uniform and carrying an M16 armalite rifle along with three armed companions. the following circumstances appear to have been established: (1) at around 11 p.43 as well as the doctrines enunciated by the Court that the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt every circumstance essential to the guilt of the accused. (b) All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. (2) Enojarda was fatally hit and fell on the ground. and. A perusal of said . The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively.45 The "incriminating circumstances" enumerated above are mainly based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Perez and Rellios.reportedly you saw him only five minutes thereafter. Rellios. Comendador. The presence of the three armed men raises the probability that any one of those men inflicted the fatal shot.47 (c) Perez testified that he did not see Galvez shoot at Enojarda and that he merely assumed that Galvez was the one who shot the victim when the latter passed by him. that the three other armed men were not included as John Does. Moreover. It must be stressed that the prosecution witnesses merely presumed that it was Galvez who shot Enojarda. to wit: (a) Both Perez and Rellios testified that they saw Galvez with three other armed companions minutes after Enojarda was shot but they did not testify that they saw him in the vicinity before the shooting of Enojarda. and that there was no allegation of conspiracy in the Information. the fact that Galvez was seen minutes after Enojarda was shot does not sufficiently establish that Galvez was the one who shot Enojarda.48 Rellios testified that he only presumed that Galvez shot at Enojarda.51 In considering both favorable and "incriminating" circumstances for or against Galvez. The "incriminating circumstances" do not point to Galvez as the sole perpetrator of the crime. There is no evidence that Galvez was seen or was together with the three other armed men when Enojarda was hit.52 It cannot be said therefore that there was positive identification of Galvez through circumstantial evidence. it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that Galvez was the sole author of the shot that killed Enojarda.46 (b) Perez testified that only one shot hit Enojarda.53 the Court held: .49 (d) Perez testified that he had no misunderstanding with Galvez50 and that he does not know any motive why Enojarda was killed. the following must always be borne in mind: that the Information charged Galvez as the sole perpetrator of the crime of Murder. In People v.testimonies reveals. other circumstances that should be appreciated in favor of Galvez. There is a missing link that precludes the Court from concluding that it was Galvez who shot Enojarda. however. Consequently. then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. thus: To emphasize. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused’s innocence may be doubted. prosecution witness Perez testified that he did not know of any motive on the part of Galvez to kill Enojarda. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. and. and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused.54(Emphasis supplied) And in Dela Cruz v. thus.While no general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a given case.57 Motive is generally held to be immaterial because it is not an element of the crime.56 (Emphasis supplied). which simply means that the prosecution’s evidence was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of the accused-petitioner beyond the point of moral certainty – certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it. Motive is thus vital in this case. And when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive. the foundation of the ruling of acquittal is reasonable doubt. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. that which is favorable to the accused should be considered. . to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.58 In this case. It is such proof to the satisfaction of the court. People. all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other.59This is a circumstance that should be taken in favor of Galvez. motive is vital. motive becomes important when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive. if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations. keeping in mind the presumption of innocence. as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given to support it.55 the Court stressed. And. Sandiganbayan. one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. However. for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. As held inCrisostomo v. 63 Both facts must be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the defense. according to the fundamental law.61(Emphasis supplied) There could not be any doubt that the facts. There were three other armed men.In line with the ruling of the Court in Torralba v. failed to exclude the possibility that another person shot Enojarda. When a crime is committed.60 to wit: Time and again. there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime is established. as established by the circumstantial evidence.64 Galvez correctly pointed out in his supplemental brief before this Court that it was erroneous for the CA to have affirmed the RTC ruling that Galvez’s offer to the victim’s wife to settle the case is a tacit admission of guilt. a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring innocence be duly taken into account. the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. both oral and documentary. the State. aside from showing the existence of a crime. this Court has faithfully observed and given effect to the constitutional presumption of innocence which can only be overcome by contrary proof beyond reasonable doubt – one which requires moral certainty. has the burden of correctly identifying the author of such crime.65 While the Court agrees that in criminal cases. As we have so stated in the past – Accusation is not. People.62 Indeed. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The proof against him must survive the test of reason. . any one of whom could be the culprit. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction.66 such principle is not applicable in this case. synonymous with guilt. To meet this standard. independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. It is a legal maxim. but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. In this case. Galvez was not given the opportunity to explain that it was given for some other reason that would justify a claim that it was not an admission of guilt or an attempt to avoid its legal consequences. Martin appeared in Court together with Rosaflor Enojarda. Atty. It has long been held. the same shall not benefit the prosecution in its case against the accused.71 (Emphasis supplied).70 the Court pronounced that: …In criminal cases.67 is the March 3. in acquitting the accused. Godoy. The victim’s widow or any prosecution witness did not testify on any offer of compromise made by Galvez. In Godoy.69 The Court also recognizes that there may be instances when an offer of compromise will not amount to an admission of guilt. the presumption of innocence of Galvez prevails over the alleged implied admission of guilt. 1993 Order of the RTC which reads as follows: Considering that the accused as well as his Counsel. an offer of compromise is generally admissible as evidence against the party making it. the Court. Bienvenido G.68 Galvez’s supposed offer of compromise was not formally offered and admitted as evidence during the trial. explained that: . As the alleged offer of compromise was not presented in court. however. We have held that when the evidence on the alleged offer of compromise is amorphous. no compromise whatever may be entered into as regards the penal action. it was not shown that Galvez indeed made such an offer under the consciousness of guilt. in People v. Thus. and manifested that there is a possibility of understanding and settlement between the parties. the above-entitled case is hereby reset for new assignment. that in such cases the accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt. that in the matter of public crimes which directly affect the public interest. the wife of the victim.The only basis of the RTC in concluding that Galvez made on offer of compromise. which assuredly constitutes one of the bases of the right to penalize. Its purpose is to balance the scales in what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the resources at their command. taking into account all the circumstances in favor of Galvez. It is not overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture. there could not be a moral certainty as to the guilt of Galvez. (b) Galvez was a police officer who could have justified his presence at the scene of the crime with a lawful purpose. for all the authority and influence of the prosecution. the accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. together with all the evidence. and then determine which should be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail over the other.It frequently happens that in a particular case two or more presumptions are involved. yet he put up alibi which is inherently weak. . It must. This is in consonance with the rule that conflicts in evidence must be resolved upon the theory of innocence rather than upon a theory of guilt when it is possible to do so. a probability that the defendant committed the crime. Its inexorable mandate is that. It may be pointed out that the following circumstances support the conviction of Galvez as charged: (a) the negative findings of the paraffin and ballistic tests do not prove that Galvez did not fire a gun. Until the defendant’s guilt is shown in this manner. be remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating his guilt does not in itself destroy the presumption against innocence unless the inculpating presumption. Sometimes the presumptions conflict. one tending to demonstrate the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption and determine what logical or social basis exists for each presumption. nor by the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. the presumption of innocence continues. In such case.73 Thus. is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence by proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. x x x is founded upon the first principles of justice. or the lack of any evidence or explanation. The prosecution has not proven the guilt of Galvez beyond reasonable doubt. and is not a mere form but a substantial part of the law.72 xxx The presumption of innocence. however. If the principle should be given any weight at all. Teehankee75 which were cited by the CA in its Decision. and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.77 . which Galvez used. It is the prosecution which has the burden of showing that Galvez used a firearm other than the one issued to him and that such firearm. and not the other way around. These circumstances do not help the prosecution in the discharge of its duty to prove the guilt of Galvez beyond reasonable doubt. was the one that killed the victim. the Court concluded that a negative finding does not prove that the accused therein had not fired a gun because the accused were positively identified by witnesses as having shot their victims. considering that he is not positively identified. Pagal74 and People v. To do otherwise would violate the basic precepts of criminal law which presumes the innocence of the accused.76 Such principle. and (d) Galvez refused three times to give a statement to the investigating police officer. It is true that a negative finding in a paraffin test is not a conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun. the negative results of the paraffin test bolster his claim that he did not shoot Enojarda. Every circumstance favoring an accused’s innocence must be duly taken into account. the proof against him must survive the test of reason. Thus. however. since it is possible for a person to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrate or gunpowder as when the hands are bathed in perspiration or washed afterwards. that is. should also be struck down. while it is true that the negative results of the paraffin and ballistic tests do not conclusively prove that Galvez did not shoot the victim. It is not for Galvez to prove the opposite of the possibility adverted to by the prosecution as it is the prosecution which must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not for him to prove his innocence. In the Pagal and Teehankee cases. then. The argument that the negative result of the ballistic examination does not prove that Galvez did not fire a gun during the incident as it was possible that he used another gun. unlike in the case at hand where Galvez is not positively identified by direct or circumstantial evidence that he shot Enojarda. has no bearing in the present case. it should be in favor of Galvez. the same negative results cannot be used as circumstantial evidence against Galvez to prove that he shot Enojarda. as held by this Court in People v.(c) Galvez did not present his wife and father-in-law as witnesses to corroborate his story that he was at their house on the night in question. the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused. However. i. In People v. when the evidence for the prosecution is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Justice.84 Time and again. the Court has pronounced that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send people to jail but to render justice. the burden in criminal cases still rests on the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt. Although an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi. or suspicions. pertain to the weakness of Galvez’s alibi which may cast doubt on his innocence. The prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Even if the defense of the appellant may be weak. in the first place.86 It is indeed lamentable that because of the lapses of the Prosecution. yet he put up an alibi which is inherently weak.81 Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense.78 Courts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere conjectures. however. Bellosillo: .85 Under our criminal justice system. justice could not be rendered in this case for the untimely death of Enojarda. Saavedra.82 The prosecution’s job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.That Galvez was a police officer who could have justified his presence at the scene of the crime with a lawful purpose. and that Galvez did not present his wife and father-in-law as witnesses to corroborate his story that he was at their house on the night in question.e. would also not be served with the conviction of the herein accused.79 That Galvez refused three times to give a statement to the investigating police officer is a prerogative given to the accused and should not be given evidentiary value to establish his guilt. but whether it entertains reasonable doubt as to his guilt.. the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of his identity and culpability. presumptions. the obligation is upon the shoulders of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and not the accused to prove his innocence. the presumption remains.83 Thus. these circumstances do not prove beyond reasonable doubt Galvez’s guilt. It is well to quote Justice Josue N. the same is inconsequential if. it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once.80 the Court held that an accused has the right to remain silent and his silence should not be construed as an admission of guilt. WHEREFORE. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of Cesar Galvez unless he is being lawfully held for another crime and to inform this Court accordingly within ten (10) days from notice. Branch 1 in Criminal Case No. . the accused deserves no less than an acquittal. regardless of race. Basilan. 1816 dated February 2. he is not called upon to disprove what the prosecution has not proved. 1995 and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Hence. SO ORDERED. without exception. color. the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. CR No. 2001 areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. we are not unmindful of the gravity of the crime charged. but justice must be dispensed with an even hand.In fine.R. creed. gender or political persuasion – whether privileged or less privileged – to be invoked without fear or favor. ergo. Regardless of how much we want to punish the perpetrators of this ghastly crime and give justice to the victim and her family.87 (Emphasis supplied) As the prosecution in this case failed to discharge its burden of proving Galvez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Isabela. The accused-appellant Cesar Galvez is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. the protection provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed upon all individuals. the Court has no choice but to acquit him. 18255 dated March 30. National Capital Judicial Region ("trial court") in Criminal Case No. The Charge The Information2 charged appellant. confederating and helping each other. Malaria. The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the death penalty and to pay the legal heirs of the victim SPO1 Arnel Fuensalida ("Fuensalida") civil indemnity and damages. Branch 127. vs.: The Case On automatic review is the Decision1 dated 21 January 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. did then and there willfully. Totie Jacob ("Jacob"). C-53860 (98). No. with the crime of Highway Robbery resulting in Homicide.G. appellant. 141644 May 27. in Caloocan City. ROLANDO PINEDA y MANALO. conspiring. said accused by means of violence and intimidation upon all passengers as well as the bus driver and conductor. with intent to gain and posing as passengers of an AIRCONDITIONED BUS "DREAMLINE AIRCON BUS" then cruising along Quirino Highway. Victor Emmanuel Colet ("Colet"). The trial court found appellant Rolando Pineda ("appellant") guilty of robbery with homicide. Caloocan City with more or less sixty (60) passengers. the above-named accused. VICTOR EMMANUEL GONZALES COLET alias "VICTOR COLET" (acquitted). unlawfully and feloniously stage a HOLD-UP by pulling out their respective firearms and poke the same against . JOHN DOE and PETER DOE (at large). John Doe and Peter Doe. appellee. as follows: That on or about the 15th day of October 1997. Metro Manila. J. DECISION CARPIO. attended by the aggravating circumstance of commission by a band. along with Celso Sison y Lloren3 ("Sison"). CELSO SISON y LLOREN (at large). 2004 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. ROLANDO PINEDA y MANALO. accused. TOTIE JACOB alias "TOTIE" (at large). (4) PO3 Napoleon Andaya. and (6) Philippine National Police ("PNP") Medico Legal Officer Dr. conductor and the family of deceased SPO1 Arnel Fuensalida y Incinares. Colet pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on 27 September 1999. When the trial court rendered its decision. the police arrested Colet. (3) conductor Jimmy Ramos ("Ramos"). . Cristina Freyra. said accused in pursuit of their conspiracy. PNP.6 Arraignment and Plea Appellant pleaded not guilty on his arraignment on 24 May 1999. (5) PO3 Celerino Susano. 54650 and 546515 before Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. who as a consequence of the wounds died shortly thereafter to the damage and prejudice of all passengers. After appellant had rested his case. CONTRARY TO LAW. unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill shot in different parts of his body one SPO1 ARNEL FUENSALIDA Y INCINARES. did then and there willfully.m. bus driver. The Trial The Version of the Prosecution The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) the victim’s wife Amalia Fuensalida. Bulacan. The trial court summarized the prosecution’s evidence thus: At around 7:00 p. Ma. of 15 October 1997 while bus driver Camilo Ferrer (Ferrer for short) was driving his assigned passenger bus. PWZ-208 with around fifty (50) passengers on board and heading for Tungko. San Jose del Monte.everybody especially against the bus driver and conductor and they started to take and rob cash and personal belongings of all and on the occasion of said robbery in order to instill more fear among passengers. (2) bus driver Camilo Ferrer ("Ferrer"). accused Rolando Pineda (Accused Pineda for short) and his five (5) companions boarded the bus along Quirino Highway near Lagro. the other accused remained at large. the "Dreamline Aircon Bus" bearing Plate No. The police arrested appellant for Criminal Case Nos.4 The police arrested appellant on 5 September 1998 and detained him on 8 September 1998 in the Caloocan City Jail for other criminal cases. " and then announced a hold-up. Thence accused Pineda instructed his companions to close all the windows and bus curtains and commanded the passengers to bow down their heads. Thence while his cohorts were divesting the passengers of their cash and valuables accused Pineda was continuously poking his gun at Ferrer’s neck and would press it harder whenever he stepped on the brake. PATAYIN NA. six (6) shots rang out. PAG LUMABAN.000 which incidentally he borrowed earlier from a loan shark in EDSA and while the bus was somewhere in Malaria. prompting Ramos to turn his head and look at Pineda. While Ferrer was looking at accused Pineda through the rear-view mirror in front of the driver’s seat. PATAYIN NA. Irked by Ferrer’s act of stepping on the brake too often accused Pineda pressed the gun on his nape telling him "PUTANG INA MO KUNG GUSTO MONG MABUHAY AYUSIN MO ANG PAGMAMANEHO MO" and then followed by another instruction to his cohorts: "SAMSAMIN NINYO LAHAT ANG MASASAMSAM NINYO DIYAN" or words of similar import. "AYUSIN MO ANG PAGMAMANEHO KUNG AYAW MONG MAMATAY" with additional warning to maintain the same speed as the vehicles preceding them. Caloocan City. Pineda warned the former. who was at a distance of one-half (1/2) meter from accused Pineda was ordered by the latter to surrender to him his collections which out of fear he readily obeyed by handing over to Pineda the day’s earnings of P5.700. IKUHA MO AKO NG SAPATOS DIYAN PARA MAUMPISAHAN NA ANG LARO. Thence after Ferrer was divested by the robbers of his wallet containing his driver’s license and cash in the amount of P1. Forthwith the latter held driver Ferrer by the neck while poking a gun at his nape and shouted to his companion: "TOTIE. he posted himself at the front door of the bus when suddenly accused Pineda who was seated behind Ramos rose from his seat. a commotion ensued inside the bus when one passenger later identified as Victim SPO1 Arnel Fuensalida grappled with one of the hold-uppers for the possession of his clutch bag containing his service firearm. Ramos. Apparently fearing that the gunfire would catch the attention of the highway patrol. In the course thereof the concerned malefactor shouted: "BOSS INAGAW ANG BARIL KO" prompting accused Pineda to shout back "TIRAHIN NA. Caloocan City. At this juncture." Immediately thereafter and while the bus was in Pangarap Village. It was at that point while Ramos was giving the money to Pineda when he took a glance at the left side of Pineda’s face.Thence after the bus conductor Jimmy Ramos (Ramos for short) had collected the passenger’s individual fares. accused Pineda commanded his cohorts to check through the window if any patrol car . Camarin Road. As suggested by one passenger. San Jose del Monte. Bulacan where the bus was first brought and based from [sic] information furnished by an unidentified bus passenger to the effect that the robber called for one "Totie" in the course of the robbery. Caloocan City where subject bus bearing Plate No. 2657 was found parked in front of the Kababayan Center. Ferrer kept on driving until accused Pineda ordered him to stop the bus upon reaching Sampaguita Street. "H" with submarkings "H-1" and "H-2") as well as that of the private complainant Amalia Fuensalida (Private Complainant for short) (Exh. 47840. At the Urduja Police Station. Meanwhile the police investigators took down on the same day the sworn statements of Ferrer (Exh. Recovered inside the bus were two (2) slugs (Exhs. Thereafter the body was brought to El Ruaro Funeral Parlor where the same was subsequently identified by victim’s widow Mrs. an inquiry was accordingly made as to whether they know persons by that name to which the San Jose del Monte police identified . police investigators PO3 Celerino Susano and SPO1 Ernesto Mandanas of the Investigation Section were dispatched to Malaria.e." As directed.38 Smith and Wesson revolver bearing Serial No. Caloocan City where all the malefactors alighted with their loot including victim Fuensalida’s service firearm i. a caliber . Sgt. "E") and Ramos ("Exh." referring to the victim whose body was lying face down on the bus flooring. Chief of Urduja Police Sub-Station 4.was following them and uttered: "HUWAG KAYONG MAGPAPAPUTOK. PO3 Napoleon Andaya. The police officers after looking at the victim’s cadaver and conducting an initial investigation referred them to the Urduja Police Station. Benjamin Cabiltes. De Guzman and other operatives of the Special Operations Group to conduct follow-up investigation of the case. PATAY NA. Amalia Fuensalida. Caloocan City. "I" and "I-1") and two (2) empty shells (Exhs." Not long afterwards accused Pineda remarked: "MALAPIT NA TAYO" and again ordered Ferrer: "DIRETSO MO LANG. PWZ-208 and body no. "J" and "J-1"). However for lack of jurisdiction the police officers thereat referred Ferrer. An ocular inspection of the bus disclosed the lifeless body of victim lying facedown on the flooring. Caloocan City assigned the team of SPO1 Carlito Alas. Bulacan where a lady passenger screamed: "PATAY NA. It came to pass that P/Supt. Thereafter the passengers started crying and some even lost consciousness. "B" with submarking "B-1"). Ramos and the crying lady to Malaria Police Station. Initially the team repaired to the police station in San Jose del Monte. they all alighted at the Tungko Police Station. "G" with submarking "G-1") which resulted in the filing of instant charge against the aforenamed accused after a preliminary investigation conducted by Asst. as well as Affidavit of PO3 Celerino Susano (Exh. "N" with submarkings "N-1" to "N-4" and Exh. Thence. "C") from the file of said Municipal Jail were shown by the Team to Ferrer." respectively). The conjunctiva are pale. "F" with submarkings "F-1" and "F-2"). Kamuning.e. Dr. the case against accused Rolando Pineda. the cadaver of the victim was autopsied on 16 October 1997 by Medico Legal Officer Dr." were referred to the Office of the City Prosecutor. male cadaver in rigor mortis with post mortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body. Bulacan for another case of robbery. the latter positively identified the duo as two of the six (6) malefactors involved in the robbery with homicide in question (Karagdagang Salaysay dated 6 Nov. and two "Does. per Request for Laboratory Examination of the Caloocan City Police Station (Exh. sketches of Human Head and Body (Exh. Caloocan City for appropriate action by P/Supt. Freyra’s findings was [sic] embodied in her Medico Legal Report No. "D" with submarkings "D-1" and "D-2"). "E-1"). 1997 – Exh. "B") and Sison (Exh. . a member of the gang of accused Rolando Pineda who with another companion named Celso Sison was said to be detained at the Municipal Jail of San Jose del Monte. Lomadilla. fairly developed. Cristina Freyra of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services. Cabiltes per referral slip dated 10 November 1997 (Exh. "O" with submarkings "O-1" and "O-2. i. "K") and the Certification of Identification and Consent for Autopsy (Exh. "L") signed by the Private Complainant. "P" with submarkings "P-1" and "P-2")." "M-2" and "M-3") with its annexes. EDSA." "John" and "Peter. With the above findings together with the sworn statements of witnesses and the Joint Affidavits of SPO1 Carlito Alas and PO3 Napoleon Andaya (Exh. The lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. "M" with submarkings "M-1. M-1509-97 (Exh. Per the record. Ma. and other pertinent documents such as the Death Certificate of victim (Exh. which disclosed the following findings and conclusion: "FINDINGS: Fairly nourished. Celso Sison. Quezon City. City Prosecutor Sancho G. Victor Colet.the man as Totie Jacob. Proceeding to the said place the team found out that the duo were already out on bail. Totie Jacob. after the pictures of accused Pineda (Exh. 10 cm from the posterior midline. point of entry. epigastric region. upwards and to the left fracturing the left mandible.8 x 0. TRUNK. with subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhages. 167. (2) Gunshot wound.7 cm. 146 cm from the heel. 2. left parietal region. left supraorbital region. fracturing the left parietal and left sphenoid bone. stomach and the spleen. lacerating the left dome of the diaphragm. right cheek. 9 cm from the anterior midline. measuring 0. thru and thru. making a point of exit at the left preauricular region.5 x 1.5 x 1 cm.1 cm uniformly. 14 cm from the anterior midline. EXTREMITY: (1) Gunshot wound. passing thru the 4th left intercostal space. 11 cm from the posterior midline.7 cm just left of the midsagittal line.8 x 0. lacerating the left cerebral hemisphere.7 cm. 2 cm left of the anterior midline. 154 cm from the heel. with subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhages. 146 cm from the heel. lacerating the larynx. (5) Gunshot wound. right submanibular region measuring 0.1 cm uniformly. 4 cm from the anterior midline. measuring 0."HEAD. directed posteriorwards.5 cm from the heel. directed posteriorwards.2 cm. with an abraded collar measuring 0. measuring 0. making a point of exit at the left posterior costal region.1 cm uniformly. A deformed slug recovered embedded at the left sphenoid bone. fracturing left temporal and left sphenoid bone.7 cm.5 x 2. measuring 8 x 3 cm. with an abraded collar measuring 0. an area of smudging measuring 4.8 x 0. downwards and lateralwards. directed posteriorwards.5 cm. measuring 0.5 cm from the heel. downwards and medialwards. measuring 1. 156. measuring 0. directed anteriorwards. measuring 4 x 3 cm. point of entry. 7 cm from the anterior midline. left post auricular region. downwards and medialwards. with an abraded collar. A deformed slug recovered embedded at the left sphenoid bone.1 cm uniformly. 109 cm from the heel. . (3) Contusion.8 x 0. lacerating both left cerebral hemisphere. 115 cm from the heel with an abraded collar. measuring 1. (4) Abrasion. (6) Gunshot wound thru and thru. Gunshot wound . 4 cm from the posterior midline. 122 cm from the heel. 2.2 cm inferiorly. with an abraded collar. downwards and lateralwards.38 cal. 144 cm from the heel. 0.5 cm laterally.7 cm.7 cm. measuring 0. Gunshot wounds designated in the Medico Legal report as Nos. Dr. the assailant was somewhere at the extreme left of the victim who could be in a lying or sitting position or at a lower level than the assailant with the muzzle of the gun pointed downward. measuring 0. measuring 0. with an abraded collar.8 x 0." Elucidating on her medical findings. wherein the six (6) gunshots had the same points of entries all measuring 0.1 cm inferiorly and medially. one abrasion and one contusion. upwards and lateralwards. directed anteriorwards. directed anteriorwards. 5. On the relative position of the victim with the assailant/s it is possible that when gunshot wounds nos.8 x 0.7 cm. (8) Gunshot wound. The stomach is ¼ full of partially digested food particles. fracturing the 9th left thoracic rib. A deformed slug recovered embedded thereat. 1. 6 and 7 were fatal. 2 and 6 were inflicted.2 cm superiorly. she could not form any opinion as to the number of assailant[s].1 cm superiorly. measuring 0. revolver. however. 0. lacerating both lobes of the left lung.9 x 0. head and trunk. "CONCLUSION: Cause of death is hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds. measuring 1. the fatal weapon was possibly a . just left of the posterior midline. 126 cm from the heel. The rest of the visceral organs are grossly unremarkable. that the contusion on the left eye was brought about by the blood in the head owing to several fractures in the skull while the abrasion could have been brought about by the rubbing of the affected area with a rough surface. point of entry. There is about 800 cc of blood in the abdominal cavity.2 cm. vertebral region. thru and thru. right shoulder. 14 cm from the anterior midline. 1. making a point of exit at the left anterior axillary region.(7) Gunshot wound. Freyra testified that she found six (6) gunshot wounds in the victim’s body. negative for alcoholic odor. that judging from the nature of the wounds. 0. medially and laterally.5 x 1. " "Q-2" and "Q-3") from the victim’s body and the recovery of police of slugs at the crime scene. He never left his said place of work on that particular day and as a matter of fact LILLIAN TAN even served him lunch and snacks in the morning and afternoon. that he does not . Freyra went on to add that some of the gunshot wounds had points of entries and exits while others did not have any exit wound thus this explains her extraction of the deformed slugs (Exhs. 2 and 6 while the trajectory of gunshot wound no. Tala. Testifying on the civil aspect of the case the private complainant alleged that as Senior Police Officer I. he went to the nearby house of his contractor LILLIAN TAN where he talked with her and drunk [sic] some beer until 9:00 p. "Q-1. On the hearing of 16 July 1999 the Defense Counsel agreed to stipulate that the private complainant incurred the total amount of P60. Upon arriving home he rested for 5 minutes then took a bath and at around 6:00 p.. 1. The trial court summarized appellant’s bid for an acquittal in this wise: On that day of 15 October 1997 from 8:00 a. (3) his acquaintance Efren Quiton ("Quiton").. After finishing his work he was paid P500 by his contractor and at 5:00 p. 8 was also going downward toward the lateral side of the body. Gunshot wound no.m.000 representing the funeral and other related expenses for the deceased. 5 was inflicted at close range. (2) his contractor Lillian Tan ("Tan"). and (4) his coaccused Colet.m. 7 which was located at victim’s back could have been sustained while victim was in any of the three aforecited positions as nos.no. accused was in the house of one VICTOR "INTING" VILLENA in Gumamela St. he went home which is only one hundred meters away or a five minutes [sic] walk from VICTOR VILLENA’S house.277. victim was receiving the monthly salary of P9. that as a result of the death of her husband she suffered mental block. to 5:00 p. wounded feelings and sleepless nights and was very sad thinking of what would be in store for their three small children. Malaria.m. Dr.m.7 The Version of the Defense The defense presented four witnesses: (1) appellant.m..m.50. when he went home and ate dinner then retired to bed at around 10:00 p. Caloocan City where he installed the electrical wiring per contract with contractor LILLIAN TAN. . Sub-Station 6. Malaria. "1").D. 1866 filed with the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte. that CELSO SISON was also instrumental for [sic] his arrest by SPO2 ABRAHAM FERNANDEZ and SPO1 LEOPOLDO DAVID for alleged violation of P. Bagong Silang implicated him for alleged Violation of P. were heard to say that he would rot in jail. that his alleged involvement in the instant case which occurred on 15 October 1997 was not even brought up by the SubStation 6 operatives during his custodial investigation before Prosecutor ACUÑA.know anything about the shooting incident in question. Malaria. Bulacan which was however subsequently dismissed after he posted the required bailbond on 5 August 1999 (Exh. that he was again framed-up by the police on 15 November 1999 when he was arrested by elements of the Caloocan City Police Station. that in furtherance of the police efforts to file trump-up [sic] charge against him the Caloocan City Police Station. thus. this City where according to prosecution witnesses CAMILO FERRER and JIMMY RAMOS the shooting incident in question occurred. he was released from detention on 18 November 1997. that while in jail he met fellow inmate EFREN QUITON from Bulacan who expressed . that [the] instant charge against him was fabricated as he was just implicated by his co-accused VICTOR COLET. and that he saw for the first time police investigator PO3 CELERINO SUSANO in court. respectively. that he had no previous encounter or quarrel with these FERRER and RAMOS and did not know them prior to the incident. an asset of the police which arose from the rivalry over a woman he had with CELSO SISON who is a good friend of VICTOR COLET. Bagong Silang for allegedly concealing a deadly weapon and assault which was referred for inquest by Sub-Station Commander Capt. who is a brother of a policeman. Tala. Quezon City and a distance of around 4 to 5 kilometers to Quirino Highway. against him now pending before RTC Branch 131. "2" and "3" with submarkings "2-A" and "3-A". Sub-Station 6. VALDEZ to Inquest Prosecutor ACUÑA who however ordered his release as no evidence was confiscated from his person. this City (Exhs. Caloocan City is about 30 to 45 minutes ride to or from Lagro.D. 1866 and Robbery which allegedly happened on 5 September 1997 despite the fact that he was detained as early as 5 August 1998 [sic] at the Caloocan City Jail and ironically this resulted in the filing of two Informations in Criminal Case Nos. that his house in Gumamela St. respectively). and CELSO SISON @ BOYET TARTARO. that his picture shown by the Caloocan City Police to the witnesses in the instant case must have been secured by them from the Court’s file. that the duo who managed to elude arrest. 54650 and 54651. San Jose del Monte. Bulacan prior to his detention and is detained at the Caloocan City Jail on charge of illegal possession of shabu during pot session which occurred on 10 June 1999. SPO4 MARIO LARENAS approached him inquiring on whether he saw BOYET TARTARO. who used to handle the traffic at the crossroad of Tungkong Mangga. further professing lack of knowledge about the incident in question and maintained that except that of a contractorworker relationship. no other relation exist [sic] between her and Accused PINEDA. VICTOR COLET and one TITO who were said to be the suspects in the bus hold-up incident wherein one policeman was killed and that the name of the Accused PINEDA was never mentioned as among those he suspected. police officer TITO ALAS came looking for him and had he found him then he could have been killed. that while thus under detention he came to know his fellow inmate ROLANDO PINEDA and on "10 June 1996" (p.surprise on why he was implicated in the instant case as he claimed to know what really happened and the persons really involved in this case and volunteered to testify for him in Court. The other defense witness EFREN QUITON corroborated the testimony of the Accused relative to his getting acquainted with him at the City Jail and his knowledge about the offense for which he (accused) was being implicated. TSN of 31 August 1999 – QUITON) the latter intimated to him about his (Accused’s) case to which he expressed surprise considering that sometime on 16 October 1997. San Jose del Monte and a certain COLET because both were often seen together. the Defense Counsel recalled Accused PINEDA (TSN – 1 September 1999) to the witness stand who testified that he remembered an event which occurred on 15 August 1997 when he figured in a rumble and the unnamed male person who was seriously wounded as a result of his punches turned out to be the nephew of police officer TITO ALAS who was the one who arrested him in connection with instant case and whose house was a distance of around 300 meters away from his house. 3. that he knows very well this BOYET TARTARO. On 1 September 1999. The defense presented Miss LILLIAN TAN who corroborated the alibi defense of the Accused. that subsequently his sister informed him that after he stepped out of the house. a police aide. . He testified in this wise: He (EFREN QUITON) was a resident of Grotto. As synthesized by the Court the following were Accused COLET’s declarations: He. Art. this City which is one-half to one kilometer away from accused PINEDA’s place at Barracks II. for the purpose of admitting newly discovered evidence brought about by the arrest of accused VICTOR EMMANUEL COLET who was committed to the BJMP Caloocan City on 10 September 1999 in connection with another case involving Violation of Section 16.m. Quezon City purposely to go home and had himself seated at the bus’ right side. The first time he saw Accused Pineda was in 1996 in Bukid Area and subsequently he used to see him passed-by [sic] the house of the woman he (Accused COLET) was courting in Barracks II. HOLDAP ITO. III. R. third seat from the last. who was armed with a handgun then seated on the first seat. right side of the bus. Guandanoville Subdivision. a neighbor of his in Bankers’ Village II. Accused VICTOR EMMANUEL GONZALES COLET. On that fateful day at about 7:15 p. Aforecited Motion was given due course by this Court in its Order of 24 September 1999 and the case was thus set anew for the reception of Accused PINEDA’s additional evidence which consists solely of the testimony of co-accused COLET to corroborate his (Accused PINEDA’s) defense of alibi. no mention was made to him with reference to its date of occurrence. a "Motion To Reopen Trial" was filed on 17 September 1999 by Defense Counsel. this City. . When the bus was approaching Grotto. In the course of Accused COLET’s testimony he gave his true name as VICTOR EMMANUEL GONZALES COLET hence upon motion of the Trial Prosecutor. SPENCER and TOTIE JACOB inside the bus. At that juncture he noted the presence of CELSO SISON. District I. this City Accused TOTIE JACOB. HOLDAP ITO. 6425. after the defense was deemed to have rested its case following the admission of its formal offer of evidence. of 15 October 1997. the Information was accordingly amended to reflect his alleged true name. aka "PINOCCHIO" x x x is a resident of 686 Quirino Highway. Accused COLET boarded subject air-conditioned bus in Lagro. Bukid Area. however. suddenly stood up and declared a hold-up shouting: "WALANG KIKILOS. between Amparo and Pangarap Village.While SPO4 LARENAS had mentioned to him that the incident for which the aforenamed trio were the suspects [in the robbery with homicide case that] happened in Caloocan City.A. Bankers’ Village II. As records have it. a . it was this TOTIE JACOB whom he (Accused COLET) saw divesting the bus conductor of his money. that it was SPENCER then sporting a barber’s cut at the sides with curly and wavy hair on top. started divesting the passengers of their cash and valuables which the passengers dropped in a black duffel bag upon instruction of the hold-uppers. that he used to see EDISON PALMARIO at Phase I.PARE UMPISAHAN NA NATIN. he used to see alias BAROK. this City telling him that ." a knife. he was a volunteer confidential agent of the San Jose del Monte Police. He received no salary therefor except certain personal doleout from Major TINIO. whenever he went around their place on board his scooter. He was arrested in 8 September 1999 for illegal possession of shabu and he learned that he was implicated in this case three days after his detention at the City Jail and on the following day he learned that PINEDA is one of his co-accused. and the sixth unidentified robber. TOTIE’s four (4) other companions who were all armed. In 1976.38 gun. a knife. Pangarap Village. TOTIE JACOB. Accused COLET is familiar with TOTIE JACOB since he used to hear the latter’s name in 1994. On cross-examination.45 caliber handgun. a .38 caliber handgun. who was pointing his gun at the driver. Accused COLET claimed that his co-accused PINEDA was neither a passenger of the bus. Bukid Area. stood up and ordered the passengers to bow down by saying: "YUMUKO KAYONG LAHAT." while he was yet a student at the Novaliches Elementary School." And while the passengers bowed down their heads. "BAROK. In 1997. this City. Prior to his arrest." Simultaneously. TOTIE’s companion who was holding a grenade. a hand grenade. he was jobless since he was the one taking care of his father who suffered a stroke. nor one of the six hold-uppers and that he did not see PINEDA at anytime on that evening of 15 October 1997. COLET explained that while stooping down. a . Accused COLET further stated that although he was one of the passengers of the bus. he managed to peep surreptitiously and saw ROBERTO SISON @ BOYET TARTARO @ CELSO SISON shooting the policeman victim who was then in seating position with his . that soon after he alighted at Pleasant Hill he immediately contacted and reported the incident to SPO1 TITO ALAS of Sub-Station 4. nothing was taken from him as not all passengers were victims of robbery. SPENCER. EDISON PALMARIO. that the hold-uppers were armed as follows: CELSO SISON @ BOYET TARTARO aka ROBERTO SISON.38 caliber handgun. a jeepney "barker. D. stipulated actual damages of P60. which per Art. c.872. spontaneous and forthright" and observed that they "remained steadfast and convincing despite the rigid cross-examination by defense counsel and the clarificatory questions"11 of the trial court judge. moral damages of P40. He assured SPO1 ALAS that he will testify in this case once the suspects are apprehended. compensatory damages of P167.000. 63 of the Revised Penal Code called for the imposition of the greater penalty.. The latter also asked him if he knew PINEDA who was once detained at the San Jose del Monte Jail to which he answered in the affirmative. the civil indemnity of P50.000.000. this Court hereby sentences said Accused to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH. the trial court convicted appellant and acquitted Colet.50 . sans any mitigating circumstance to offset it. The trial court declared that the situation covered by P. b. SPO1 ARNEL FUENSALIDA. 532.8 Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court ruled that contrary to the offense designated in the information. d.they could still catch up with the hold-uppers since they just alighted at Sampaguita St. No. After evaluating the evidence.000. premises considered and the prosecution having established beyond an iota of doubt the guilt of Accused ROLANDO PINEDA Y MANALO of the crime of Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized under Art. No. to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 and considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of. as follows: WHEREFORE. 532 contemplates acts of brigandage against any prospective victim anywhere on the highway.D.10 The trial court found the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos "positive. Malaria Caloocan City and SPO1 ALAS gave words [sic] that he would take care of the matter. by a band. and to pay the private complainant AMALIA FUENSALIDA the following: a. the proper charge against appellant is robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code9 and not highway robbery resulting in homicide under P. exemplary damages of P60. Accordingly. 2.38 cal.12 Errors Assigned Appellant states that the trial court gravely erred to the point of abusing its discretion in the following matters: 1. let the entire records hereof including the complete set of the transcript of stenographic notes be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review within 30 days but not earlier than 15 days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration.000 and P5. to restore thru this Court. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. Correspondingly a judgment of ACQUITTAL is hereby entered in his favor.700 to driver FERRER and conductor RAMOS. Accused COLET’s release from detention is in order unless he is being detained further for other lawful cause/s. Giving probative weight and value to the testimonies of Camilo Ferrer and Jimmy Ramos despite being inconsistent on material and relevant points and being untruthful to the court. Let an alias order of arrest issue forthwith against Accused CELSO SISON Y LLOREN @ BOYET TARTARO and TOTIE JACOB @ TOTIE and thereafter let the case as against them be archived without prejudice to its revival once they be arrested later on. . for its proper disposition. 10. the prosecution having failed to overcome with the required quantum of proof his constitutional presumption of innocense his motion to dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence. and to pay the costs.as well as to return the loot in the amount of P1. the service firearm of victim SPO1 FUENSALIDA described as . 47840. respectively. With respect to Accused VICTOR EMMANUEL GONZALES COLET. is granted. pursuant to Sec. revolver Smith & Wesson with serial no. Holding that the prosecution witnesses have positively identified appellant. SO ORDERED. if considered. Ferrer gave a statement at Sub-station 4 of the Caloocan City Police Station on the night of the incident. The law presumes an accused innocent. which. reviewing courts do not disturb such findings of the trial court.14 The findings of a trial court. misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance. In his statement dated 15 October 1997. are entitled to full faith and credit. In overturning the ruling of the trial court. Ferrer describes appellant thus: 12.3.15 This Court has consistently held that the rule on the trial court’s appreciation of evidence must bow to the superior rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Identity of the Perpetrator Appellant argues that the trial court erred in holding that the prosecution witnesses positively identified him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Not giving probative weight and credibility to the testimony of accused Victor Emmanuel Gonzales Colet that appellant was not one of those who held-up the bus and killed the victim. and this presumption must prevail unless overturned by competent and credible proof. Ruling out the defense of alibi appellant interposed.17 The trial court’s conviction of appellant fails in both bases. given its vantage point to assess the credibility of witnesses. On appeal. the reviewing court may overturn the trial court’s findings when there is a showing that the trial court overlooked. and (2) the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime are attributable to the accused. However.13 The Court’s Ruling The appeal is meritorious.16 A conviction for a crime rests on two bases: (1) credible and convincing testimony establishes the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. T: Sa anim na kataong nangholdap may natatandaan ka ba sa Kanila? . we follow the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question. including one not raised by the parties. could materially affect the result of the case. walang bigote. Caloocan City. may hati sa gitna ang buhok. T: Paano mo makikilala ang mga holdaper? S: Nabalitaan ko lang po na may litrato dito sa presinto na pinaghihinalaan na nangholdap sa bus. Bgy. 36 years old. 6. Malaria.. and/or Gumamela St. nakasuot ng polo shirt [na kulay] berde. jobless. kayumanggi. T: Natatandaan mo pa ba ang mukha ng holdaper? S: Kung sakali ko pong makita ang litrato. Bulacan. the police invited Ferrer to identify the perpetrators of the crime from photographs the police showed to him. Malaria. native of Valenzuela and with last known address at Phase 3. married. San Jose del Monte. Ferrer gave a subsequent statement on the identity of the perpetrators as follows: 4. nakamaong na kupas. salitang tagalog.S: Ang natatandaan ko ay ang taong tumutok sa akin ng baril na . San Rafael IV.45 sa ulo at ang kanyang itsura ay balinkinitan ang katawan. Caloocan City and (Number 2) Celso Sison y Lloren @ Boyet @ Boyet Tartaro with last known address at Gumamela St. 5.. 25-30 taong gulang. tingnan mong mabuti kung mayroon tao na kasama sa mga nangholdap sa pampasaherong bus? S: Iyan po sir ang isa at isa pa po ito sir na nangholdap sa Bus na aking minamaneho. (When the Investigator on case presented couples of picture [sic] to the affiant he positively identified two pictures who were responsible in a Bus Hold-up who were identified as (Number 1) Rolando Pineda y Manalo @ Lando. 7.18 On 6 November 1998. T: May ipakikita akong mga litrato.19 (Emphasis supplied) . T: Ano ang dahilan at ikaw ay naririto sa tanggapan na ito at nagbibigay ng isang salaysay? S: Upang alamin ko kung aking makikilala ang taong nangholdap sa pampasaherong Bus na aking minamaneho. the investigating police officer.23 the procedure used in this case is unacceptable. Thus. admitted that there were only two photographs presented to Ferrer. However. unlike Ferrer. their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. (2) the witness’ degree of attention at the time. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the perpetrator of the crime. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. Although he testified against Colet. The police showed Ferrer only the photographs of appellant and his co-accused Sison. (4) the level of certainty shown by the witness of his identification. Ramos also gave a statement at Sub-station 4 of the Caloocan City Police Station on 15 October 1997. and.21 In resolving the admissibility of out-of-court identification of suspects.25Thus: [W] here a photograph has been identified as that of the guilty party. and not merely that of the suspect. SPO1 Carlito Alas ("SPO1 Alas"). The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown. (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 9. but upon his recollection of the photograph. Hindi ko sila mamumukhaan dahil agad po ako nilang pinayuko. Ramos candidly admitted that he could not identify any of the perpetrators.38 revolver.20 (Emphasis supplied) The police later arrested appellant based on an out-of-court identification by Ferrer. Ferrer first identified appellant and Sison through mug shots the police presented to them. the night of the incident. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. T: Sinabi mo kanina na anim yong hold-uppers na pawang armado ano ba mga dala nilang baril at may mamumukhaan ka ba sa kanilang sakaling muli mo silang makita? S: Armado po sila ng kalibre . although a witness who is asked to attempt a corporeal identification of a person . any subsequent corporeal identification of that person may be based not upon the witness’s recollection of the features of the guilty party.22 Although showing mug shots of suspects is one of the established methods of identifying criminals.45 at .24 The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures.Like Ferrer. In its decision. while driving the bus. Q When you heard that. was your bus in motion? A Yes. his subsequent corporeal identification of that same person is somewhat impaired in value. "Umpisahan na ang laro"? A Yes. who poked a gun at his nape. and its accuracy must be evaluated in light of the fact that he first saw a photograph.27 The police obviously suggested the identity of the accused by showing only appellant and Sison’s photographs to Ferrer and Ramos.whose photograph he previously identified may say. On closer examination. The testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos show that their identification of appellant fails the totality of circumstances test. During direct examination." xxx A recognition of this psychological phenomenon leads logically to the conclusion that where a witness has made a photographic identification of a person. "That’s the man whose photograph I identified.26(Emphasis supplied) In the present case. sir. Thus: PROSECUTOR SISON: Q Did you hear that utterance made. There was limited opportunity for Ferrer. there was impermissible suggestion because the photographs were only of appellant and Sison. "That’s the man that did it. did not allow him to turn back his head. the trial court relied on the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos to prove that appellant is one of the perpetrators. to see the perpetrators. sir." what he may actually mean is. Q What happened next? . however. The out-of-court identification of appellant casts doubt on the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos in court. we see that Ferrer and Ramos failed to establish that what they saw of the perpetrators is sufficient to produce an accurate memory of the incident. Ferrer testified that one of the perpetrators. focusing attention on the two accused. " Q How many shots did you hear? A Six (6) shots. CRISOSTOMO: Q After the words which someone uttered.A Someone held me at my neck while poking a gun at my nape." Q He never leave you at [sic] your place? A "Hindi po. Q After those six (6) shots what happened? A I could not turn my head to see whether the person who was shot was dead. is that correct? A Yes. you felt somebody held you by the nape and poked a gun at your head. xxx . sir. sir. I was not allowed to turn my head back. xxx Q After you heard the shots what happened? A The one who poked a gun at me said "deretso mo lang.28 xxx ATTY. Q Did you see that person with the clutch bag and the other person who was trying to grapple the clutch bag? A No. sir. he jumped from one of the front seats. sir. xxx Q What other utterance was made? A I saw one of the bus passengers grappling of [sic] one of the hold uppers who was trying to retrieve from [sic] his clutch bag. sir. sir. this seat is situated somewhere to your back side? A "Parang tagiliran po. Q In other words. you just continued driving peacefully until that very moment when somebody shouted "umpisahan na ang laro. sir." correct? A Yes. Q And so sensing that no untoward incident that might happen. right? A Yes. correct? . someone approached you from your behind and poked you something at your nape which you later felt to be a gun. Q And then immediately after that. you would not see the person sitting on that particular seat not unless you turn over your head to the right.) Q In other words. sir. Q This seat and the driver’s seat. sir. Q As a driver." Q How far from your shoulder? A (Witness pointing more than a meter. sir. sir. it’s not your business to look around and check on the passengers. is it not? A Yes.Q Is this two seater seat where the person who poked a gun at your nape seated located somewhere to your right? A Yes. sir. Q At that time you were concentrated in driving. are they parallel line or side by side or abreast with the driver’s seat? A Slightly slanted from the driver’s seat. it’s the duty of the conductor. correct? A Yes. Q And he told you to concentrate in your driving.) ATTY. sir.29 (Emphasis supplied) Ferrer insisted that he saw what was happening through the rearview mirror. Although Ferrer felt the presence and heard the voice of the perpetrator at his back. he never left. you just concentrated in your driving not even trying to turn your head to look around.A Yes. ATTY." COURT: (butts in) Q How big is that mirror? A (Witness demonstrating with hands for about a foot long and 8 inches in width. it is not clear if he saw the perpetrator’s face or only his back. Q So you could not turn your head to check what was going on at the back of the bus for fear that the man at your back will shoot you? A "Hindi po ako lumilingon pero nakikita ko sa salamin dahil mayroon po akong rear [view] mirror sa harap. if you want to live. CRISOSTOMO: Q At the time you heard the gunshots. xxx Q For fear that something might happen to you if you disobey the instruction of that person at your back. CRISOSTOMO: . sir. sir. correct? A Yes. sir. the person at your back was still there pointing a gun at your nape? A Yes. correct? A Yes. Ramos remembered that he saw part of the perpetrator’s face. Ramos on the second step of the running board at the right side of the bus and facing the road. Ramos. Ferrer could not have seen the perpetrator’s face by looking at the rearview mirror.31 (Emphasis supplied) The relative positions of Ferrer. Q When you looked in the mirror you could see the back portion of the bus? A Yes.33 Based on Ramos’ testimony. Ferrer claimed to have seen the perpetrator’s face before the robbery started. even as he concentrated on his driving. and the perpetrator who poked a gun at Ferrer’s nape. this view of the perpetrator’s face did not come from glancing at the rearview mirror. sir.32 and the perpetrator somewhere in between them. Ferrer. on a level higher than Ramos. however. ATTY.30 (Emphasis supplied) During cross-examination. sir. CRISOSTOMO: Q And you were apprehensive even lifting your head to try to take a look at the suspect because it could be very noticeable [and] you might be shot? A Yes sir. if Ferrer while driving could see the perpetrator who was situated at his back. is certain that he took a fleeting glance of the perpetrator’s face. But when I handed the money I took a look at his face particularly the left portion. Ramos testified that he saw the left side of the perpetrator’s face. is as follows: Ferrer on the left (driver’s) side of the bus and facing the windshield. thus: . Thus. the most he could see through the rearview mirror was the back of the perpetrator who was facing the passengers. This meant that the perpetrator was facing the passengers and not the windshield. Obviously. Q That is why when that suspect demanded money from you your head [was] vowed [sic] down? A Yes sir.Q Where is that mirror installed or positioned? A In front of the driver. nakita ko na iyong mukha niya dahil napalingon ako noong nag-umpisa ang laro. Were you able to see? . through the rearview mirror or by looking back at him. However. even if during trial Ramos pointed to appellant as the perpetrator. the faces of the perpetrators. How about the five other companions [of] that person if you see them again will you be able to identify them? A Hindi po. Ramos testified that he saw how appellant and his companions robbed the passengers and killed Fuensalida. Q Were you able to see the face x x x of that person who sat near the driver [at any instance]? A I only see [sic] the back of the head because when he turned sidewards I was only able to see the back of his head. xxx Q You said you cannot identify the persons who sat by the driver of the bus. much less remember. Q How about the side view of his face."34 (Emphasis supplied) Ferrer’s identification of the perpetrator is inconsistent on how he saw the perpetrator. an examination of Ramos’ testimony shows that he did not actually see.ATTY. CRISOSTOMO: Q Were you able to [lift your head to look at the rear view mirror] despite the fact that the person who was at your back was poking the gun at your nape and telling you not to make any wrong move because he will shoot you? A "Bago po nag-umpisa. Thus: PROSECUTOR SISON: Q Those persons whom you saw who sat near the driver if you can see him will you be able to identify him? A I cannot point to him because when he said those words we were made to vow [sic] our head [sic] down and whenever I made a moved [sic] I was kicked. the witness had limited opportunity to see the accused. (4) before identifying the accused at the trial. (3) a serious discrepancy exists between the identifying witness’ original description and the actual description of the accused. side view. but made no accusation against him when questioned by the police.35 (Emphasis supplied) A well-known authority36 in eyewitness identification made a list of 12 danger signals that exist independently of the identification procedures investigators use. COURT: Q How were you able to identify? A Iyong haba ng konti ng buhok. the witness sees the accused but fails to identify him. (2) the identifying witness knew the accused before the crime. the witness erroneously identified some other person. (6) before trial. The list is as follows: (1) the witness originally stated that he could not identify anyone. . (5) other witnesses to the crime fail to identify the accused. Q Was he sporting the same kind of hair? A Medyo maigsi po.A Opo. look around the courtroom and point to anyone and look at their [sic] side view of these persons one by one and tell us if any of them resembles that person whom you saw? A (Witness pointing to the person who identified his name as Rolando Pineda). Q Now. (7) before the commission of the crime. These signals give warning that the identification may be erroneous even though the method used is proper. The list is not exhaustive. The facts of a particular case may contain a warning not in the list. Ferrer had no inkling that appellant would rob them. the trial court cannot convict any one. When he first saw appellant. insufficient identification. without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator. Denial and Alibi as a Defense The defense of denial and alibi is futile in the face of positive identification of the accused. and (12) the witness fails to make a positive trial identification. enter other motives. (10) a considerable time elapsed between the witness’ view of the criminal and his identification of the accused. They are unmindful that in some cases the emotional balance of the eyewitness is disturbed by her experience that her powers of perception become distorted and her identification frequently most untrustworthy. Court of Appeals:38 Judges seem disposed more readily to credit the veracity and reliability of eyewitnesses than any amount of contrary evidence by or on behalf of the accused. Ramos originally stated that he could not identify any of the perpetrators. (9) during his original observation of the perpetrator of the crime. or other testimony.37 Ferrer and Ramos’ mental conception of the incident. the resulting inaccuracy in their narration. we explained in Tuason v. The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator and not to establish the existence of the crime. However. Three of these danger signals apply to the prosecution witnesses’ identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Courts look with disfavor on the defense of alibi.(8) the witness and the person identified are of different racial groups. (11) several persons committed the crime. Into the identification. For even if the commission of the crime is established. not necessarily stimulated originally by the accused personally – the desire . Ferrer had a limited opportunity to see the perpetrators before the robbery started. the witness was unaware that a crime was involved. whether by way of alibi. and the suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their testimonies that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime. to requite a crime, to find a scapegoat, or to support, consciously or unconsciously, an identification already made by another. The defense of alibi assumes importance where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and there is no positive identification of the accused,39 as in this case. The rule that the accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases. Otherwise, we will have the absurdity of the accused being put to a greater burden if the prosecution’s evidence is weak than if it were strong.40 While it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the crime, corroboration of his alibi comes from three separate sources: Tan, Quiton, and Colet. Tan corroborated appellant’s testimony on his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Quiton testified that a day after the crime, he was asked by SPO4 Mario Larenas ("SPO4 Larenas") of the San Jose del Monte, Bulacan police force if he had knowledge of the whereabouts of "Boyet Tartaro, Kulit and Tito." SPO4 Larenas approached Quiton because he knew that Quiton was acquainted with the three. SPO4 Larenas did not mention appellant’s name as one of the suspects.41 Colet, on the other hand, claimed to have knowledge of the crime and the perpetrators as he was a bus passenger at the time of the crime. Thus: ATTY. BAUTISTA: Q When you boarded that bus where did you take your seat? A Right side of the bus, third seat from the last seat. xxx Q When Totie Jacob declared a hold-up as you say, what did he say? A While standing Totie Jacob declared a hold-up and said "Walang kikilos. Holdap ito, holdap ito. Pare, umpasahan [sic] na natin" and his companions stood up and said "Yumuko kayong lahat" and then his companion who stood up holding a grenade and told them to vow [sic] down. xxx Q How about the passengers? What did they do when they [were] ordered to bowed-down [sic]? A They all bowed down. Q How about you? What did you do? A I also bowed my head down but I was peeping clandestinely at them because I did not expect that I would be in that situation and looking at what they are doing. xxx Q What did the hold-uppers do when all the passengers were no longer looking at them because their heads were bowed down? A The other hold-uppers nearest to the passengers ordered the passengers to put their things down in a black duffel bag ("parang supot ni Hudas").42 Colet testified that appellant was not a perpetrator in the crime and absolved him from liability. ATTY. BAUTISTA: Q You said that there were six hold-uppers all in all? A Yes, sir. Q And you said you have taken a good look at these hold-uppers? A Yes, sir. Q Will you kindly tell us if Rolando Pineda was one of those six holduppers that you have seen? A Wala po, hindi po. Q Will you kindly tell us also if Rolando Pineda was one of the passengers of the bus, if you know? A Hindi rin po, wala rin po. Q Will you kindly tell us or if you likewise see [sic] Rolando Pineda at any time of the night of October 15, 1997? A Wala rin po. Q You said that you know Rolando Pineda having met you and seen him for several times. If you will see Rolando Pineda again will you be able to recognized [sic] him? A Yes, sir. Q Will you kindly tell us if Rolando Pineda is inside this courtroom now? A Yes, sir. Q Will you kindly point to us the person of Rolando Pineda? A (Witness correctly pointing to accused Rolando Pineda.) xxx PROSECUTOR SISON: Q What was the position of the policeman who [was] shot at the bus at the time accused Celso Sison shot him? A The person who shot the policeman was at the policeman’s back. xxx Q When you saw Celso Sison shot [sic] the victim inside the bus were you standing then? A I was still stooping down and at the same time peeping.43 Colet knows the names and faces of the perpetrators of the crime, as they all live near each other. Colet asserted that he was an eyewitness and that he remembers the perpetrators and even the weapons used. PROSECUTOR SISON: Q You said you saw the person who shot [the policeman]? Who was that person who shot [the policeman] inside the bus? Did you see that? A I saw Totie Jacob commander the bus conductor. Malapit din po sila sa amin nakatira. Q And the hold-upper also took away the collection of the bus conductor. the shooting of the police officer or the taking of personal belongings of the passengers? A Sabay po. xxx Q x x x Do you know the three others? A Ma’am iyong dalawa. xxx Q You also saw Totie Jacob. xxx Q And who was that hold-upper who was near the driver of the bus? A Ang nasa likod po ng driver ay si Spencer. xxx Q x x x [W]hich came first. the one holding the hand grenade. iyong isa hindi ko po kilala.A Roberto Sison alyas Boyet Tartaro. and alias Barok. Q Who is Spencer? A Iyon lang po ang pagkakakilala sa taong iyon. Q Who were the other two? A Edison Palmario. xxx . right? A In front of the door. 38 gun. system.47 The prosecution did not present evidence to rebut this statement. Evidence is not admissible when it shows. Unless he simply wanted to tell the truth.45 gun and the 6th one a knife. ─ Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time. Colet’s testimony corroborates those of Ferrer and Ramos on the number of perpetrators and the manner of commission of the crime. Appellant and Colet had a previous rivalry over a woman and Colet is known in their area as someone with influence.Q Tell us again what were those weapons used by them? A Celso Sison alias Tartaro . concealing a deadly weapon. Appellant also attributes the motive of revenge to SPO1 Alas. and the like. The prosecution considers Colet’s testimony as polluted. and assault.46 The defense presented Colet who testified that neither he nor appellant participated in the crime. coming from a coaccused.45 The trial court acquitted Colet when it granted his Demurrer to Evidence. Colet was unlikely to testify on appellant’s innocence when he himself is charged with the same crime and was present at the crime scene. Barok a knife. Totie Jacob a . Spencer a . 34. that the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime independent from the offense for . habit. being a police informer. the prosecution dug up other criminal cases filed against appellant. The flaw in this argument is that Colet is not a discharged coaccused. In its attempt to pin the crime on appellant. as appellant previously beat up SPO1 Alas’ nephew during a brawl. which the prosecution did not even oppose. Appellant was previously charged with robbery and illegal possession of a deadly weapon. plan. Appellant even believed that Colet falsely implicated him in the crime at the beginning. identity. for which he was released after posting bond. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is instructive on this point: SEC. scheme. or tends to show. custom or usage.38 gun. Similar acts as evidence. Section 34. Palmario a hand grenade.44 The prosecution asks this Court to ignore Colet’s testimony that appellant was not at the crime scene and did not participate in the criminal act. Colet gave his testimony in an unhesitating and straightforward manner. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. We hold that appellant is entitled to a mandatory acquittal.48 Section 14. . and may have committed many crimes.which he is on trial. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and report to this Court immediately the action taken not later than five days from receipt of this Decision. Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions. and still be innocent of the crime charged on trial. the appeal is GRANTED. unless there are other valid causes for his continued detention." An accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. A man may be a notorious criminal. His immediate release is ordered. Appellant Rolando Pineda y Manalo is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. The decision of the trial court is REVERSED. reading as follows: . Her son expired on the way to another hospital. 119739 June 18.: Death struck like the proverbial thief in the night. It was only before noon of that same day. who was then married to a certain Evelyn Tagle. On that very day. respondents. With the help of neighbors. ROMERO. she reported the incident to the San Pedro police. accused-appellant was invited by their barangay captain to shed light on the incident and was subsequently detained. at the time of the incident. accused-appellant was formally charged in an information.." Startled. On June 28. she rushed Roberto to the Midtown General Hospital in San Pedro but was refused admittance due to the lack of medical facilities therein. 1986. Roberto Pineda.m. J. looked out of the window and saw a man alighting form the jeep parked in front of her house. she found her son. No. when she was suddenly awakened by the cries of "Inay. She further stated that accused-appellant and Roberto had been enemies ever since her daughter-in-law. as a complaint against him had been filed. ABAD. inay. She yelled at the man who looked up at her then ran away.R. He had been repeatedly stabbed in the chest and back. vs. Laguna. Roberto was cohabiting with a certain Mary Grace Pineda. Abad as the man she had seen running away from her house moment before she discovered her son's bloody condition. On the other hand. sprawled on the doorstep. 1987. when she submitted a "Salaysay" identifying accused-appellant Ariston A. Ana Paulin was in bed at her house in San Vicente. left the latter for accused-appellant. Susan. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. however. but was the accusedappellant the perpetrator thereof? In the early morning of October 28. inay. petitioner. San Pedro. 1998 ARISTON A.G. she bolted up. When she opened the front door downstairs. At about 3:30 a. he went home to San Pedro at around 12:00 midnight. testified that the deceased suffered fifteen stab wounds and seven multiple wounds. and that. Jose Lopez. Upon his arraignment on September 8. Mary Grace Pineda testified that three days before the incident. saying that on the evening of October 27. in the Municipality of San Pedro. 1986. His alibi was corroborated by his wife.. Mary Grace Pineda. to the damage and prejudice of his surviving heirs. Dr. CONTRARY TO LAW. who as a result thereof. and Ana Paulin. the prosecution presented three witnesses. The victim allegedly wanted to recover his child from Susan. Laguna. with intent to kill. the defense presented the accused-appellant and Evelyn Tagle. Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1986. the medico-legal officer who autopsied the body of the victim.. accusedappellant had an altercation with Roberto over the child of the latter with Susan Paulin. with evident premeditation. he was already sleeping at the time the alleged stabbing incident occurred. which accused-appellant opposed. On the other hand. 1 The case was assigned to Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro. namely. assault and stab therewith one ROBERTO PINEDA Y PAULIN. consequently dying of shock due to severe intra-thoracic hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds at the chest and back. accusedappellant entered a plea of "not guilty. The two even came to blows over the matter. Evelyn. . Jose Lopez. abuse of superior strength and treachery. That the crime was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior and treachery. the accused ARISTON A. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Jr. Jr. accused-appellant denied the truth of Ana Paulin's narrative. after selling sampaguita flowers at Pasay City. ABAD. with mutual threats to kill each other. being then conveniently armed with a deadly bladed weapon. did then and there willfully. Province of Laguna." At the trial. Dr. sustained stab wounds on vital parts of his body which directly caused his death.That on or about October 28. 1987. and to indemnify the heirs of Roberto Pineda in the sum of P50. together with all the accessory penalties provided by law. the reliance of the trial court on circumstantial evidence to convict accused-appellant. he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 8 years 1 day of prision mayor. the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and taking into consideration the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence law. to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. 3 Thus. 1991. thus. as minimum. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. 2 On appeal.In its judgment rendered on November 27. the following requisites must concur: (i) there must be more than one circumstance to convict. (ii) facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved. and (iii) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction . No one saw accused-appellant stab the victim. hence the present recourse. maintaining that he could not be considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that the testimonial evidence of the prosecution lacked proof and facts to sustain his conviction. there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance to offset each other. The most glaring feature of the present case is the lack of an eyewitness to the actual killing. as maximum. for circumstantial evidence to suffice for conviction. No costs. the San Pedro RTC found accused-appellant guilty of homicide. Accused-appellant assails his conviction by the lower court.000. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads as follows: WHEREFORE. The only thing that links accused-appellant to the crime is his presence at the scene of the incident. nor was the murder weapon ever found. We find accused-appellant's arguments worthy of merit. SO ORDERED. and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.00 as damages. all the circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. sir." sir. in the absence of other corroborative evidence. Why did you stand up. The circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person. From a careful perusal of the records. Accused-appellant had a motive to kill victim. do not point with moral certainty to the guilt of accused-appellant. he committed the crime. This is clear from her testimony: Q.beyond reasonable doubt. We have consistently held that the mere presence of accused-appellant at the locus criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that he committed the killing. Q. 4 The mere presence of accused-appellant at the crime scene. I look(ed) out through the window. having had an altercation with the latter three days before. why did you "bumalikwas"? A. In the present case. In fact. the Court is of the view that the circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution do not show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused perpetrated the crime for which he stands charged. The above circumstances. the only certain conclusion that can be drawn from the testimony of prosecution witness Ana Paulin is the fact that accused-appellant alighted from a parked jeep in front of her house and not that he killed the victim. it becomes clear that the court a quo affirmed accused-appellant's conviction on the basis of the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: First. Q. After standing up what did you do next? A. to the exclusion of all others. sir. I stood up "bumalikwas. after you hear the word "Inay" about three times. Accused-appellant was seen at the scene of the crime from which he later hastily fled. startled. . I was surprised. indeed. Now. Second. what did you do next if any? A. is inadequate to support the conclusion that. without more. xxx xxx xxx Q. xxx xxx xxx . Q. Did you see anything unusual when you look(ed) out the window? A. sir. sir. Q. sir. sir. I said "Hoy" and asked "Ano yan. What did you should at him? A." sir. Q. But where is that jeep that you have just mentioned? A. sir. I shouted at him. Will you please tell the Court what is that unusual thing that you saw? A. sir. I saw a person alighted (sic) from the jeep. Q. In front of our window. Yes.Q. sir. When you said that. And when you said you saw a person came down the jeep. Because I heard the shout came from that direction. what did that man do? A. Why did you look out through that window in front of your house? A. The window in front of our house. what did you do next? A. Look(ed) at me and run (sic) away. Q. Q. What windows is that? A. there is an absence of positive proof that accused-appellant assaulted the victim. Q. Q. 5 On cross-examination. I go (sic) downstairs. Mrs. sir. Now. sir. Where downstairs did you go. sir. the medico-legal officer who performed the autopsy. Indeed. I saw my son lying (sic) prostrate outside our door. you said after looking up to you and suddenly he run away. Outside our door. what did you do next? A. what did you see. Doctor. it is also possible that there were (sic) more than one assailant? . After going outside your door. 6 Furthermore. Likewise. Q. sir. Dr. you said that the wounds found on the body of the victim Roberto Pineda are (sic) cause(d) by a sharp bladed instrument? A. Jr. Q. you did not actually saw (sic) the stabbing? A. Yes. or whether he was bloodied or not.. testified: Q. Yes. what portion? A. So. No. Jose Lopez. Ana Paulin's testimony fails to state whether the man she saw was carrying a weapon . Witness. But it is also possible that the wounds could have been caused by more than one sharp bladed instrument? A. sir. if any? A. Ana Paulin's testimony reveals: Q.Q. sir. in order to support a conviction. your honor. it is true that the latter did have a motive to kill Roberto Pineda. Agosila. As to accused-appellant's motive.Atty. We quote. Incompetent. But suspicion alone is insufficient. and my next question is whether it is also possible that there were (sic) more than one assailant? Court. to conclude that the killing arose from the previous altercation between accused-appellant and the victim would be more speculative than factual. Paler. The court cannot rely on mere presumptions and conjectures to convict the accused-appellant. 8 Given the paucity of evidence in the instant case. 7 This admission raises serious doubts as to the credibility of the prosecution's theory that accused-appellant was the victim's sole assailant. Manansala 9 held that: Trial court must keep in mind that the prosecution must be able to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the conviction of the accused. In the instant case. Thus. A. Atty. The doctor said that it could be possible that the wounds could have been also caused by more than one instrument. this is no reason for us to sustain his conviction. The circumstances proffered by the prosecution only or so far as to create a suspicion that the accused probably perpetrated the crime charged. Yes. it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. your Honor. Yes. the saying that "The sea . this Court. Court. Witness may answer. While his alibi is rather weak. sir. motive must be coupled with evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused-appellant was the malefactor. as the burden of proof still lies the prosecution to establish that accused-appellant killed the victim. Yet. with emphasis. the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be considered as constituting an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged. in Peo vs. the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own evidence. if a life is taken. the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. No. SO ORDERED.R. justice demands that the wrong be redressed. No pronouncement as to cost. Abad is hereby ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass. . 1995. but this justice that calls for retribution cannot be the same one that would convict accused-appellant at bar whose guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt." 10 In sum. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. let the accused be immediately released from his place of confinement unless there is reason to detain him further for any other legal or valid cause. 11 WHEREFORE.of suspicion has no shore. 12565 dated March 31. Accused-appellant Ariston A. Accordingly. 1999 just as he was alighting from a vehicle.6 Manito rushed home and arrived there at about 2 pm. and the latter hinted that Marita might be found only five houses away from their own. Following the clairvoyant’s direction. J. Plaintiff-Appellee. DECISION BERSAMIN.9 In her desperation.R. Aldrin Bautista and Jovy Solidum. Manito reported to the police that Marita was missing. 2007. Caloocan City in the morning of July 2. and bloody. 184926 April 11. 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification on February 22. her mother. No. vs.5 By noontime. inquiring from house to house in the vicinity. in Caloocan City based on circumstantial evidence.1 The victim was Marita. because Marita had not turned up. Julia sought out a clairvoyant (manghuhula) in an adjacent barangay.3 When her very young life was snuffed out by strangulation on July 2. they found Marita’s lifeless body covered with a blue and yellow sack10 inside the comfort room of an abandoned house about five structures away from their own house.8 At 6 am of the next day. 1999. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES y OLANO. They did not find her.7 and immediately he and Julia went in search of their daughter until 11 pm. 1999 when Julia.14 .2 a girl who was born on October 29. who indicated that Villaflores might be the culprit who had raped and killed Marita. Under review is the conviction of Edmundo Villaflores for rape with homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).: Circumstantial evidence is admissible as proof to establish both the commission of a crime and the identity of the culprit. she was only four years and eight months old.13 The police thus arrested Villaflores at around 5 pm of July 3.G.11 Her face was black and blue. The ensuing police investigation led to two witnesses. 1994 based on her certificate of live birth. Julia called her husband Manito at his workplace in Pasig City. first noticed her missing from home. Accused-Appellant.4 She had been playing at the rear of their residence in Bagong Silang.12 She had been tortured and strangled till death. Branch 128. and told him about Marita being missing. PO Harold Blanco and PO Sonny Boy Tepase. 1999. 1999. SPO2 Protacio Magtajas. 1994. the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City filed in the RTC the information charging Villaflores with rape with homicide committed as follows:15 That on or about the 2nd day of July. viz: After pre-trial was terminated. consulted a "manghuhula" at a nearby barangay. Marita (hereinafter Marita) born on October 21. Villaflores pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Aldrin Bautista. He went around possible places. about the size of his middle finger. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Bagong Silang. unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with said Marita. it is gathered that in the afternoon of July 3. Dr. Arraigned on August 19. and thereafter with deliberate intent to kill beat the minor and choked her with nylon cord which caused the latter’s death. against the latter’s will and without her consent. There were onlookers around when the NBI and policemen from Sub-station 6 arrived at . Jovie Solidum. (see Certificate of Live Birth marked as Exhibit K) was discovered by her father. 1999 in Caloocan City. From their testimonies. Metro Manila. inquiring from neighbors but no one could provide any lead until the following morning when his wife in desperation. Manito (hereinafter Manito) beside a toilet bowl at an unoccupied house about 5 houses away from their residence in Phase 9. PO3 Rodelio Ortiz. violence and intimidation employed upon the person of one Marita. the above-named accused with lewd design and by means of force. the trial proceeded with the prosecution presenting witnesses namely. a minor of five (5) years old. SPO2 Arsenio Nacis. The day before at about noon time his wife called him up at his work place informing him that their daughter was missing.16 The CA summarized the evidence of the State in its decision. the lifeless body of a 5-year old child. 1999.On July 7. prompting Jessie to hie home and search for the child. Jose Arnel Marquez. She was covered with a blue sack with her face bloodied and her body soaked to the skin. Manito. And that was how he tracked down his daughter in exact location. According to the "manghuhula" his daughter was just at the 5th house from his house. Caloocan City. CONTRARY TO LAW. He found a yellow sack under her head and a white rope around her neck about 2 and a half feet long and the diameter. did then and there willfully. hindi pa ho ganyang sira-sira.G. 1999. At about noon time they were at Batman’s house where they used shabu for a while. The yellow sack that he was referring to when brought out in court had already a greenish and fleshy color. although he did not see Marita. He saw blood stains on her lips and when he removed the sack covering her body. Aldrin Bautista and Jovie Solidum. They saw the body of the child at the back portion of an abandoned house where he himself recovered pieces of evidence such as the nylon rope (Exhibit N) and the yellow sack inside the comfort room. (kawawa yong bata wasak ang mukha"). Aldrin sports a "sputnik" tattoo mark on his body while Jovie belongs to the T. Jovie related that about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day. Both Aldrin and Jovie are drug users.00 marked as Exhibit L and submarkings. His OIC. He forgot about the blue sack when SOCO Team arrived because they were the ones who brought the body to the funeral parlor. their team leader. which was used to cover the face of the child while the yellow sack was at the back of the victim. investigator at Sub-station 6 Bagong Silang. he also saw blood stains in her vagina.000. Caloocan City who was dispatched by Police Chief Inspector Alfredo Corpuz. Two (2) witnesses. At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening. came forward and narrated that at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning of July 2. D and D-1. Jovie presumed that Batman was hiding the child at the back of the house.the scene." There was another sack. (See other expenses marked as Exhibit M and sub-markings). He thought that the child must have been in the sack because it appeared heavy. leading Marita by the hand ("umakay sa bata"). The child appeared black and blue. known in the neighborhood by his Batman tag and a neighbor of the [victim’s family]. Jessie was investigated and his statements were marked Exhibits C. when asked by the Court: "medyo buo pa. He incurred funeral expenses in the total amount of P52.C. and 2 other . The sack was no longer in the same condition when recovered. SPO2 Arsenio Nacis called the SOCO Team and on different vehicles they proceeded to Bagong Silang. they saw Edmundo Villaflores. The SOCO Team took pictures of Marita. ("through crusher gangster"). It was the sack that he saw earlier in the house of Batman. Among the first to respond to the report that the dead body of a child was found was SPO2 PROTACIO MAGTAJAS. While in Batman’s place. colored blue. he heard cries of a child as he passed by the house of Batman ("Narinig ko pong umiiyak ang batang babae at umuungol"). Jovie saw again Batman carrying a yellow sack towards a vacant house. 1999. Phase 9 arriving there at about 2 o:clock in the afternoon of July 3. He had already interviewed some person when the SOCO Team arrived composed of Inspector Abraham Pelotin. saying. asked Aldrin to read his statement after which he signed the document then gave it to investigator. a separate investigation was conducted by Inspector Pelotin. SPO3 Magtajas was already investigating the case. They were informed that the group of Aldrin could shed light on the incident. PO3 Alex Baruga to secure all the physical evidence recovered from the scene of the crime composed of 2 sacks. Caloocan City Police Station. he caused the confrontation between Aldrin Bautista and Edmundo Villaflores. In the afternoon of July 3. He was with police officer Antonio . when Police Inspector Corpuz. took the sworn statement of Aldrin Bautista upon instruction of his chief. They immediately proceeded to Phase 9. SPO2 ARSENIO NACIS’ participation was to supervise the preparation of the documents to be submitted for inquest to the fiscal. Inspector Corpuz entered the premises while he stayed with his companions and guarded the place. as a police investigator.members. When the SOCO Team arrived. He ordered the evidence custodian. as leader formed a team for them to go to the scene of the crime. NUP Antonio Chan and the members of Bantay Bayan in Bagong Silang. SPO2 Protacio Magtajas. was in the office at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 3. SPO2 Arsenio Nacis. it was already padlocked. He was the one who took the statement of the wife of Edmundo Villaflores. the suspect. as follow-up operative. 1999. Soon enough. who alighted from the said jeep. PO1 HAROLD BLANCO of the Sangandaan Police Station. assigned at Station 1. Caloocan City. Aldrin went closer to the detention cell from where he identified and pointed to Villaflores as the one who abducted the child. Blanco and the other police officers returned to the crime scene and asked the people around. They went to the place of SPO1 Alfredo Antonio nearby to avoid detection and asked a child to look out for Villaflores. SPO1 Antonio Alfredo. Edmundo Villaflores was arrested by PO3 Harold Blanco. During the investigation. Erlinda. The officers took him in custody and brought him to Sub-station 6 and SPO3 Nacis instructed them to fetch his wife. PO3 RODELIO ORTIZ. He asked the investigator to prepare the affidavit of the victim’s father and the statement of the two witnesses and also asked the investigator to prepare the referral slip and other documents needed in the investigation. Villaflores appeared angry. together with PO3 Alfredo Antonio and Police Officer Martin Interia. who kept mum and were elusively afraid to talk. When he went with SPO1 Antonio Chan accompanied by councilman Leda to the house of Batman. a jeep from Phase 1 arrived and a commotion ensued as people started blocking the way of Villaflores. and turned over the pieces of evidence to Police Officer SPO2 Arsenio Nacis who placed a tag to mark the items. may sako sa silong ng bahay nila. When Sgt. ano yon? Sabi niya. When she arrived. He identified the sworn statement marked as Exhibit X and sub-markings. He cordoned the area and saw the dead child at the back of the uninhabited house. Caloocan City Police Station also went to the crime scene on July 3. She said that she was willing to give a statement against her husband. she denied but in the course of the questioning she broke down and cried and said that she saw her husband place some sacks under their house. She saw the sack filled with something but when she asked her husband." The wife was crying and she said that her husband was also on drugs and even used it in front of their children. Villaflores if she knew anything about what happened on the night of July 2. wala yon. she again took a look at the sack and she saw a protruding elbow inside the sack. Nacis asked Mrs. She went inside the house and went out again to check the sack and saw the child. PO1 SONNY BOY TEPACE assigned at the NPD Crime Laboratory. He identified the nylon cord (Exhibit N) and the yellow sack. "noong gabing nakita niya si Villaflores. he said it was nothing. Medico Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory with office at Caloocan City Police Station conducted the autopsy on the body . It was Sgt. She went with them to the precinct. S-1 and R-2-A. tapos pagdating ni Villaflores. The blue sack appears in the picture marked as Exhibits S. initially. 1999 with SOCO report 047-99 marked as Exhibit V and the second sketch dated July 3. ARNEL MARQUEZ. Their house is a "kubo" the floor is made of wood and there is space of about 2 feet between the floor and the ground. Phase 9. nakita niya may siko. They also prepared a rough sketch dated July 3. Nacis who typed the statement of Erlinda Villaflores which she signed. 1999 with SOCO report 047-99 marked as Exhibit W. it was already night time. and R. wala yon. SOCO. They informed her that her husband was at Sub-station 6 being a suspect in the killing of a child. She was covered with a blue sack and a nylon cord tied around her neck. There was another yellow sack at the back of her head. but he knew that it was in the possession of the officer on case. He remembered the wife saying. Thereafter they marked the initial report as Exhibit U and submarkings. There was no reaction on her part. He does not know where the blue sack is. Caloocan City. DR. She was with her 3 minor children in the house. She related that before she went outside.Chan and they waited for the arrival of the wife of Villaflores from the market. tapos tinanong niya si Villaflores. at the vacant lot of Block 57. and was marked Exhibits T-3-A. Lot 12. 1999 at about 2:50 in the afternoon with Team Leader Abraham Pelotin. inayos niya yong sako at nilapitan niya raw. T. NECK AND TRUNK 1) Hematoma. measuring 4 x 1 cm.2 cm. 8) Abrasion.2 x 0. 11. right cheek.5 cm left of the anterior midline. 2) Area of multiple abrasions. 4) Area of multiple abrasions. 7) Ligature mark. right zygomatic region. upper lip. measuring 1. measuring 4 x 3. The postmortem examination disclosed the following: POSTMORTEM FINDINGS: Fairly developed.5 cm.of Marita upon request of Chief Inspector Corpus. 6. fairly nourished female child cadaver in secondary stage of flaccidity with postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body.1 cm. . left scapular region.8 cm.4 cm. measuring 1.7 x 0.5 cm from the anterior midline. left pre-auricular region. The certificate of identification and consent for autopsy executed by the father of the victim was marked as Exhibit G.7 x 0. neck. measuring 24 x 0. 5) Contusion. measuring 4 x 2. 3.5 cm from the anterior midline.5 cm. bisected by the anterior midline.8 cm. 3 cm from the anterior midline. Conjunctivae are pale. 6. right scapular region. Lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. 6 cm from the Posterior midline. 9) Abrasion.5 cm from the posterior midline. from the anterior midline. 1999 at about 8 o’clock in the evening. bisected by the anterior midline. 3) Abrasion. frontal region. measuring 9. measuring 6 x 4 cm. measuring 0.2 x 0. 6) Punctured wound. HEAD. right periorbital region. He opined that the victim was already dead for 24 hours when he conducted the examination on July 3. The first 3 hours after death is the primary stage of flaccidity and after the third hour. He issued the death certificate marked as Exhibit E. trachea and esophagus are markedly congested with scattered petecchial hemorrhages. The sketch of the head of the victim was marked Exhibit J. He prepared the Medico Legal Report No." The external injuries could have been caused by contact with a blunt object like a piece of wood. it is possible that two or more persons could have caused it. The abrasion could have also been caused by a hard and rough surface. At around 10:00 o’clock in the morning of July 2. he was at the market place at Phase 10 to get some plywood for his Aunt Maring. The anatomical sketch representing the body of the victim was marked as Exhibit I and sub-markings. The victim could have been dead at least 9 o’clock in the morning on July 2. the body will be in rigor mortis and after the 24 hours. It could have been caused by an insertion of blunt object like a human penis. 1999. 1999. The cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation. The CA similarly summed up the evidence of Villaflores. On cross-examination. The lining mucosa of the larynx." There were multiple deep laceration at the hymen and the vestibule was abraded and markedly congested while the posterior fourchette was likewise lacerated and markedly congested. denied the charge of raping and killing the child saying he did not see the child at anytime on July 2. There were also punctured wounds which could have been caused by a barbecue stick or anything pointed. Marita _____ marked as Exhibit H and sub-markings. while the posterior fourchette is likewise lacerated and marked congested. among others. Cause of death is asphyxia by strangulation. in layman’s term. The injuries on the head could have been caused by hard and blunt object while other injuries were caused by coming in contact with a hard or rough surface. As regards the multiple lacerations of the hymen. testifying in his behalf. as follows: EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES. "sinakal sa pamamagitan ng tali. The vestibule is abraded and markedly congested. The ligature mark was congested and depressed. it is the secondary stage. too. His Aunt . M-250-99 of the victim. Stomach is ½ full of partially digested food particles mostly rice.There are multiple deep fresh lacerations at the hymen. he explained the stages of flaccidity which is the softening of the body of a dead person. Lot 32 in Bagong Silang. His residence is some 5 houses away from the place of the child. At 42. Pareng Bong and Frankie to prove that he had no participation in the killing. SHERWIN BORCILLO. They go to his house at Package 5. He was arrested on July 3 in a street near the precinct while walking with his wife. On the night of July 2. among others. the truth being. He is not legally married to his wife. that on the night of July 2.called him at 8:30 in the morning and stayed there for about 5 hours and arrived home at around 5:00 in the afternoon. he was carrying some food items which they brought in Bayan. but does not know their children. 1999. They are his close friends being his neighbors and they usually went to his house where they used shabu ("gumagamit ng bato"). the other two were in his house and two more were left with his siblings. Sherwin. Caloocan City. They did not tell him why he was being arrested. His Aunt was residing at Phase 10 which is about a kilometer from his place. 1999 and does not know of any reason why he was charged. Phase 9. Aldrin and Jovie harbored ill feelings against him because the last time they went to his house he did not allow them to use shabu. He knows the child because sometimes he was asked by the wife of Manito to fix their electrical connection. On cross-examination. He was arrested on July 3. He knew Marita who sometimes called him to his house to fix electrical wiring. He corrected himself by saying he does not know Marita but only her father. he is older than Aldrin and Jovie. His wife works in a sidewalk restaurant. He denied that the door of his house had a sack covering neither was it locked by a piece of string. He just waited for his mother and she told him. They were talking to Batman and offering a dog contained in the sack and . "ilalaban sa husgado." On re-direct he said that Aldrin and Jovie often went in and out of his house. He has not talked with the father or mother of the child nor did he ask his wife for help. they will fight it out in court. 1999 he saw Aldrin and Jovie at the back of his house holding a sack containing something which he did not know. He also knew his wife. He admitted using shabu everytime his friends went to his house. He denied carrying a sack and throwing it at the vacant lot. Manito. Aldrin and Jovie went to his house. an electronic technician and neighbor of Edmundo Villaflores told the court that the charges against Villaflores were not true. he admitted being called "Batman" in their place and that Aldrin and Jovie are his friends. When he was arrested. His bathroom is in front of his house. They came from Bayan. Two of his children were in Phase 3. He has witnesses like Maring. She visited him for the last time on July 19. He saw his wife once at Police Station 1 before he was brought to the city jail. He did not go to the police station to narrate his story. then they bought some food stuffs to bring home. . It was not notarized. He never went to the police to tell the truth about the incident. He arrived home at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening because he passed by the Susano Market in Novaliches to see his mother who was a vendor there. There was also another person with them." He said he was sure that the sack contained the child because he saw the head of the child. Cruz. Manila. who is the eldest in the group and considered their "Amo-amo". He did not even know that Aldrin and Jovie testified against his uncle. He had no occasion to talk with Aldrin and Jovie. They read his statement and recorded it in the logbook. one Jose Pitallana. he said that on July 2. The following day he learned that Villaflores was being charged with the killing of Marita. He saw Aldrin and Jovie about midnight of July 2. They came back and took the yellow sack. It was the Purok secretary who gave him the form. he told them what he knew because he could not trust any policeman in their place. He executed the "Salaysay" in the presence of their Purok secretary and barangay tanod. After he made his statement. Aldrin and Jovie. 1999 he left the house at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning to go to school in PMI at Sta. He admitted that Batman is his uncle being the brother of his mother.then they left the sack near the comfort room outside the door of the house of Batman. So he went to the purok and made a statement in an affidavit form. He followed them up to the other pathwalk and then he went home. He was not sure of the date when Batman was arrested. At first. he just kept quiet because he thought Villaflores should be taught a lesson for being a drug user. On cross-examination. In his affidavit. he showed it to their Purok Leader. among others. He did not see Batman. Melencio Yambao and Purok Secretary. He made his statement not in the barangay hall but only at their purok. He executed the statement after the arrest of the accused. After he was informed that his uncle was arrested. he did not do anything because he was busy reviewing for his exam. basta kayo ang saksi sa ginawa in Batman. nor Aldrin. Jose Pitallana is no longer residing in their place. He usually saw him using shabu in the company of Jose Pitallana. but later when he had a drinking spree with his father and uncle. He did not also visit him in jail. 1999. Tapos po ay may narinig po akong kung sino man ang titistego sa akin ay papatayin ko. Reynaldo Mapa. it seemed like she was staring at him and asking his help. They closed the store at about 6:30. his wife. or Jovie about noon time of July 2. he said: "Ako ay lumabas ng bahay at sinundan ko siya at nakita ko si Jose na tinalian ng nylon and bata. His uncle is a known drug addict in the area. He told them what really happened and they advised him to report the matter to the barangay. As earlier stated, on May 27, 2004, the RTC convicted Villaflores of rape with homicide, holding that the circumstantial evidence led to no other conclusion but that his guilt was shown beyond reasonable doubt.17 The RTC decreed: Wherefore, the Court finds accused Edmundo Villaflores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping and killing "Marita" and hereby sentences him to the Supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P75,000.00, moral damages in the sum of P30,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum of P20,000.00, and to pay the cost if this suit, to be paid to the heirs if the victim. The City Jail Warden of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to bring the accused to the National Penitentiary upon receipt hereof after the promulgation of the decision. Let the records of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. SO ORDERED. On intermediate review, the CA affirmed the conviction,18 disposing: WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC Caloocan City, Branch 128 finding the accused Edmundo Villaflores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide is affirmed with modification in the sense that (a) the death penalty imposed by the trial court is commuted to reclusion perpetua and the judgment on the civil liability is modified by ordering the appellant to pay the amount of P100,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages and P52,000.00 as actual damages. SO ORDERED. Issues Villaflores now reiterates that the RTC and the CA gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide because the State did not discharge its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt every fact and circumstance constituting the crime charged. In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General counters that the guilt of Villaflores for rape with homicide was established beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. Ruling We sustain Villaflores’ conviction. I Nature of rape with homicide as a composite crime, explained The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law, and differs from a compound or complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. There are distinctions between a composite crime, on the one hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48, supra, on the other hand. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) pertinently provides: Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape is committed 1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstance mentioned above be present. xxx Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. xxx When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. xxx The law on rape quoted herein thus defines and sets forth the composite crimes of attempted rape with homicide and rape with homicide. In both composite crimes, the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of rape. As can be noted, each of said composite crimes is punished with a single penalty, the former with reclusion perpetua to death, and the latter with death. The phrases by reason of the rape and on the occasion of the rape are crucial in determining whether the crime is a composite crime or a complex or compound crime. The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape (attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape may not be as easy to determine. To understand what homicide may be covered by the phrase on the occasion of the rape, a resort to the meaning the framers of the law intended to convey thereby is helpful. Indeed, during the floor deliberations of the Senate on Republic Act No. 8353, the legislative intent on the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape to refer to a killing that occurs immediately before or after. or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape. But suppose the man happens to kill somebody. viz: Senator Enrile. will there be a link between these? What is the intent of the phrase "on the occasion of rape"? x xx xxx Senator Shahani. But what is the meaning of the phrase "on the occasion of rape"? How far in time must the commission of the homicide be considered a homicide "on the occasion" of the rape? Will it be. and upon leaving. Mr. I think would be examples where the phrase "on the occasion thereof" would apply. President. Mr. what is the meaning of the phrase appearing in line 24.19 . the principal crime here. is rape. and homicide is committed by reason of the rape. that is probably clear. became evident. would there be a link between that homicide and the rape? Will it be "on the occasion" of the rape? Senator Shahani. is rape. "or on the occasion"? When the rape is attempted or frustrated. I would like to take the first scenario. I would probably consider that as a rape "on the occasion of". and the homicide is committed with a very short time lapse. they are drunk and they killed somebody along the way. Or if the rapists finished committing the crime of rape. President. President: If the rapist enters a house. first of all. x x x I would like to find out. of course. I would understand that. Mr. President. let us say. But the principal intent. kills a maid. and rapes somebody inside the house. where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape. Mr. the instance which was brought up by the good senator from Cagayan where. Senator Enrile. saw somebody. So. a potential witness inside the house and kills him. and homicide is a result of the circumstances surrounding the rape. the offender is fleeing the place or is apprehended by the police and he commits homicide. if the rapists happen to leave the place of rape. x x x It will have to be linked with the rape itself. let us say. because a female of that age is deemed incapable of giving consent to the carnal knowledge. supra. carnal knowledge of her by Villaflores would constitute statutory rape. circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free. circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue.II The State discharged its burden of proving the rape with homicide beyond reasonable doubt As with all criminal prosecutions. Marita’s Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit K) disclosed that she was born on October 29. Yet. The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide.23 The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. rape is always committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of a female under 12 years of age. 1994. Under Article 266-A. because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. The crime is commonly called statutory rape. in contrast. no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is . such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence. for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit. We have often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission. As such. then.22 To be clear. and (c) that he killed Marita by reason of the rape. 1999.21 Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder. indicating her age to be only four years and eight months at the time of the commission of the crime on July 2. (b) that he consummated the carnal knowledge without the consent of Marita. the State carried the burden of proving all the elements of rape and homicide beyond reasonable doubt in order to warrant the conviction of Villaflores for the rape with homicide charged in the information.20The State must thus prove the concurrence of the following facts. namely: (a) that Villaflores had carnal knowledge of Marita. hence. the situation is not always hopeless for the State. (5) In resolving to convict Villaflores. Marita went missing after that and . (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.24 Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance. of the Rules of Court specifies when circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction. We concur with the RTC and the CA. In either case.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance. Thus. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty." according to the CA. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. Firstly. Circumstantial evidence. Modesto:25 The standard postulated by this Court in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is well set out in the following passage from People vs.circumstantial than when it is direct. Aldrin Bautista and Jovie Solidum saw Villaflores holding Marita by the hand (akay-akay) at around 10:00 am on July 2. was guilty of rape with homicide. 1999. and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. the Court said in People v. which when "appreciated together and not piece by piece." Section 4. when sufficient. both the RTC and the CA considered several circumstances. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent.28 leading the child through the alley going towards the direction of his house about 6 houses away from the victim’s house. and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.27 were seen as "strands which create a pattern when interwoven. the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. The duly established circumstances we have considered are the following. Rule 133. viz: Section 4." and formed an unbroken chain that led to the reasonable conclusion that Villaflores. to the exclusion of all others. . Ludday:26 "No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice.29 Secondly. the medico-legal findings showed that Marita had died from asphyxiation by strangulation. 1999. tenthly. As to the rape.32Fifthly. hematomas.36 and the yellow sack was a wallcovering for his toilet.35 This indicated Villaflores’ familiarity and access to the abandoned house. 1999. contusions and punctured wounds. her death was shown to be caused by strangulation with a rope. The medico-legal findings indicated that such stage of flaccidity confirmed that she had been dead for more than 24 hours. because his house had a rear exit that enabled access to the abandoned house without having to pass any other houses. 1999 Solidum saw Villaflores coming from his house carrying a yellow sack that appeared to be heavy and going towards the abandoned house where the child’s lifeless body was later found. Manito. several pieces of evidence recovered from the abandoned house. and the time of death as determined by the medico-legal findings was consistent with the recollection of Solidum of seeing Villaflores going towards the abandoned house at around 7 pm of July 2. or at the latest by 9 pm of July 2.31 Fourthly. Seventhly. 1999 carrying the yellow sack that was later . and had fresh blood from her genitalia. a hidden pathway existed between the abandoned house where Marita’s body was found and Villaflores’ house. Solidum passed by Villaflores’ house at about 3:00 pm of July 2. As to the homicide. the father of Marita.33 Manito also mentioned that a blue sack covered her body. identified the yellow sack as the same yellow sack that covered the head of his daughter (nakapalupot sa ulo) at the time he discovered her body. Jose Arnel Marquez. These circumstances were links in an unbroken chain whose totality has brought to us a moral certainty of the guilt of Villaflores for rape with homicide. The vaginal and periurethral smears taken from her body tested positive for spermatozoa. which cause of death was consistent with the ligature marks on her neck and the multiple injuries including abrasions. like the white rope around the victim’s neck and the yellow sack.38 And. The white rope was the same rope tied to the door of his house.30 Thirdly. the body of Marita was already in the second stage of flaccidity at the time of the autopsy of her cadaver at 8 pm of July 3. Marita sustained multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations. 1999 and heard the crying and moaning (umuungol) of a child coming from inside.37 Eighthly.remained missing until the discovery of her lifeless body on the following day. the medico-legal officer who had conducted the autopsy of her cadaver on July 3. Marita was found to have suffered multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations. 1999. The fact that the vaginal and periurethral smears taken from Marita tested positive for spermatozoa confirmed that the blunt object was an adult human penis. Ninthly. were traced to Villaflores. injuries that Dr. attributed to the insertion of a blunt object like a human penis.34Sixthly. at about 7:00 pm of July 2. we have also to specify in the judgment that Villaflores shall not be eligible for parole. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). Yet. Anent the identification of Villaflores as the culprit. as amended. and because the Defense did not demonstrate the physical impossibility for Villaflores to be at the place where the crime was committed at the time it was committed. Article 266-B. The awards of damages allowed by the CA are proper.on found to cover Marita’s head. to wit: . We note that the RTC and the CA disbelieved the exculpating testimony of Borcillo. after he stated during direct examination that Villaflores was only his neighbor. we add exemplary damages to take into account the fact that Marita was below seven years of age at the time of the commission of the rape with homicide. Had Borcillo’s incrimination of Solidum and Bautista been factually true. and exculpating his uncle were justly met with skepticism. the hearing by Solidum of moaning and crying of a child from within Villaflores’ house. 2006 of Republic Act No. For one. Borcillo deserved no credence as a witness.39 it soon came to be revealed during his cross-examination that he was really a son of Villaflores’ own sister. considering that Section 3 of Republic Act No. but we cannot tolerate his blatant attempt to mislead the courts about a fact relevant to the correct adjudication of guilt or innocence. Villaflores could have easily validated his alibi of having run an errand for an aunt about a kilometer away from the place of the crime on that morning of July 2.40 Borcillo might have concealed their close blood relationship to bolster the credibility of his testimony favoring his uncle. the testimonies of Solidum and Bautista attesting to Villaflores as the person they had seen holding Marita by the hand going towards the abandoned house before the victim went missing. Revised Penal Code has expressly declared such tender age of the victim as an aggravating circumstance in rape. and the tracing to Villaflores of the yellow sack and the white rope found at the crime scene sufficiently linked Villaflores to the crime. 9346 expressly holds persons "whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act" not eligible for parole under Act No. Borcillo’s implicating Solidum and Bautista in the crime. Also.41 Nonetheless. both because the alleged aunt did not even come forward to substantiate the alibi. 1999. They justifiably did so. 9346. However. 1âwphi1 The CA reduced the penalty of death prescribed by the RTC to reclusion perpetua in consideration of the intervening enactment on June 24. the alibi could not stand. in addition to the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. 2007 finding and pronouncing EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES y OLANO guilty of rape with homicide. the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on February 22.Article 266-B. P30. As such. xxx The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: xxx 5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old. in addition to the moral. The accused shall pay the costs of suit. namely: (a) that he shall suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Act No.000. For the purpose. the Court recognizes the entitlement of the heirs of Marita to exemplary damages as a way of correction for the public good. . subject to the following MODIFICATIONS. – xxx."42 The Civil Code permits such award "by way of example or correction for the public good. temperate. exemplary damages may be imposed in a criminal case as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Penalties. SO ORDERED. liquidated or compensatory damages. and (c) that all the awards for damages shall bear interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision.44 for a lesser amount would not serve genuine exemplarity. (b) that he shall pay to the heirs of the victim the sum of P30.00 as exemplary damages. xxx Pursuant to the Civil Code."43Granting exemplary damages is not dependent on whether the aggravating circumstance is actually appreciated or not to increase the penalty. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). as amended.000. WHEREFORE.00 is reasonable and proper as exemplary damages.