evidence digest

Coverdale Abarquez, y Evangelista, Petitioner, versus The People of the Philippines, Respondents. (G.R. No. 150762, January 20, 2006, 3rd Division) CARPIO, J: TOPIC: Circumstantial Evidence FACTS: The prosecution charged Abarquez with the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide alleging in the two informations filed that said accused was conspiring and confederating with one Alberto Almojuela in the killing of Ricardo Quejong Bello, by stabbing him twice with a bladed weapon and hitting him with a gun at the back. The trial court found Abarquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in the crime of homicide. Abarquez filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. However the Court of Appeals rejected Abarquez’s allegation that he was merely at the crime scene to pacify the quarreling parties. Abarquez alleges that the prosecution’s evidence does not satisfy the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support his conviction as an accomplice. He further alleges that there was a misapprehension of facts and that the trial court and the Court of Appeals reached their conclusion based entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures. Abarquez also assails the credibility of the witnesses against him. ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove that fact that Abarquez was an accomplice in the killing of Ricardo Bello HELD: No. Two elements must concur before a person becomes liable as an accomplice: 1. community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; 2. the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. Mere commission of an act, which aids the perpetrator, is not enough. The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly rendered, which cannot exist without the previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. The accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation in order to be liable as an accomplice. The court held in one case that the mere presence of the accused at the crime scene cannot be interpreted to mean that he committed the crime charged. In convicting Abarquez in this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals relied mainly on the testimony of Paz. Paz testified that he was held by Abarquez on the shoulders, thus preventing him from helping Quejong who was grappling with Almojuela. Paz’s testimony does not show that Abarquez concurred with Almojuela’s criminal design. "Tumigil" literally means "stop."

Clearly, Abarquez was trying to stop Paz from joining the fray, not from helping Quejong. Paz claims that he was only trying to talk to Almojuela. However, Paz could not have been merely talking to Almojuela, as he tried to portray, because Almojuela was already grappling with Quejong at that time. Paz interpreted Abarquez’s action as an attempt to prevent him from helping Quejong. His interpretation was adopted by the trial court and sustained by the Court of Appeals. Yet, in his testimony, Paz admitted that while restraining him, Abarquez was scolding or reprimanding him and telling him to stop. It was not shown that Abarquez was stopping Paz from helping Almojuela. It is more likely that Abarquez was trying to stop Paz from joining the fight. Abarquez’s act of trying to stop Paz does not translate to assistance to Almojuela

People of the Philippines, Appellee, versus Cesar Galvez, Appellant. (G.R. No. 157221, March 30, 2007, 3rd Division) AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J: TOPIC: Circumstantial Evidence FACTS: Enojarda, Rellios, Perez, and their two companions were sprayed with gunfire. Enojarda was fatally hit while Rellios, Perez and their two companions ducked and crawled to seek cover. Five minutes after the first burst of gunfire, Galvez, armed with an M16 armalite rifle, was seen firing at Rellios, Perez and their two companions and at about 20 to 25 minutes Galvez was again seen carrying an M16 armalite rifle along with three armed companions. ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of Galvez for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt HELD: NO. The prosecution failed to prove that Galvez was the sole author of the shot that killed Enojarda. The circumstances do not point to Galvez as the sole perpetrator of the crime. The presence of the three armed men raises the probability that any one of those men inflicted the fatal shot. The fact that Galvez was seen minutes after Enojarda was shot does not sufficiently establish that Galvez was the one who shot Enojarda. There are four basic guidelines in assaying the probative value of circumstantial evidence:(a) It should be acted upon with caution; (b) All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (c) The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt of the accused; and, (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. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence

People of the Philippines, Appellee, versus Rolando Pineda y Manalo, Celso Sison y Lloreen (at large), Victor Emmanuel Gonzales Colet alias ‘‘Victor Colet’’ acquitted, Totie Jacob alias ‘‘Totie’’ at large, John Doe and Peter Doe (at large), Accused, Rolando Pineda y Manalo, appellant. (G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, En Banc) CARPIO, J: TOPIC: Circumstantial Evidence FACTS: Rolando Pineda together with several others allegedly staged a hold-up while on board a bus. The bus driver, Camilo Ferrer, testified that while driving he had witnessed what was happening through his rearview mirror and identified Pineda as one of the perpetrators. Ferrer again identified Pineda through a mugshot of the latter shown to him in an out-of-court identification by the police. ISSUE:

crime

Whether or not Pineda was properly identified as the perpetrator of the

HELD: NO. Although showing mug shots of suspects is one of the established methods of identifying criminals, the procedure used in this case is unacceptable. The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. In the present case, the police obviously suggested the identity of Pineda by showing only the photographs of Pineda and Sison. The testimony of Ferrer fails the totality of circumstances test.

Ariston A. Abad, Petitioner, versus Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, Respondents. (G.R. No. 119739, June 18, 1998, 3rd Division) ROMERO, J: TOPIC: Circumstantial Evidence FACTS:

Ariston Abad allegedly stabbed Roberto Pineda to death. Ana Paulin, Roberto’s mother, testified that she saw Ariston running away from their house just moments before she found her son’s body at their doorstep. No one saw who had stabbed Roberto, nor was the murder weapon ever found. The circumstances upon which the RTC and CA relied on for Ariston’s conviction was that he was present at the scene of the incident and that he had a motive for killing Roberto. ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstances established was sufficient to prove the guilt of Ariston beyond reasonable doubt HELD: NO. The mere presence of Ariston at the locus criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that he committed the killing. Furthermore, in order to support a conviction, motive must be coupled with evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused-appellant was the malefactor. The totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be considered as constituting an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that Ariston is guilty of the crime charged. The circumstances proffered by the prosecution only go so far as to create a suspicion that the accused probably perpetrated the crime charged.

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Edmundo Villaflores y Olano, Accused-Appellant. (G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012, 3rd Division) BERSAMIN, J: TOPIC: Circumstantial Evidence FACTS: On July 2, 1999, Marita was last seen by her mother Julia to be playing at the rear of their residence, when her mother noticed that she was missing, she called her husband who rushed home to fi nd their daughter. At 6:00AM of July 3, 1999, they found Marita’s lifeless body covered with blue and yellow sack five houses away from their home. The result of the postmortem examination showed that the child was raped and the cause of death is asphyxia by strangulation. Upon police investigation, two (2) witnesses who were Aldrin Bautista and Jovy Stadium pointed Villaflores as the culprit. Both witnesses narrated that at about 10:00AM on July 2, 1999, they saw Villaflores leading Maria by the hand. At noon, the three used shabu for a while, but the witnesses did not see Marita in the vicinity of Villaflores’ house. It was only on 3:00PM that they heard cries of a child. At about 7:00PM both witnesses saw Batman carrying a yellow sack which appears heavy, the same sack that he saw when they are still inside the house of Batman. The wife of the accused also gave a supporting testimony that on the night of July 2, 1999 she saw his husband place some sacks under their house and then went closer and saw a protruding elbow inside the sack, when she confronted his husband who was on drugs, Villaflores said was nothing. Based from these circumstances, the RTC convicted Villaflores of a rape with homicide holding that the circumstantial evidence led to no other conclusion but that his guilt was shown beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the conviction. The accused appealed and argued that both RTC and CA erred in convicting him of a composite crime of Rape with homicide through circumstantial evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of Villaflores for the crime of rape with homicide has been established beyond reasonable doubt HELD: YES. The duly established circumstances were links in an unbroken chain that established with moral certainty the guilt of Villaflores for the crime of rape with homicide. 1) Villaflores was seen leading Marita by the hand towards his house. 2) Marita went missing after that. 3) The cries of a child from inside his house.

4) Villaflores was seen carrying a yellow sack towards the abandoned house where the child’s lifeless body was later found. 5) The identification of the yellow and blue sack. 6) A hidden pathway between the abandoned house and Villaflores’ house. 7) The white rope and the yellow sack were traced to Villaflores. 8) The medico-legal findings of death from asphyxiation by strangulation. 9) The multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations. 10) The body of Marita was already in the second stage of flaccidity at the time of the autopsy of her cadaver indicating that she had been dead for more than 24 hours.