THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142532
November 18, 2003
-versus-
JOHNNY M. QUIZON,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
A Decision dated
27 March 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 29,
found
appellant Johnny M. Quizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
He
was sentenced by the trial court to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
The Information charging him with the offense, to which he pled "not
guilty,"
read:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That on or
about the 5th day of September, 1997, in the City of Angeles,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
with grave abuse of confidence, with intent of gain, and by means of
violence,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry
away, against the consent of the owners thereof, a cash money amounting
to P17,000.00 and assorted jewelry, belonging to the Suarez Travel
Agency
and/or Conchita M. Pasquin, with a total value of no less than
P17,000.00,
to the damage and prejudice of the owners thereof in the said total
sum;
that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of
enabling
him to take, steal and carry away the said articles and money, the
herein
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
evident premeditation and taking advantage of his superior strength,
and
with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault, and with the use of
personal violence upon said Conchita M. Pasquin, thereby inflicting
upon
the latter mortal injuries after accused stuffed her mouth with a
clothing
an outcry, and as a direct result of which, said Conchita Pasquin died."[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case for the
prosecution
was pieced together by the trial court from the testimony of a number
of
witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conchita Magpantay Pasquin
was associated with Suarez Travel Services in Angeles City. She used
the
offices of the travel agency as also her residence. Although she was
separated
from her husband, Bonifacio Pasquin, her relationship with him,
nevertheless,
remained cordial. On 05 September 1997, around nine o'clock in the
morning,
Conchita went to the adjacent Quitalig Law Office and lent a magazine
to
a friend, Rowena Abril, a secretary in the law firm. In the afternoon
of
that day, between one and two o'clock, Rowena heard loud noises coming
from Conchita's office, but she did not pay too much attention to the
incident.
Twenty-five minutes later, a man passed by Rowena as she was leaving
her
office to go to a nearby store. Rowena had the impression that the man,
who was walking hurriedly, came from the office of Suarez Travel
Services.
At about four-fifty in the afternoon, Rowena went to see Conchita to
return
the magazine. She noticed that the door leading to Conchita's office
was
open but the main door was closed. Since nobody opened the door for
her,
Rowena decided to leave.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At lunch time on 05
September 1997, Myla Miclat and her live-in partner Roel Sicangco went
to see Conchita to hand over the amount of P17,000.00 in payment for
Myla's
round trip plane fare to Guam. While they were inside Conchita's
office,
Johnny Quizon, whom Conchita introduced as her nephew, came in.
Conchita
asked her nephew if he already had taken his lunch. Conchita told Myla
that her nephew was a former drug addict, and that she was helping him
mend his ways. Quizon was present when Myla gave the money to Conchita.
Conchita told Myla that she was going to purchase the ticket and
instructed
her to return later that day to pick it up. It was approximately seven
o'clock in the evening when Myla, accompanied by a friend, returned to
Suarez Travel Services. She knocked at the door but nobody answered
although
she could see that there was still light inside the work place. Myla
tried
calling up Conchita but the telephone just kept on ringing. The
following
day of 06 September 1997, around five-thirty in the morning, Myla
returned
to Conchita's office. Again, nobody was in sight. Myla went to the
agency's
neighbor to inquire if there was someone inside the office. The
neighbor
climbed, peeped inside and saw a body covered with a blanket.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Marietta Suarez, the
owner of Suarez Travel Services, received a call at six-thirty in the
morning
of 06 September 1997 to inform her that something bad had happened to
Conchita.
She did not go to the office the day previous as she had to accompany
her
husband to a social function. Marietta and her husband forthwith
proceeded
to the agency. A number of police officers and some people were by then
at the scene. Apparently, the policemen forced open the door and found
the body of Conchita wrapped with a white blanket. Conchita's jewelry
box
and the money paid by Myla were missing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the evening of 06
September 1997, Conchita's husband, Bonifacio Pasquin, who was then in
Bataan received a call from his brother-in-law Jose Servidal informing
him of Conchita's death. The following morning, on his way to Angeles
City,
Pasquin chanced upon Conchita's eldest brother, Jose Magpantay, who was
also bound for the city. Magpantay informed Pasquin that on 05
September
1997, he received a call from Conchita who told him that she was going
to Manila to bring an undetermined sum of money. Conchita happened to
mention
that her nephew, Johnny Quizon, was in her office at that time. Later,
during the investigation, Pasquin showed Rowena a picture of Quizon and
she identified him to be the same person who passed by her in haste
that
afternoon of 05 September 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Proceso Mejia, a
City Health Officer of Angeles City, conducted an autopsy on the
remains
of Conchita at half past noon on 06 September 1997. The body showed
discoloration
on the face, neck, back and upper extremities, contusion on the right
side
of the face and abrasions on her right and left side of the neck, right
elbow, right forearm and the palm. Dr. Mejia concluded that at the time
of his examination, Conchita must have been dead for more than twelve,
but not beyond twenty-four, hours. Dr. Mejia did not find any
abnormalities
on the body of the victim and decided to send the vital organs to the
Medico-Legal
Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for toxicological
and histopath examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Noel Minay, a medical
specialist of the National Bureau of Investigation, conducted a
pathological
examination on the vital organs of Conchita, particularly, her brain,
heart,
lungs and pancreas. He concluded that Conchita could have died of
cardiac
arrest, asphyxiation or ingestion of a considerable amount of poisonous
substance.cralaw:red
The case was referred
for investigation to SPO2 Danilo Cruz of the Angeles City Detective
Group.
After reading the initial report, SPO2 Cruz, accompanied by SPO2
Alfredo
Quiambao and a brother of Conchita, went to Quizon's house at 174
Isarog
St., La Loma, Quezon City. Johnny's relatives were not aware of his
whereabouts
but could only say that on the morning of 06 September 1997, Johnny and
his live-in partner Fe Coronel went to Tondo, Manila. The trio decided
to go to Fe's house in Parañaque City, arriving thereat at
around
ten o'clock in the evening. Fe's mother told them that Fe had left on
05
September 1997 and had not returned since. In the course of their
investigation,
SPO2 Cruz interviewed one Rodolfo Cueva, a mailman at the Angeles City
Post Office, who told him that he (Cueva) went to Conchita's office
between
two and two-thirty in the afternoon of 05 September 1997 to deliver an
express mail. Cueva left when nobody would open the door. Returning in
the morning, he learned that the addressee was already dead.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Johnny Quizon was arrested
at his house in Quezon City by police operatives a week after
Conchita's
burial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense gave its
version of the incident.cralaw:red
Nimfa Quizon married
the father of Johnny Quizon in 1980, three years following the death of
his first wife, Imelda, a sister of Nimfa. Nimfa took care of Johnny
since
he was barely five years old. On the evening of 04 September 1997,
Nimfa
asked Johnny to go and visit his aunt Conchita in Angeles City whose
television
set needed repair. Johnny left La Loma, Quezon City, at about ten
o'clock
the following morning of 05 September 1997. He arrived in Angeles City
between twelve-thirty and one o'clock in the afternoon. At the offices
of Suarez Travel Services, he found his aunt Conchita talking with Roel
Sicangco and Myla Miclat. He waited. After Roel and Myla had left,
Conchita
told him that he could not work as yet on the television set as she had
a lot of other things to attend to first in Manila. He asked Conchita
if
she wanted company but she told him to go ahead as she still had to
entertain
a woman who just came in. He left Conchita's office and saw Roel and
Myla
waiting for a passenger jeepney. Johnny noticed a man on board a parked
vehicle who was holding a clutch bag. He saw the man enter his aunt's
office.
Meanwhile, he boarded a passenger jeepney and went to the terminal of
the
Philippine Rabbit bus line. Johnny reached La Loma at four o'clock in
the
afternoon. He informed Nimfa that he was unable to repair Conchita's
television
set. Between four-thirty and five o'clock in the afternoon, Nimfa
received
a call from Conchita who informed him that she sent Johnny home since
she
had as yet a lot of paper work to do. The following morning, Nimfa was
informed of Conchita's death. Johnny was advised by Nimfa not to go to
the wake because Conchita's brothers suspected him of being responsible
for the killing of their sister. Johnny stayed at the house of his
live-in
partner and came home only after the burial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In convicting Quizon
of the crime with which he was indicted, the trial court held:
"The fact
of
death of victim Conchita Pasquin is beyond dispute. Her cadaver was
found
in her bedroom wrapped with a white blanket. There was also a contusion
on the right side of the face and abrasions on the victim's right and
left
side of the neck, right elbow, right forearm and at the palm. Accused
likewise
admitted that he went to the office of the victim in the afternoon of
September
5, 1997 and saw thereat Myla Miclat and Roel Sicangco who left ahead of
him. "x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Nobody actually
saw
how the victim was killed and how the robbery was committed. The
Prosecution
is relying only on circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction of
the accused Johnny Quizon. Under our rules on evidence, 'an accused can
still be convicted even if no eyewitness is available provided that
enough
circumstantial evidence has been established by the prosecution to
prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime' (People
vs.
Lagao, Jr., 271 SCRA 51.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"No direct
evidence
was presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
We are constrained to consider the circumstantial evidence introduced
by
the prosecution to determine whether the same would be sufficient to
convict
the accused:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.
Conchita
Pasquin was a victim of foul play. There were contusions and abrasions
on the upper part of the body. The steel door of the office was left
open
the whole night of the September 5 up to the early morning of September
6, when the victim's body was discovered. The light of the office was
also
on and her body was wrapped in a white blanket when discovered.
Definitely
she could not have died a natural death.
"2. The accused
was
at the victim's office in the afternoon of September 5, 1997 when Myla
Miclat gave the sum of P17,000.00 for the purchase of her plane ticket
in Manila.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"3. The victim
was in
a hurry to leave for Manila to purchase Myla Miclat's plane ticket. In
fact, Myla Miclat was told by the victim to return that evening to the
office to get her ticket.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"4. When Myla
Miclat
and her boyfriend left the victim's office, there were no other person
inside the office except the accused and the victim at around 2:00
o'clock
in the afternoon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"5. At around
2:00 o'clock
of that same afternoon, Rowena Abril, a secretary of the law office
adjacent
to the Suarez' office, heard three very loud noises coming from the
victim's
office. When Rowena went out after around 25 minutes to buy something
at
a nearby store, she saw the accused hurriedly leaving the said office.
The accused hurriedly left for Manila that same afternoon leaving the
victim
behind who was also in a hurry to go to Manila to purchase the plane
ticket
of Myla Miclat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"6. At around
2:00 o'clock
of that same afternoon, Rowena Abril heard several knockings at the
victim's
office but nobody opened the door.
"7. At around 10
minutes
before 5:00 p.m., Rowena Abril went to the office of the victim to
return
the magazine the victim lent to her earlier, but nobody answered her,
so
she just left.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"8. Myla Miclat
returned
that evening at around 7:00 p.m. but nobody opened the door of the
victim's
office.
"9. On September
7,
1997, the body of the victim was brought to the house of the accused
but
the latter never showed up during the entire wake for the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"10. The police
were
not able to find him at his girlfriend's house.
"11. The accused
also
did not attend the burial.
"12. The alibi
given
by the accused for not attending the wake and the burial of his aunt
was
that he was trying to avoid his uncles who were mad at him because he
was
being suspected of killing his aunt. The accused was arrested by the
police
at their house where the wake was held one week after the burial hence,
he was not really afraid of his uncles.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"13. Instead of
helping
the police in solving the crime and apprehending the killer of his aunt
(as he claims to be innocent) the accused went into hiding immediately
after the killing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"14. The victim
was
not able to leave for Manila to buy the plane ticket for Myla Miclat
but
the said amount of P17,000.00 for the plane ticket was never recovered.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The abovecited
circumstances
clearly made an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion
which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
perpetrator
of the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, accused Johnny Quizon is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Accused Johnny
Quizon
is further ordered to pay the heirs of Mrs. Marietta Suarez the sum of
P34,133.10 as actual damages and to pay the heirs of Conchita M.
Pasquin
the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his appeal to this
Court,
Johnny M. Quizon raised the lone assignment of error that —
"THE LOWER
COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
WITHOUT HIS GUILT HAVING BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the
Solicitor
General, instead of filing an appellee's brief, submitted to the Court
a well-ratiocinated manifestation and motion averring that the
existence
of every bit of circumstantial evidence was not satisfactorily
established.
The OSG maintained:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Appellant
should be acquitted and released. The prosecution miserably failed to
meet
the requirements of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction.
"First. The trial
court
erred in accepting the testimony of Miclat that appellant was the last
person who was with the victim before she died. The trial court
similarly
blundered in debunking the testimony of both Sicangco and the appellant
that after appellant had left the office, other persons entered the
victim's
office [TSN, January 7, 1999, pp. 8–10, Testimony of Roel Sicangco;
TSN,
May 25, 1999, pp. 12–13, Testimony of Johnny Quizon]. However, there
was
nothing in Miclat's testimony that directly refuted the testimony of
Sicangco
that there were other persons who entered the office afterwards. Miclat
declared that she did not see whether or not the man with the
collector's
bag returned after they left the office. Miclat's testimony went:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q I'm
only
concern [sic] with the better administration of justice. I know that
you
want to cooperate so much by your testimony. Now, you are supposed to
be
a star witness for the presence of the accused in that office. My
question
is, you did not see the accused doing anything to the victim, is that
correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A Yes, sir.
"Q You did not
also
see whether that man with a collector's bag went back or not in that
office?
"A No sir.
"Q But you know
in every
office it is usually visited by several persons because of their papers
or transaction?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And in that
office
it is usually visited by several persons because of their papers or
transaction?
"A Yes, sir.
(TSN, September
9, 1998, pp. 17–18)
"Sicangco, on
the other
hand, testified to the circumstances after they left the travel agency,
and whose declaration was never rebutted by Miclat. He stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q How do you
know that
Johnny Quizon arrived at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 5,
1997?
"A Dahil sa
estimate
ng pagdating namin sa office at saka iyong interval.
"Q When you left
the
office together with your live-in-partner, where was Johnny Quizon then?
"A Noong
papaalis na
kami sa agency, tapos nakita ko si Johnny sa may funeral palabas at
habang
naghihintay kami ng jeep, nakita ko siya sumakay ng jeep papuntang Dau,
Mabalacat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q When you and
your
wife and Johnny Quizon left the premises, were there still other
persons
inside the office besides that man and his lady companion?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A Noong palabas
na
kami sa agency, napansin ko si Johnny sa may likuran. At habang
naghihintay
kami ng jeep, nakita ko iyong babae at iyong lalake pumasok sa travel
agency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Did you see
Johnny
Quizon ride on a jeep?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q To what
destination?
"A Dau,
Mabalacat.
"Q Before this
Court
your live-in-partner testified that when you left the office, she did
not
notice that man and his lady companion entering the office, what can
you
say about that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Court:
Did she
testify
about a man and a woman?
"Atty. Castillon
(defense
counsel):
Yes, Your
Honor,
during my cross-examination.
"Pros. Quiambao:
(for the
government)
What she testified was that when she left, the only persons left in the
office were the victim and Johnny Quizon.
"Atty. Castillon:
That is
what she
testified. And I am trying to find out from this witness if that is
true. "x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Atty. Castillon:
Because
according
to the witness, they came back and entered the office.
"Clearly, the
prosecution
could present only a witness who saw appellant in the vicinity of the
crime
scene on the day the crime was committed. If the testimony of Sicangco
is suspect as being tainted with pity for a fellow-inmate, it is to be
noted that Sicangco likewise freely admitted of his love for Miclat
(TSN,
January 7, 1999, p. 23). Miclat, on the other hand, categorically
declared
that she did not know whether other persons entered the office
afterwards.
As against Miclat, a former live-in-lover, and appellant, a mere
fellow-inmate,
Sicangco's sympathy for appellant exceeded his love for Miclat because
he did not want an innocent person to suffer for a crime he did not
commit
['Ako nagtetestigo ako para matulungan si Johnny. Basta ako gusto kong
tulungan si Johnny dahil napakahirap nang maparusahan ng hindi mo naman
ginawa.' (TSN, January 7, 1999, p. 13)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That appellant
was
the last person seen with the victim on the day she died does not
necessarily
prove that he killed her. It was not established that appellant and the
victim were together until the crime was committed. It was not even
shown
that appellant was the only one who was with the victim before she
died.
The travel agency was already opened when Miclat, Sicangco and
appellant
came. There were several persons there even before Miclat and company
arrived.
The prosecution has not completely discounted the possibility that
there
were other persons who transacted business with the victim when Miclat
and appellant left, considering that the travel agency is a place of
business
that caters to several clients. There was an eyewitness, Sicangco, who
declared that at least two persons came after appellant left the office
(TSN, January 7, 1999, pp. 8-10). Even the secretary of the neighboring
law firm, prosecution witness Abril, testified that there were several
persons who were knocking at the door of the victim's office after
appellant
left (TSN, May 6, 1998, p. 13).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"True, a person
may
be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence; but the proven
circumstances
should inexorably lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing
to
the accused as the guilty person, to the exclusion of all others. Where
the evidence presented admits of other conclusions, the accused must be
acquitted. Only if the judge below 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. It is thus
required
that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into
account.
The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be
satisfied
that on the defendant is laid the responsibility for the offense
charged;
that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a
crime.
What is required then is moral certainty. It is critical that the moral
force of the criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that
leaves
people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is
important
in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary
affairs
has confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a
criminal
offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost
certainty (People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992]; People v. Andag, 96
SCRA
861 (1980); People v. Benamira, 277 SCRA 232 [1997]).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A much graver set
of
inculpatory circumstantial evidence against the accused were present in
People v. Mijares, (297 SCRA 520 [1998]). Despite that, the accused was
acquitted. A seven-year old playmate testified seeing accused Mijares
as
the last person who was with the victim the night the victim was
killed.
The victim, a girl of tender age, was found dead. The two most damning
circumstances crucial to the prosecution's case were that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
appellant
was the last person seen with the victim; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) his slippers
were
found at the crime scene.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Honorable Court
ruled
that these circumstances are subject to two antithetical
interpretations,
one of guilt and the other of innocence. This case even cited two
analogous
cases which fall squarely with the case at bar, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In
People
v. Ragon, the trial court convicted appellant of murder, based on these
circumstances: he and his companions were the last persons seen with
the
victim, and the cap worn by Ragon's companion was found beside the
victim's
dead body x x x. However, this Court found that the
circumstantial
evidence presented did not conclusively point to Ragon as the
perpetrator
of the murder. The presence of the cap of Ragon's companion beside the
dead
body only proved that said person, not necessarily Ragon himself, was
at
the locus criminis. That such cap was found in the vicinity of the
crime
scene did not necessarily imply that the accused killed the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In People v.
Binamira,
the trial court convicted the accused based on the following pieces of
circumstantial evidence:
(1) he
was
accosted by security guards near the crime scene;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) he was
walking
suspiciously fast; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) bloodied
clothes
were allegedly recovered from him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant therein
was acquitted
because 'the evidence, in view of the constitutional presumption of
innocence,
has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and was thus insufficient
to support a conviction.' Indeed, this Court has ruled that a person
cannot
be held liable for the killing, unless all the proven circumstances
point
to his guilt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The case of
People
v. Boneo (174 SCRA 612 [1989]) recounts a fisherman who was last seen
alive
with the Boneo brothers. He accompanied the brothers out to sea late at
night to get an animal he was supposed to buy from the other side of
the
shore. He was found dead and the P3,000.00 he was carrying gone. The
Supreme
Court waxed poetic when it declared — 'This rule must be observed with
more rigor where the evidence of the prosecution is merely
circumstantial,
as in the case at bar. While this is not to say that this kind of
evidence
will never be sufficient to convict, it does mean that it must be
especially
persuasive if it is to still, as it must, every whisper of doubt that
the
accused is not innocent. Absent conclusive proof of his guilt, the
prisoner
must be released and purged of all the stigma of the charge upon his
head.'
"In People v.
Garcia,
(215 SCRA 349 [1992]), this Honorable Court lauded the OSG for 'utmost
objectivity and fairness' by acquitting the accused because the only
circumstance
that can be appreciated against him was that the prosecution witness
saw
him standing near the banana plants about fifteen meters away from the
house of the victim minutes before the discovery of the deceased.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Similar
circumstances
did not merit a conviction, as in People v. Nicolas, (204 SCRA 191
[1991]),
where the accused was present at the store where the victim was killed
and with him was found part of the stolen money as well as bloodied
pants.
In People v. Geron (281 SCRA 36 [1997]), the string of circumstances
which
the trial court relied upon for conviction consisted of the presence of
the accused at the crime scene; he had in his possession articles
belonging
to the victims at the time he was apprehended; and the accused fled
from
the crime scene. This Honorable Court held that the above circumstances
point to no inference exclusively consistent with the guilt of the
accused.
It explained that:
"
First,
the mere presence of the accused at the locus criminis and his
possession
of certain items belonging to the victims, while it may have pointed
the
finger of suspicion at him, cannot be solely interpreted to mean that
he
has committed the robbery and the attendant killings.' (at p. 47)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
Second.
The trial court was unable to cite any particular circumstance at all
to
show that appellant in the case at bar had a motive to commit the
crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"There is
absolutely
no motive for appellant to rob or kill the victim. Noteworthy is the
testimony
of the sister of the deceased, Nimfa Quizon, who testified in
appellant's
favor. Appellant is not her own son, but her nephew (TSN, February 24,
1999, p. 3). Further, Miclat herself heard from the victim that she had
been the one responsible for the appellant's rehabilitation (TSN,
September
9, 1998, p. 8). It goes against the grain of human experience for a
sister
to prevaricate on the true identity of the killer of her own
blood-sister
just to hide the guilt of a nephew.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Lest it be
forgotten,
the Constitution mandates that the accused must be presumed innocent.
Hence,
if the circumstances are capable of several interpretations, one of
which
is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the others
consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence has not fulfilled the test of moral
certainty
and is thus insufficient to support a conviction (People v. Mijares,
297
SCRA 520 [1998]).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
Third.
The trial court considered appellant's failure to attend the funeral
rites
of the victim as a sign of guilt. This is not so [People v. Andag,
supra;
People v. Mijares, supra]. Appellant and the sister of the victim
testified
that the brothers of the victim, uncles of the appellant, strongly
suspected
him as the killer. He simply followed the order of his step-mother, his
aunt Nimfa Quizon, to avoid attending the wake and the burial to avoid
any mishap that might occur because of the supposition that he was the
killer.
"
Fourth.
The trial court faults him for not clearing his name upon notice that
he
was a suspect and that he went into hiding, citing that the wicked man
flees though no one pursues. Unfortunately, no such flight could be
ascribed
to the appellant. The trial court lost sight of the fact that appellant
was not a resident of Angeles City, and that he stayed in the house of
his father in La Loma, Quezon City to do some odd jobs and at the house
of his girlfriend in Parañaque (TSN, May 25, 1999, p. 11).
Flight,
in order to be considered as an indication of guilt, presupposes that a
person escapes from the authorities to evade prosecution. It does not
contemplate
a situation where the accused returns to his home where at any time, he
may be picked up for questioning in connection with or arrested for
having
committed a crime. Flight, when adequately explained, cannot be
attributed
to one's consciousness of guilt. Appellant presented an unrebutted
explanation
that he fled, not because of guilt for having perpetrated a crime, but
rather for fear of his own relatives' reprisal as the primary suspect
in
the killing of his own aunt. (People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992]);
(People
v. Geron, 281 SCRA 36 [1997]); (People v. Mijares, 297 SCRA 520
[1998]).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
Fifth.
The Court's acceptance of various details as to the irregularity and
strangeness
of appellant's actions as constitutive of his guilt like appellant's
hurried
leaving of the premises, his leaving the victim behind when both of
them
were going to Manila, and his alleged lack of cooperation with the
police
in searching for the true criminal, is premised on a precarious
foothold.
"Likewise, there is
no
testimony as to the death of the victim, but only a general
medico-legal
explanation that the strangulation of the victim hastened the victim's
heart and lung disease. There is no evidence of fingerprints, hair and
skin samples on the deceased that might lead to the identity of the
killer.
The rope or cloth or blanket that was supposed to have strangled the
victim
was not presented. There was no testimony that the belongings of the
victim
were in disarray to show struggle during the crime. The prosecution was
unable to present evidence as to how the victim died. The alleged
P17,000.00
paid to victim and the pieces of jewelry lost were never presented in
court,
much less were they found on the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"As the saying
goes:
'The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it
is without rudder or compass.' [People v. Geron, 281 SCRA 36 (1997)].
No
court, when confronted with issues that affect the life and liberty of
citizens in a free society, should treat flippantly the latter's
constitutional
guarantees and supply deficiencies in the evidence for the prosecution
with its own bias, suspicion or speculation [People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA
349 (1992)]."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OSG thus prayed:
"WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed that the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
in Angeles City, dated March 27, 2000, in Criminal Case No. 97-893 be
REVERSED
AND SET ASIDE and accused-appellant JOHNNY M. QUIZON be ACQUITTED."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court upholds the
recommendation
of the Solicitor General.
Section 4, Rule 133,
of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
"Section 4.
Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.- Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient
for conviction if:
(a) There
is
more than one circumstance;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) The facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) The combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing elements
must all be obtaining in order to aptly warrant the conviction of an
accused.
The circumstances proved must be congruous with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with
any
other hypothesis except that of guilt.[6]
It must be shown (a) that there is more than one circumstance and the
facts
from which the inferences are derived have been firmly established and
(b) that the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court has once said:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x Like a tapestry made of strands which create a pattern
when
interwoven, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can
be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain
which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused,
to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evidently, Conchita
Magpantay
Pasquin was a victim of foul play. The circumstances recited by the
trial
court, however, would be insufficient to create in the mind of the
Court
a moral certainty that appellant was the one responsible for the
commission
of the crime. Appellant's mere presence at the locus criminis would be
inadequate to implicate him[8]
in the commission of the crime. No evidence was adduced that appellant
was the last person to see or talk to the victim before she was killed.
Roel Sicangco testified that when he and Myla arrived at Conchita's
office,
the latter had just finished talking to a woman and a man with a
collector's
bag. After Roel and Myla finished their transaction with Conchita, the
same man and woman, whom they saw earlier, again entered Conchita's
office.
Roel testified that he saw Johnny come out of the office and board a
passenger
jeepney going to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. The prosecution failed to
show
that Sicangco had any good reason to lie. Even while the trial court
had
observed that Conchita's jewelry and money were never found, no
evidence
was introduced that appellant had them, or that he had them in his
possession
at anytime after Conchita's death. The trial court found it strange
that
appellant did not wait for Conchita when the latter said that she was
also
leaving for Manila. Appellant said that he did offer to wait for
Conchita
but she told him to go ahead as she still had some other work to attend
to. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that appellant
did not attend Conchita's wake is not an indication of either flight or
guilt. Nimfa Quizon would appear to have warned appellant against going
to the wake after he earned the ire of their relatives who had
suspected
him to be the killer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Significantly, no ill-motive
was ascribed on appellant to either kill or rob his own aunt.cralaw:red
The circumstances recited
by the trial court might be enough to create some kind of suspicion on
the part of the trial court of appellant's involvement, but suspicion
is
not enough to warrant conviction. A finding of guilt based on
conjecture,
even if likely, cannot satisfy the need for evidence required for a
pronouncement
of guilt, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt of the complicity in the
crime.[9]
No matter how weak the defense is, it is still imperative for the
prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence
for the prosecution, it has been said, must at all times stand or fall
on its own weight and it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness
of the defense.[10]
An accused has the right to be presumed innocent, and this presumption
prevails until and unless it is overturned by competent and credible
evidence
proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[11]
In case of any reservation against the guilt of accused, the Court
should
entertain no other alternative but to acquit him.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of finding appellant JOHNNY M. QUIZON
guilty
of robbery with homicide is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and he is ACQUITTED
of the crime charged. The Court further orders appellant's immediate
release
from custody, unless he is lawfully held for another lawful cause.cralaw:red
The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision
immediately
and to report to this Court the action taken hereon not later than five
(5) days from receipt hereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, pp. 28–35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 102–114.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 114–115.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
People vs. Corfin, G.R. No. 131478, 11 April 2002, 380 SCRA 504.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
People vs. Comesario, G.R. No. 127811, 29 April 1999, 306 SCRA 400.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People vs. Asis, et al., G.R. No. 142531, 15 October 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Arce vs. People, G.R. No. 125857, 20 March 2002, 379 SCRA 583.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[10]
People vs. Cañete, G.R. No. 138400, 11 July 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People vs. Julian, Jr., G.R. No. 142774, 03 July 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |