sharp like a balisong or kitchen knife.
There were also
A LAW EACH DAY
[KEEPS TROUBLES AWAY]
A Philippine Star Column
BY: Atty. Jose C. Sison
CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES
April 19, 2017
An accused may be found guilty not only by direct
evidence but also by circumstantial evidence or that
evidence proving a fact or series of facts from which
the facts in issue may be established by inference.
Resort to such evidence may be necessary because
crimes are usually committed without eye-witnesses
who can directly testify to their commission and to the
identity of the accused. This case of Samuel
enumerates the requisites to be complied with for
circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction.
Samuel is married to Tina who has just given birth.
They are staying in one of the three rooms in the house
of Tinas family. Staying in the two other rooms are the
parents of Tina (Mario and Rita) and Tinas two other
sisters, Mayen and Betty.
Even if Samuel is already married to Tina, he seems to
be still interested in Tinas youngest sister Betty. He
was caught many times at different places peeping at
Betty with lustful eyes. He also continues to maintain
his barkada and goes out with them carrying with him
a balisong or beinte nueve which he shows off to sufficient if the following requisites are complied with:
his friends.
One evening, when Tinas parents Mario and Rita and
their daughter Mayen went to the province to attend
the wake of Marios mother, Betty was left in the house
with Tina and Samuel. Then Samuel also left to attend
a birthday party. At about 9 in the evening, Samuel,
accompanied by a friend, Eddie, returned home to get
some karaoke tapes they will use in the party. Then he
went back to the party and stayed there until 12
midnight before heading back home.
The following day at about 4:30 a.m., the spouses
Mario and Rita together with daughter Mayen arrived
home. Mario opened the door which was locked. Then
Mayen went to the room which she was sharing with
Betty. To her shock she saw Betty already dead with
stab wounds. Their parents and Tina likewise rushed to
the room but Samuel stayed at the sala, crying and
then later embraced Tina telling her that he was
innocent.
At about 5 a.m. police investigators arrived in response
to Marios call. They found no forcible entry into the
house, no valuables missing, and no blood stains in
other parts of the house except in Bettys room. They
also discovered Samuels brief, gray T-shirt and short
pants on top of the kitchen table; and strands on
Bettys bed. Then they brought these pieces of
evidence to the crime laboratory for examination.
The NBI medico legal officer also conducted an autopsy
on Betty and found that she suffered 21 stab wounds
caused by a pointed instrument, one side of which was
signs that Betty may have struggled with the assailant
before she died.
The NBI biologists on the other hand also examined
Samuels briefs. T-shirt and short pants and found type
O human blood, Bettys blood type, on the briefs and
shirt. DNA analysis were also conducted on the brief, T-
shirt, the strands of hair recovered in Bettys room, and
the Buccal swabs taken from Mario, Rita and Samuel all
of which show the presence of human DNA except the
brief.
So, on the basis of these evidences, Samuel was
charged with the crime of homicide for killing Betty, his
sister-in-law. During the presentation of the evidence
for the prosecution, the above enumerated facts were
established. For his part, Samuel could only offer bare
denial of the accusations against him. So the Regional
Trial Court rendered a decision finding Samuel guilty of
homicide and sentenced him to imprisonment of 8
years, 8 months and 1 day, minimum up to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day, maximum plus payment of
corresponding indemnity and moral damages. This
decision was affirmed by CA on appeal by Samuel.
Samuel however still went to the Supreme Court. He
questioned the sufficiency of each and every
circumstance to prove his guilt beyond doubt.
But the Supreme Court still affirmed the decision of the
RTC and the CA. The SC said that under Section 4, Rule
133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is
(1) There is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; (3)
The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances must be consistent with one
another, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent
with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld
provided that the circumstances proven constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all the others, as the guilty person.
In this case, both the RTC and the CA considered these
pieces of evidence in finding Samuels guilt: (1) the
non-employment of force in entering the scene of the
crime; (2) no missing personal belongings; (3) absence
of bloodstains in other parts of the house except
Bettys room; (4) Samuels ownership of a balisong, the
same weapon used in stabbing the victim; (5) the
presence of type O human blood on Samuels T-shirt
and briefs; (6) the positive result of the DNA analysis
using bloodstains found in Samuels shirt and briefs;
and (7) Samuels unusual behavior after the discovery
of Bettys lifeless body.
These individual pieces of evidence may not be
sufficient to point to Samuel as the author of the crime.
However, when taken together, they are more than
enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
Samuel committed the crime of homicide. The
peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is more like a
puzzle which, when put together, reveals a remarkable
picture pointing toward the conclusion that the accused
is the author of the crime.
So Samuel is really guilty of homicide and should suffer
imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day minimum, to 14
years, 8 months and 1 day, maximum plus the
corresponding indemnity, moral and temperate
damages (Salvador vs. People, G.R. No. 164266, July
22, 2008).
IMPROBABLE
April 26, 2017
In some cases, there may be an eyewitness to a crime
who can testify directly on what happened at the crime
scene. Usually however, the crime is committed in a
dark place so the person committing the crime may not
be easily identified. Hence the testimony of the eye-
witness may still not be sufficient to convict beyond
reasonable doubt. This is illustrated in this case of
Andre.
This case happened in a Barangay, one late evening
about 11 p.m. at a store near a peryahan where
Estong and his childhood friend, Ringo were drinking
beer. Illuminating their table was the light of the
moron coming from the peryahan. Estong called his
friend for the drinking spree because his girlfriend
Elena, had just broken off their relationship in
exchange for someone he didnt know although he
suspected it was Ringo. After they had finished their
third bottle of beer, they decided to leave their table
and went home separately.
The following day, the police found the dead body of
Ringo in a secluded place not far away from the store.
Post mortem examination shows that Ringo sustained
two stab wounds on the chest, a stab wound along the
waist area which hit the liver, and a stab wound on the
elbow. Further investigation led the police to Andre as
the primary suspect as he was new in the place. Andre
was picked up by the police and brought to the
municipal hall where he was incarcerated.
Continuing his testimony, Estong said that he then
cried for help. So ,another friend, Rene, came to help
bring the victim to a secured place and thereafter left
to call for a physician at the Barangay Hall. He said he
waited for Rene to come back but he did not return
anymore. With the condition of Ringo uncertain and as
he was afraid, Estong said that he also decided to
leave the seriously injured Ringo and went home.
He also said that he does not know Andre and only saw
him for the first time on the night of the stabbing
incident. He only came to know Andres name and
identified him when the police presented him after
getting his statement two days later. After the
examining physician and Ringos wife Guia, also
testified, the prosecution rested its case.
For his part, Andre testified and said that on the night
of the stabbing incident he was on a drinking spree at
the house of a relative until 12 midnight when he went
home to his wife.
The following day, he was drying palay when his wife
informed him that police officers were looking for him.
He approached the officers to ask the reason and he
was told to go with them to the municipal hall for
questioning. There he was already incarcerated
because of his alleged involvement in the stabbing
incident. Andre insisted that he did not know Ringo or
his wife Guia, nor Estong. He said he was not with
Estong or Ringo in the drinking spree and denied
stabbing Ringo.
But the trial court still convicted him of murder for
killing Ringo with treachery. It relied more on the
prosecution evidence particularly Estongs eye-witness
account and thus sentenced Andre to reclusion
perpetua. Was the lower court correct?
The Supreme Court said no. The court said that the
testimony of Estong is laden with improbabilities that
detract from his credibility especially on the veracity of
the malefactors identity. The court ruled that said
testimony is merely contrived to pin the criminal
culpability on Andre.

First, the scene of the crime was not clearly illuminated

Two days after the stabbing incident, a police officer,
PO Gamboa, together with Ringos father and Ringos
wife Guia went to Estongs house to get his sworn
statement as to the facts of the stabbing incident
which led to Ringos death.
Subsequently, Andre was charged with the crime of
murder for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbing
Ringo with treachery and intent to kill, through the use
of a sharp bladed weapon. Andre pleaded not guilty, so
trial ensued.
At the trial Estong testified and narrated that, after
their drinking spree, when Ringo was about to stand
up, a man suddenly appeared from nowhere and
stabbed Ringo using a knife with a red handle, without
any reason or provocation. The stab blow landed on the
left breast of Ringo causing him to fall down. While on
a kneeling position, the assailant stabbed him three
more times and then ran away.
so the positive identification of Andre by Estong is hazy
and unreliable. Second Estongs story that Rene came
to their aid then left to get a doctor at the Barangay
Hall but did not return anymore, does not make sense.
The natural reaction here is for them to bring Ringo to
a hospital. So it is doubtful if Estong really cried for
help. Rene did not even testify to corroborate Estongs
story. Furthermore Estongs reaction in hurriedly going
home and leaving Ringo alone to die is inconsistent
with the natural reaction of one who had just witnessed
the stabbing of a childhood friend. Third it is disturbing
how the police officers were able to identify Andre.
Estong did not even give them a description of the
assailant. In fact Estong admitted he did not know
Andre or his name at the time of the stabbing incident.
And lastly, it has not been shown that Andre had any
motive to kill Ringo. There was no evidence that he
carried a bitter grudge as to perpetrate such a brutal
killing.
So, the decision of the RTC and the CA should be
reversed and set aside and Andre should be acquitted
(People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, July 11,
2012).
OF SOUND MIND
May 3, 2017
In a previous criminal case, we have seen that the
insanity of the victim particularly in a rape case cannot
be used as a defense to avoid criminal culpability. But
can the insanity of the accused be used to escape
criminal culpability given that every person is
presumed to be of sound mind? If so, what kind of
evidence must the accused prove to overcome the
presumption of sanity? This is explained in this case of
Lucio.
Lucio used to be a very silent and formal person. But
one time he was struck on the head by some teenagers
and thereafter became talkative and was observed to
be always talking to himself and complaining of
headaches. A year after such incident, he had
psychotic episodes prompting his mother to confine
him at the mental hospital in their province where he
was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia. He
was confined in the hospital until he was discharged
about a year later when he was observed to be well
already. The illness recurred however when he failed to
maintain his anti-psychotic medications due to financial
constraints. And it became worse seven years after his
confinement, when his aunt died. Throughout the
wake, he neither slept nor ate, and kept walking alone
from morning until evening.
One day during the wake, he was unusually silent and
refused to take a bath when told to do so by his mother
and even quarreled with her. At about 3:30 in the
afternoon, his childhood friend Rody who was then
waiting for someone at the roadside, spotted Lucio
sitting on the sidecar of a tricycle parked nearby. Also
spotted by Rody walking on the same street was
another childhood friend Andy along with a 50-year-old
man Artemio. When Artemio passed by the tricycle, he
was approached from behind by Lucio who suddenly
stabbed him on the left lower back with an 8 to 12
inches bolo locally known as ginunting. Taken aback,
Artemio exclaimed, Tara man then fell to the ground.
Then Lucio immediately fled as he was chased by Rody
and Andy together with a Barangay official who heard
the commotion inside the nearby Barangay Hall. Lucio
took refuge inside the house of his uncle Dionisio.
Artemio on the other hand was brought to the health
center where he was pronounced dead on arrival due
to hypovolemia secondary to multiple stab wounds.
As the incident was attracting the peoples attention,
the Barangay Captain called for police assistance even
as Lucios uncle Dionisio tried to appease Artemios
relatives. Upon arrival of the responding policemen,
they called Lucio to surrender. So Lucio came out of the
house, voluntarily surrendered and turned over the
jungle knife he was holding.
Two months later, Lucio was charged with the crime of
murder for the killing of Artemio because it was done
with treachery and aggravated by abuse of superior
strength. During arraignment Lucio pleaded not
guilty and interposed the defense of insanity but used
another name in signing his plea. During the trial and
mid-way through the presentation of the prosecutions
evidence about five years since the filing of the
charges, Lucios mental condition worsened. So he was
subjected to another psychiatric evaluation and was
diagnosed again to be suffering from schizophrenia of
an undifferentiated type.
Despite this abnormal behavior, the trial court still
convicted Lucio of murder and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua. The court ruled that evidence of
insanity after the commission of the offense may be
accorded weight only if there is also proof of abnormal
behavior immediately before or during the commission
of the crime. In this case, the actuation of the accused
in approaching Artemio from behind and stabbing him
on the lower back together with his immediate flight
and subsequent surrender to the police authorities are
not indicative of insanity. This ruling was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and the CA
correct?
Yes said the Supreme Court. For the plea of insanity to
prosper, the accused must present clear and
convincing evidence that he is completely deprived of
intelligence, reason and will and has acted without the
least discernment immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense. In
this case, Lucios mental illness was diagnosed about
seven years before the commission of the crime when
he was confined in a mental hospital; and five years
after the crime was committed when his mental
condition worsened while on trial.
Besides, there are circumstances surrounding the
incident that negate complete absence of intelligence
on the part of Lucio when he attacked the victim: first,
he surprised the victim when he attacked him from
behind; second he attempted to flee from the scene of
the crime after stabbing the victim which indicates that
he knew that what he just committed was wrong; and
third, when the police officers called on him to
surrender, he voluntarily came out of the house where
he was hiding and voluntarily turned himself over to
them. These actions of Lucio immediately before,
during and immediately after he committed the offense
indicate that he was conscious of his actions, that he
intentionally stabbed the victim knowing the natural
consequence of such act and that such act is a morally
reprehensible wrong. His actions and reactions are
similar to actions and reactions of a fully sane person
(People vs. Roa, G.R. No. 225599, March 22, 2017)