PEOPLE v.

PADUA
February 23, 2007 | Garcia, J. | Circumstantial evidence | Conejero

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENTS: Christopher “Popop” Padua, Alejandro “Andoy” Padua, and Michael “Mike/Meke” Dullavin

FACT TO BE ESTABLISHED: Guilt of the respondents for the rape with homicide of 10-year-old XXX
EVIDENCE PRESENTED: Testimonies of XXX’s brothers YYY and ZZZ

SUMMARY: The three respondents are herein appealing their conviction of the rape with homicide of minor XXX,
which they claim was erroneously based on circumstantial evidence. The RTC and CA convicted them on the basis of
testimony by the victim’s brothers YYY and ZZZ, who were waiting at a neighbor’s house and claimed they saw XXX
being abducted by the accused-appellants on an opposite route on the way home. The SC affirmed the conviction.

DOCTRINE: Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if the following requisites are complied with:
(1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. A conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

FACTS:
1. Christopher Padua, Alejandro Padua and Michael Dullavin were charged of rape with homicide of a 10 year old
minor XXX who was brought to, raped and murdered by force in San Vicente, Laguna.
a. XXX, with her younger brothers YYY and ZZZ, were walking home from neighbor Felicisima Arroyo’s
house. YYY and ZZZ were waiting at a different route and testified that they saw the three accused carry
their older sister away and that her mouth was covered to keep her from crying out. They were able to
positively identify the three suspects because the place where XXX was taken from was illuminated by
billboard lights from the nearby Nescafe factory compound.
b. XXX was found dead 2 days later in Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna, with her clothes strewn around
her and a piece of wood in her mouth to choke her. An examination of the body found that XXX was
raped and that she had died from fractured blood vessels in the skull.
2. The three accused interposed an alibi that they were in Alabang when the incident took place.
a. Alejandro Padua said he was taking care of his 3-year-old grandchild and then went to bed at 9PM,
claiming that the complaint was due to a long-standing feud between his family and that of the victim.
b. Christopher Padua said he had dinner with his sister Cristina who was celebrating her birthday.
c. Michael Dullavin said he was repairing his passenger jeep and then accompanied his wife Cristina to
dinner with co-appellant Christopher, after which at 9PM they went home since he was not feeling well.
3. The RTC San Pedro, Laguna found the three guilty, sentencing them to death and to pay P180,000 in indemnity,
with the exception of Alejandro Padua, who was sentenced to reclusion perpetua as he was over 70 years old.
4. The CA affirmed the RTC with modification that Christopher Padua, who was 17 years old and a minor during the
crime, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The award was also increased to P230,000.

ISSUE/HELD:
Whether the accused may be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt based only on circumstantial evidence--YES.
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion
and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the
facts in issue may be established by inference. In many cases, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since
to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.
RATIO:
1. The prosecution was able to establish the appellants’ culpability through the established facts which constitute
an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the appellants. There is
thus moral certainty that they authored the crime charged.
2. Even though the appellants contended that the witnesses YYY and ZZZ were not credible, the court found their
narration of the events to be consistent even after rigorous cross examination by 3 defense counsels.
a. In the matter of credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings are accorded finality and should not be
disturbed on appeal, unless the court has overlooked certain facts of weight and substance, which if
considered, would alter the result of the case. Nothing on record compels deviation from this rule.
b. The witnesses in question are children, and their failure to rescue their sister or report the incident to
their parents cannot be taken against them. Children first think of their own safety, which they did when
they feared that their neighbors, the accused, would take them away.
c. The inconsistencies in the testimony as to when they went to their neighbor’s house or what they
watched on television are petty and insignificant.
3. Their alibis did not hold up, as they were not able to show the requisite that it was physically impossible for them
to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Their houses are located in the same
neighborhood where the crime occurred, and are 30 minutes away from where XXX’s body was found. As for the
defense of denial, such is self-serving and carries no weight. It is unlikely for XXX’s parents to impute such a
serious crime if their motive was merely revenge for a family feud.

DISPOSITION: The CA decision is affirmed with modifications. Costs de oficio.

(1) The accused-appellants are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua (under RA 9346) without parole;
(2) They are to indemnify XXX’s heirs in the amount of P300,000 total: P100,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000
moral damages, 25,000 as temperate damages, and P100,000 as exemplary damages.