People vs Peruelo

Parties:
Alex De Guzman - Victim
Demetrio Runez – First Witness (Not testified)
Salvador Peruelo and one "Teofing – Accused for the murder of Alex De Guzman
Facts:
 Alex de Guzman, a motorized tricycle driver, was found dead near a fishpond. The tricycle, he
was driving, was missing. Based on autopsy report, Alex de Guzman was stabbed with a long
bladed weapon on the upper left side of the abdomen.
 One of the tricycle drivers told him that Demetrio Runez had something to do with the slaying of
Alex de Guzman
 On Two page sworn statement of Demetrio Runez stated that:
 Salvador Peruelo and one "Teofing" invited him for a good time they took a
tricycle, he sat behind the driver and Peruelo and "Teofing" were in the side car
 Driver of the tricycle was Alex de Guzman
 They stopped in a fishpond, Teofing went into the motion of urinating, but instead
of urinating, "Teofing" produced a knife, went to Alex de Guzman and stabbed
the latter causing the Alex to fall to the ground
 Demetrio Runez walked away while he was walking "Teofing" and Salvador
Peruelo overtook him in the same tricycle,
 he did not report the incident to the police because he was confused and was
threatened by "Teofing"
 Salvador Peruelo showed up at the police headquarters, because he applied for a police
clearance. He found out there was a pending case against him. Salvador asked for assistance of
Mayor of Daguapan City who brought Salvador to the Dagupan City police.
 Alibi of Salvador Peruelo, that in the evening of he was in his brother's house celebrating with
relatives the first birthday of his nephew, Jesus Peruelo, Jr.
 Another witness made two-page sworn statement, Federico Moulic executed a caretaker of the
fishpond.
o He testified that he was in his hut. When he heard somebody shout. He got his flashlight
and went out to investigate. He went to the direction of the shout. he "flashed the beam"
of his flashlight towards it. He saw three persons "struggling." And Teofing stubbed Alex
de guzman.
o After the stubbing, Teofing shouted at him. He switched off his fla shlight and went nearer
to them and went backward when they shouted to him again. He saw, tying Alex de
guzman and eventually boarded the tricycle.
o Federico Moulic went to his hut. In the next Morning he went to the place of the incident
and he saw several persons. He approached By. Captain Gubatan and related to him the
incident. When asked if he knew the perpetrators, his reply (to Gubatan) was that he
could recognize their faces if he could see them again.

 On Trial Court Held : SALVADOR PERUELO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER
 Salvador Peruelo seeks acquittal on the ground that his guilt had not been established beyond
reasonable doubt.
o First, Testimony of Federico Moulic is weak, unconvincing and unreliable
o the sworn statement of Demetrio Runez should not have been admitted as part of the
prosecution evidence, it being hearsay

1|Page
Issue: Whether or not Salvador Peruelo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Held: No
1. First on the testimony of Federico Moulic
The Supreme Court held that:
 Evidence to be believed must be credible in itself such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.
Federico Moulic went out of his hut, directly to its source. At a distance of ten meters, he focused
his flashlight at the source. No man in his normal wits would deliberately approach and view a
violent by armed assailants, knowing that he himself was actually exposed to the danger .
 Federico Moulic claimed that he recognized the assailants and described them in court after more
than eight years If this witness had indeed recognized the malefactors there appears no reason
why he kept silent for such a length of time. The natural tendency of an eye-witness to a crime is
to report it, and to describe the malefactors to the authorities, at the earliest possible opportunity,
 Moulic's claim that appellant Salvador Peruelo struck the victim at the back of the head with a
blunt instrument,.
o But based on autopsy report only wound found on the victim's body was stab wound on
the abdomen.
 unconvincing and unreliable testimony failed to link appellant Salvador Peruelo to the killing of
Alex de Guzman.
On the testimony of Runez
prosecution failed present Demetrio Runez by presenting Sgt. Pedro Landingan who allegedly
took Runez' affidavit was double hearsay and does not deserve even a slightest consideration.
On the testimony of Salvador Peruelo
He was attending a birthday celebration of his nephew corroborated by his wife, a brother and a
neighbor who went with him to the birthday party.
It is true that alibi is a weak defense which an accused can easily fabricate to escape criminal liability. But
where prosecution evidence is weak, and betrays lack of reliability as to the Identification of the
defendant, alibi assumes commensurate strength. This is but consistent with the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.
Dispositive: , The guilt of the accused not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

2|Page
2. People Vs Marong:

 This is kidnapping case.

 Marong together with seven Moro National Liberation Front rebels, were charged of kidnapping
for ransom of the captain and two security guards of the fishing.
 Members of the Moro National Liberation Front, armed and using two pumpboats, boarded
the MV Minerva I, , a fishing boat anchored at the shoreline Basilan.
 They kidnapped:
o the captain of the fishing boat (Benjamin de la Rosa)
o two security guards (Abdurasul Mannan and Teddy P. Tarabasal)
 The captives were detained in a hut or camarin for thirteen days.
 Ransom of twenty thousand pesos was delivered upon released the three kidnapped victims to
negotiators
 Provincial fiscal filed against Marong and Naduwa (nephew of Marong) and the eight rebels
(including Palsarip) an information for kidnapping for ransom. Only Marong and Naduwa were
arrested.
 The prosecution contends that Marong and Naduwa conspired with Palsarip and the seven
terrorists to perpetrate the kidnapping for ransom.
 Based on the testimony of witness Halim :
o He decided to fish for squid in the waters near Kalang Salamat. He walked to Marong’s
house which was made of bamboo and nipa. He intended to secure Marong’s permission
to fish in the waters of Kalang Salamat.
o He noticed that there were many persons inside the house of Morong. He peeped
through the wall he heard Marong directing the seven rebels to kidnap the captain on the
fishing boat and kill the two security guards.
o After hearing that directive, Halim left the place and slept in his cousin’s house
 Two Security guard also testified Marong and Naduwa appeared at Sitio Bucalao. Marong gave
money to Palsarip who complimented him on the success of the kidnapping, Marong promised to
return to bring the ransom money. That meeting between Marong and Palsarip took place within
the sight and hearing of the two security guards and the captain of the boat.
 The two guards also testified that it was Marong who gave the ransom money to Palsarip. As a
result, the captives were released and delivered negotiator.
 On Defense of Marong:
o He denied the allegation, he admitted that he and Naduwa went to Sitio Banah but he did
so in the company of some teachers and children.
o He did not know why Mannan and Tarabasal testified against him. He had a
misunderstanding with Hadji Jalani regarding a fish corral. He said that Halim was a
bataan. of Hadji Jalani.
o Lieutenant Bermudez who also investigated the case and got the verbal statements of
the kidnapped victims soon after they were released, did not implicate Marong and
Naduwa.

Ruling of Judge Jainal D. Rasul:

3|Page
  rejected the alibis and denials of Marong and Naduwa and gave credence to the
testimonies of Halim

Issue: Whether or not Marong with the assistance of his nephew (Naduwa), is mastermind the kidnapping
for ransom?

Held: No

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; NOT MET

1. On the testimony of Halim:

He allegedly peeped inside Marong’s nipa hut he heard Marong saying: "We are going to board
on two pumpboats and proceed to the Minerva I and get the captain of the boat and kill his
security guards, Abdurasul Mannan and Teddy Tarabasal and then proceed to Bucalao because
Palsarip is waiting there."
Halim’s story is not credible because it is not possible. Marong’s small house could not have
accommodated seven rebels in addition to Marong and Naduwa, not to mention Marong", wife
and children.
He could be noticed by the people inside the house. They would have sensed his presence
immediately considering his close closeness to them.
2. The version that Marong recklessly talked twice with Palsarip in the presence of the three
kidnapped victims is not believable. No man would overexpose himself as Marong did in this
case, to be believed. Marong would have known that after the three kidnapped victims had been
set free they would surely testify against him.
3. Jalani, the owner of the fishing boat and the payor of the ransom money, and De la Rosa, the
captain of the boat, should have testified on the alleged participation of Marong in the kidnapping.
They did not testify.
Their nonavailability as witnesses was not explained by the prosecution.

Dispositive Portion: Marong and Naduwa are acquitted on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is
insufficient to prove their guilt.

4|Page