PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EMMANUEL DESALISA G.R. No. 95262 JANUARY 4, 1994
FACTS:
Emmanuel Desalisa and Norma Desalisa are husband and wife with a two year old daughter. They live in a small nipa house on a hill at Pinaductan, San Juan, Bacon, Sorsogon. There are two other houses in the neighborhood which are 150 meters away: the house of his parents-in-law and the house of Carlito Dichoso. These cannot, however, be seen from the couple's house because of the many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.
The couple had a serious quarrel because the accused-appellant was jealous of a man. On October 9, 1983, the said accused moved by hatred and jealousy, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to f
kill armed with a sharp pointed instrument, assault, attack, and inflict physical injuries on the vagina of his wife and who was pregnant for about five (5) months, and thereafter with the use of rope hang her to a jackfruit tree causing her death and that of her fetus.
The accused-appelant denied the allegation and said that the hanging of the victim was suicidal.
There are no actual witnesses of the crime but the circumstantial evidence brought by the testimonies given by the parents of the victim, their neighbor, the physician, P/Cpl. Gillego, pin points Emmanuel Desalisa as the killer of the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether the quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellant's guilt, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
YES. The quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellant’s guilt, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, is sufficient. There is more than one circumstance. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. There is ample evidence to support the finding that the hanging of the victim was homicidal and not suicidal, as claimed by Accused-Appellant. A day after the incident, Vicente Dioneda found scattered plates and kettle with untouched rice on the floor of the house of accused-appellant while Cpl. Gillego found that some things in the house were not in proper places. These are indicia of previous struggle. There were blood stains on the victim’s dress, panty, and feet. On her genitalia, the doctor found a punctured wound, 1 cm. long and 2 cm. deep, with slight blood clot which could have been caused by any pointed object, sharp bolo or sharp pointed instrument. Accused-appellant admitted during the cross examination that he was armed with a sharp bladed instrument while he was looking for his wife. The doctor also found hematoma with contusion on both labia of her genitalia, which could have been caused by a fist blow. According to the doctor, these injuries could not have been self-inflicted.
Although accused-appellant spent the night in the house of Carlito Dichoso and did not flee, this circumstance standing alone is no brief on his innocence. There is no case law holding that non-flight is conclusive proof of innocence.
FACTS:
Emmanuel Desalisa and Norma Desalisa are husband and wife with a two year old daughter. They live in a small nipa house on a hill at Pinaductan, San Juan, Bacon, Sorsogon. There are two other houses in the neighborhood which are 150 meters away: the house of his parents-in-law and the house of Carlito Dichoso. These cannot, however, be seen from the couple's house because of the many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.
The couple had a serious quarrel because the accused-appellant was jealous of a man. On October 9, 1983, the said accused moved by hatred and jealousy, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to f
kill armed with a sharp pointed instrument, assault, attack, and inflict physical injuries on the vagina of his wife and who was pregnant for about five (5) months, and thereafter with the use of rope hang her to a jackfruit tree causing her death and that of her fetus.
The accused-appelant denied the allegation and said that the hanging of the victim was suicidal.
There are no actual witnesses of the crime but the circumstantial evidence brought by the testimonies given by the parents of the victim, their neighbor, the physician, P/Cpl. Gillego, pin points Emmanuel Desalisa as the killer of the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether the quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellant's guilt, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
YES. The quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellant’s guilt, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, is sufficient. There is more than one circumstance. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. There is ample evidence to support the finding that the hanging of the victim was homicidal and not suicidal, as claimed by Accused-Appellant. A day after the incident, Vicente Dioneda found scattered plates and kettle with untouched rice on the floor of the house of accused-appellant while Cpl. Gillego found that some things in the house were not in proper places. These are indicia of previous struggle. There were blood stains on the victim’s dress, panty, and feet. On her genitalia, the doctor found a punctured wound, 1 cm. long and 2 cm. deep, with slight blood clot which could have been caused by any pointed object, sharp bolo or sharp pointed instrument. Accused-appellant admitted during the cross examination that he was armed with a sharp bladed instrument while he was looking for his wife. The doctor also found hematoma with contusion on both labia of her genitalia, which could have been caused by a fist blow. According to the doctor, these injuries could not have been self-inflicted.
Although accused-appellant spent the night in the house of Carlito Dichoso and did not flee, this circumstance standing alone is no brief on his innocence. There is no case law holding that non-flight is conclusive proof of innocence.
No comments:
Post a Comment