People v. Ador 432 SCRA 1

People v. Ador
432 SCRA 1
June 14, 2004
Second Division: Puno, J.

Facts:
In convicting accused of murder, the trial court relied on the circumstances, namely:
1. that he was seen fleeing from the crime scene,
2. that he allegedly surrendered a handgun,
3. that the slug taken from the head of the victim was fired from the gun he surrendered,
4. that the victim made a dying declaration identifying him, and
5. that paraffin test showed that he was positive for gun powder.
Issue:
Is the conviction proper?
Held:
No. For circumstantial evidence to suffice,
1. there should be more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inference are derived are proven and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the following are the guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence:
1. it should be acted upon with caution;
2. all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
3. the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and
4. the facts must establish such certainty of guilt as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.
Measured against these guidelines, the conviction cannot stand for the following reasons:
1. the testimony of the prosecution witness that he saw accused fleeing from the crime scene is doubtful;
2. the gun surrendered by the accused does not appear to be the same gun presented during trial;
3. if the gun is not the same, it is uncertain where the slug taken from the head of the victim came from;
4. the dying declaration which mentioned only the "Adors" can refer to anyone with that family name; and
5. scientific experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive.
Plainly, the facts from which the inference that the accused committed the crime were not proven. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused was not established with moral certainty.