G.R. No. 89762 August 7, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO LAZARTE y MOGALLON accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Francisco B. Bayona for accused-appellant.
SARMIENTO, J.:p
At
around 11:45 o'clock P.M., on October 8, 1986, Lorenzo Lara was sleeping
in his residence at Zone 5 Signal Village, Taguig, Metro Manila. A
knock at the door, awakened him. He stood up and opened the door, but he
saw nobody. Then, to his surprise, someone entered the house through
the window. It was Nonito Jambunganan y Hundana, the owner of the house
which Lara was occupying for free, as a caretaker.
Seeing Lara, Nonito embraced him. As Lara held
Nonito, he felt blood in the latter's clothes and sensed that he had
wounds in his body. When he asked Nonito what happened, the latter
replied, "Tol, sinaksak ako sa labas." "Who stabbed you?" Lara asked.
"Tony, Suay Ric and Junior," he answered. Nonito also "shouted" twice,
"Help me!" Frantically, Lara called out to his neighbors for help.
Neighbors came running. When Nonito was about to be placed on board a
jeep, he collapsed. He was declared "DOA," dead on arrival, at the
Nichols Airbase Hospital. Nonito sustained three stab wounds at the back
and died of hemorrhage, severe, secondary to stab wounds.
Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, a medical specialist, and
the medicolegal officer and in-charge of the clinical application of
medicine, of the National Bureau of Investigation, opined that of these
three wounds, all at the back, only one was fatal which alone could have
caused the death of the victim. He also testified that "(O)ne kind of
single bladed sharp pointed instrument produced the wounds," albeit he
admitted that it is possible that there could have been more than one
instrument.
The next morning, on October 9, 1986, at around eight
o'clock, Lara reported the incident to the Taguig Police Station. The
subsequent investigation, sloppily and haphazardly conducted by the
police authorities, resulted in the finding that Nonito was stabbed two
meters away from a sari-sari store owned by Priscilla Flores, married to
a policeman of Taguig, at Libis St., Zone 5, Signal Village, Taguig,
Metro Manila. The store was about ten meters away from Nonito's
residence. Drinking hard liquor was prevalent in that store.
Solely on
the deductions or conclusions of Lara that the four nicknames or aliases
allegedly "whispered" by Nonito to him correspond to Antonio Lazarte
for the nickname or alias "Tony," "Rodolfo Mundido" for "Suway" or
"Su-ay" (in his direct testimony he said "Romulo Cahiwat"), while on
cross-examination he mentioned "Romulo Mundido," and Ricardo Ignacio for
"Ric" and "Eliseo Henares" or "Romulo Cahiwat" for "Junior," an
information for murder was filed against the four aforenamed on October
14, 1986. 1
Only
Antonio Lazarte y Mogallon and Ricardo Ignacio were apprehended, as the
other two, "Rodolfo Mundido" and "Eliseo Henares," were never arrested,
and remain at large.
Ricardo
Ignacio was only apprehended during a "saturation drive" conducted by
the military and police authorities on August 30, 1987. 2 He was acquitted on a demurrer to evidence pursuant to the Resolution of the trial court dated February 9, 1989. 3
The defense of Antonio Lazarte, the appellant in the
case at bar, consists of denial and alibi, and points to two others
-persons-Milo Veloso and a certain Miguel-as the assailants.
In his defense before the trial court, Antonio, 31,
married with eight children, testified that he was at the time of the
incident a barangay tanod of his barangay, and an upholsterer in the
Emaden furniture shop in Pasay City. He denied that he knew the deceased
and averred that he had never met him. He narrated that he was inside
his family residence at Libis St., Purok 15, Zone 5, Signal Village,
Taguig, M.M. at 11 o'clock in the evening of October 8, 1986. He had not
gone out the whole day as he was taking care of his sick child in the
absence of his wife, Amelia, a Food Terminal, Inc. employee who was
assigned to the night shift.
The following day, at around eight o'clock in the
morning, Lorenzo Lara and Melly Castillo arrived at Antonio's house,
demanding that Antonio reveal the identities of the assailants
(allegedly Antonio's townmates) who had stabbed Nonito to death the
night before. Antonio professed no knowledge of the incident.
Later that afternoon, at around 3 o'clock, Lorenzo
and Melly returned to Antonio's house with Patrolwoman de los Santos and
Patrolman Amigo of the Taguig Police Station. The police officers,
without any warrant of arrest, took Antonio forcibly to the police
precinct where he was investigated. Lara and Melly promised to release
him from police custody if he divulged the whereabouts of Mio Veloso and
Miguel, and threatened to get back at him, if he would not, but since
Antonio knew nothing of the case, he made no disclosures. Three days
later, while he was already in the municipal jail, Lara and Melly again
went, for the third time to him and for the third time tried to prevail
upon him to reveal the whereabouts of the assailants they suspected.
Antonio's account on his whereabouts on the night of
the stabbing incident was corroborated by Teodora Damanhog a faith
healer. She said that on October 8,1986, she was summoned to treat
Antonio's child who had a fever. She arrived at Antonio's house in the
evening, and gave the child a "pangtapal" and a lukewarm bath. To make
sure that the child's fever went down she remained in Antonio's house
until one o'clock after midnight. She testified with certainty that from
ten o'clock in the evening of October 8, 1986 to one o'clock in the
morning of October 9, 1986, Antonio stayed in his house and never went
out. She assured that she was there with him.
Another witness for the defense, Fortunata Abe, 61
testified that on October 8, 1986, at about 11:45 in the evening, she
and her daughter, Evelyn, and their neighbors, Caridad and Evelyn Irong
were returning to their respective houses after attending a prayer
meeting for a deceased person. Along Libis Street, they passed in front
of the store of Priscilla Flores, where they witnessed a person being
stabbed several times by Miguel, a person known to her, and another
person whom Fortunata did not recognize. The victim fell down and was
unable to move. Frightened, the four women rushed to their homes.
The testimony of Reynaldo de Paz, buyer of rejected
meat from the slaughter house in Taguig, dovetailed with the recount of
Fortunata Abe. Reynaldo recalled that on October 8, 1986, between 11
o'clock and 12 o'clock midnight, while passing by the sari-sari store of
Aling Floriza (referring to Priscilla Flores), he saw, from a distance
of about ten meters, a person being stabbed three times at the back by a
certain Miguel, while Mio Veloso stood looking on. At this juncture,
Aling Fortunata (referring to Fortunata Abe) and three other companions
were passing by.
Another witness, Norberto Lazarte, 32, brother of the
appellant, swore that on October 8, 1986, between 11 and 12 o'clock at
night, while he was inside the house of his sister, Anastacia, at Libis
St., Zone 5, Signal Village, Taguig, MM Miguel knocked at the door and
sought permission to sleep in the house that night because, he said,
"Nakadisgrasya siya." Norberto assented. Miguel warned him not to
breathe a word about his sleeping in Norberto's sister's house to
anyone. Early the next morning, Miguel left without saying where he was
going.
The next witness, Amelia Lazarte, 33, wife of the
appellant, recalled that she was at work on the night of October 8,
1986, leaving her sick child in the care of her husband. The next
morning, Lara and Melly went to her house to ask her husband, Antonio,
for Miguel's and Mio Veloso's addresses. When her husband could not tell
them the desired information, Lara remarked: "Sige, ikaw rin pag hindi
mo itinuro."
The
testimonies of the witnesses for the defense did not convince the trial
court of the innocence of the accused-appellant, and, in a decision
dated June 28, 1989 rendered a verdict of conviction, sentencing Antonio
Lazarte to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its
accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of victim Nonito
Jambunganan y Hundana in the amount of P30,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. 4
Hence, this appeal.
The accused-appellant Antonio Lazarte y Magallon submits the following assignment of errors.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I
The trial court erred in admitting the dying declaration of the victim.
II
The trial court erred in convicting the
accused-appellant of the crime of murder based solely on the dying
declaration of the victim without any eyewitness presented in court.
III
The trial court erred in finding that in the case at bar, conspiracy was sufficiently established by evidence.
IV
The trial court erred in not giving weight and
credence to the accused Antonio Lazarte's claim or defense of alibi and
in disregarding the testimonies of defense witnesses Teodora Dumanhug
and Amelia Lazarte.
V
The trial court erred in concluding that the
prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused Antonio Lazarte beyond
reasonable doubt.
From the
records of the case, it is clear that the conviction of the appellant
had been based largely on the alleged dying declaration of the victim.
It behooves us therefore to determine not only the admissibility, but
also appreciate the weight of the oral dying declaration of the deceased
Nonito Jambunganan testified on by the principal witness for the
prosecution, Lorenzo Lara.
As a rule a dying declaration is hearsay, and
inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the mandate of the Rules of Court,
Rule 130, Section 30 which states:
SEC.
30. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of
his own knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception,
except as otherwise provided in these rules.
The
above-quoted section of the Revised Rules of Court expresses the hearsay
rule in evidence. However, there are several exceptions to this rule on
inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, the first one being a dying
declaration given under the circumstances specified in Section 31,
likewise of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, to wit:
SEC. 31. Dying declaration. —
The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.
Thus, in order that a dying declaration may be admissible as evidence, four requisites must concur:
1) That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death;
2) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death;
3) That the declarant is competent as a witness; and
4) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim. 5
Lara
recalled that on the fateful night of October 8, 1986, Nonito, who had
multiple (5 according to him, 3 according to the NBI medico-legal
officer who also testified for the People), stab wounds, entered the
house through the window. Upon seeing Lara, Nonito embraced him and
uttered the nicknames or aliases of the persons who inflicted the
injuries, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
(Prosecution witness Lara under direct examination by Alberto S. Lim)
Q What happened when he entered thru the window?
A At the time when he entered thru the window he
suddenly embraced me and when I embraced him he said "Sinaksak ako sa
labas." After that, what happened?
A I asked him who stabbed him.
Q What was his answer?
A When I asked him the question he answered, "Tony, Suay, Ric and Junior. 6
The
quoted portion of the testimony of Lara may be accepted as sufficient
compliance with the first requisite above specified. And it may be apt
to state that although a dying declaration may be made orally, that does
not militate against its admissibility.
Dying
declarations are not necessarily either written or spoken. Any method
of communication between mind and mind may be adopted that will develop
the thought, as the pressure of the hand, a nod of the head or a glance
of the eye. 7
However,
a close scrutiny of Lara's testimony can not support, to our mind, the
finding of the trial court that the "victim was conscious of his
imminent death when he relayed the statement to Lorenzo Lara. 8
This finding is gratuitous and has no clear basis in the records.
Although the words of the transcript are already cold, they are
nonetheless eloquent. Let us examine them in full, even if we repeat
portions already hereinabove reproduced:
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL:
Q Mr. Witness, do you know a person by the name of Nonito Hambunganan?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where is he now?
A He is already dead, sir.
Q Why do you know that?
A On the night of the incident. I was the one who brought him to the hospital.
Q When was that?
A October 8, 1986.
Q Why did you bring Nonito Hambunganan to the hospital'?
A Because on the night of October 8, 1986 while I was sleeping he knocked at my door.
Q At about what time was that?
A About 11:45 p.m.
Q And what did you do?
A When I opened the door, I was surprised when he entered thru the window.
Q Nonito Hambunganan entered thru the window?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when he entered thru the window?
A At the time when he entered thru the window he suddenly embraced me and when I embraced him he said, "Sinaksak ako sa labas".
Q After that, what happened?
A I asked him who stabbed him.
Q What was his answer?
A When I asked him the question he answered, "Tony, Su-ay, Ric and Junior'.
Q Do you know the persons he was referring to?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who was that Tony? Is he present in Court?
A Yes, sir
Q Please identify him.
A (Witness going down the witness stand and tapping
the shoulder of a person who identified himself as Antonio Lazarte, one
of the accused in this case)
Q According to you, Nonito Hambunganan told you that he had been stabbed. Did you see any blood?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see any wound on him?
A Yes, sir,
Q Where?
A At his back. There were plenty.
Q A you mean to say there were more than one wound?
A There were five (5) wounds.
Q All at the back?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at that time did you have occasion to talk also
to Nonito Hambunganan after he mentioned to you the persons who
allegedly stabbed him?
A Yes, sir, when we brought him to the hospital.
Q Did you ask him how he felt?
A Yes, sir. I felt that he was grasping [sic] for breath and I asked my neighbors to help me take him to the hospital.
Q Did you find out from him whether he felt that he would die or not?
A He shouted, "Help me!"
COURT:
Q How many times did he shout that?
A Two (2) times.
COURT:
Q What else did he say?
A When he were (sic) about to board the vehicle he suddenly collapsed and when we arrived at Nicols he was already dead.
FISCAL:
Q How did you know that?
A I felt for his chest and pulse and he was covered with blood. 9
xxx xxx xxx
(Lorenzo Lara on direct examination by Fiscal Alberto S. Lim)
Q And at that time did you have occasion to talk also
to Nonito Jambunganan after he mentioned to you the persons who
allegedly stabbed him?
A Yes, sir, when we brought him to the hospital.
Q Did you ask him how he felt?
A Yes, sir. I felt that he was grasping [sic] for breath and I asked my neighbors to help me take him to the hospital.
Q Did you find out from him whether he felt that he would die or not?
A He shouted, "Help me!"
Q How many times did he shout that?
A Two (2) times.
Q What else did he say?
A When he was about to board the vehicle he suddenly collapsed and when we arrived at Nichols he was already dead. 10
No
ceremonial words are required to be uttered or written, no special
action or movement is needed, no incantation is necessary to invest such
words, action, or movement with the sanctity of a dying declaration as
to exempt it from the exclusionary effect of the hearsay rule. Even if
death supervenes after such a declaration is made is not primordial, all
that is to be proven is that the declaration was made under a
"consciousness of impending death," which means simply that the
declarant is fully aware that he is dying or going to die from his
wounds or injuries soon or imminently, or shall have a complete
conviction that death is at hand, 11 or there must be "a settled hopeless expectation. 12
In this
case, the fact that (1) Nonito sustained several wounds, (2) grasping
for his breath, (3) shouted "Help me" twice, and (4) thereafter died do
not make his ante mortem statements a dying declaration. For he did not
realize that he is going to die or he had a complete conviction that
death is at hand when he uttered the aliases of his assailants, or at
any time after or before that.
Nonetheless the ante mortem statements of Nonito may be considered as part of the res gestae. 13
In any event, whatever they are, even if they constitute part of the res gestae
or they constitute indeed a dying declaration as foisted by Lara and
accepted by the trial court and therefore an exception to the hearsay
rule, this admissibility notwithstanding does not suffice to satisfy the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt against any of the four
accused, much less against the accused-appellant.
Significantly,
the ante-mortem statements of Nonito consists of no other than that
"Tony, Su-ay, Ric, and Junior" were his assailants. 14 Specifically,
the trial court anchored the conviction of Antonio Lazarte on the
premise that the name "Tony" referred to him and to no other, which was
deduced, concluded, or translated by Lara in this wise:
(Lorenzo Lara under cross-examination by Atty. Francisco Bayona)
Q Are we made to understand that of the persons that
Nonito Jambunganan uttered particularly the word Tony, you already
believed that Nonito was referring to Antonio Lazarte?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why
A Because before his death, we already knew about these (sic) person. He was his drinking partner.
Q Dunking partner when?
A I do not know but at times he stays (sic) for about six (6) minutes or more because he is a friendly person.
Q Because of that reasoning of yours and the fact
that the deceased uttered the word Tony and nothing more, you already
concluded that Nonito must be referring to Antonio Lazarte?
A Because he said Tony our friend outside. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Q
Your conclusion that the person responsible for the death of Nonito is
the accused in this case Antonio Lazarte is because Nonito uttered to
you the word Tony before his death and for the fact also that you know
Tony, the drinking partner of the accused before his death. That is the
reason only (sic) why you say that Antonio Lazarte was the one
responsible for the death of Nonito Jambunganan? A Because Nonito has a
fish business and sometimes Tony also sells fish from [sic] Nonito. 16 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
(Lorenzo Lara under direct examination by Fiscal Alberto S. Lim)
Q When did you first come to know accused Antonio Lazarte?
A At Signal Village.
Q When in relation to the incident?
A For quite a time because he is also a resident of Signal Village.
Q About how many years?
A Almost two (2) years.
Q Do you know his family?
A I do not know his family but I know him .
Q By what name did you know him?
A Tony.
Q In that area, do you know any other Tony?
A None.17 (sic)
On
the other hand, the accused-appellant rebutted these statements and
conclusions of Lara. He categorically and unequivocally denied knowing
at all either the deceased or the witness Lara. The accused-appellant
denied he had been a drinking partner or even in any drinking spree with
either the deceased or the witness Lara. 18
Q Also the same prosecution witness, Lorenzo Lara
testified that previous to that killing of the deceased, Nonito
Jambunganan, there was occasion you had a drinking spree with Nonito
Jambunganan. What can you say about that?
A There is no truth of it. I do not know that person.
Q He also testified before this Court that previous
to the killing of Nonito Jambunganan, you had a drinking spree with him,
with Lorenzo Lara. Again, what can you say about that statement?
A I do not know those persons, sir.
Q My question is, did you have any occasion to have a
drinking spree with Lorenzo Lara before that date when Nonito
Jambunganan was killed?
A None, sir.
The appellant claimed to be an upholsterer at a furniture store and a barangay tanod and not a fish vendor.
In criminal law, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19
And
to warrant conviction in criminal cases based upon circumstantial
evidence the circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain
of events so as to lead to a conviction that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. 20
In
the present case, the presentation that 1) the appellant had been a
drinking partner of the victim, that 2) the appellant and the victim
were fish vendors and that 3) the principal prosecution witness (Lorenzo
Lara) did not know of another "Tony" in the locality except the
appellant, even if all true, can not lead to the logical conclusion that
the appellant, Antonio Lazarte, was the "Tony" referred to by the dying
victim. Truly, there may be hundreds of persons with the nickname
"Tony" in the protagonists' locality and environs. In other words, the
circumstances brought up in this case do not prove an unbroken link of
events that would give rise to a reasonable and fair conclusion that
appellant is the "Tony" mentioned in the dying declaration. Besides, an
inference based on another inference cannot sustain the conviction of
the appellant. 21
In order to convict Antonio Lazarte, the trial court brought up the charge of conspiracy, to wit:
That
there was conspiracy in this case was sufficiently established by the
evidence. While there was no proof of prior agreement by all the
accused, they nonetheless cooperated with one another in stabbing the
victim and they were animated by one and the same purpose, that is, to
liquidate the victim. 22
In what
manner the four accused (Antonio Lazarte, Ricardo Ignacio, Rodolfo
Mundido, and Eliseo Henares) conspired with one another in stabbing the
victim is not discussed at all in the decision of the trial court, and
to think that conspiracy must be also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
A detailed scrutiny of the records bears out the following:
No eyewitness to the crime was presented by the
prosecution. Nobody testified that he or she saw Antonio within the
vicinity of the crime before, during, and after the commission of the
crime. Nor did anyone attest to seeing Antonio in possession of a deadly
weapon or of his being the hatchetman. Except the supposed dying
declaration there is no evidence whatsoever in the records of the case
on the stabbing of the deceased Nonito, much less is there any testimony
that the four accused ganged up on the deceased victim. Specifically,
no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establishing the
participation of Antonio in the alleged conspiracy. Nor is there
evidence on the involvement of Rodolfo Mundido and Eliseo Henares. As a
matter of fact, the appellant's co-accused, Ricardo Ignacio, the one
identified as the "Ric" in the ante mortem statements of Nonito,
was discharged and acquitted by a mere demurrer to evidence. This grant
in favor of the appellant's co-accused, Ricardo, exposes the weakness of
the evidentiary weight of the ante mortem statements of Nonito.
In resume the prosecution failed to prove that Antonio killed the victim or acted in conspiracy with the one(s) who killed him. 23
It
is true that motive is not essential for the conviction of an accused
where there is no doubt of his identity as the culprit, but where the
identification proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from doubt, then evidence of motive becomes
necessary. 24 In
the case at bar, there is nothing in the records any fact or
circumstance from which we can deduce or infer the existence of any
possible motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime. Even
the prosecution witness, Melly Castillo, and a relative of the deceased
more than a cousin 25 believed that the appellant was innocent of the crime charged.
Q
Madam witness, you stated that if ever accused Antonio Lazarte was
implicated because there was a mention of the name Tony. Is that
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Madam witness, you will admit that in Taguig [sic],
Rizal, there is not only one person having that name Tony. Is that
correct?
A There are several persons in Taguig who has the
name Tony but as far as I'm concerned I know only one with the name
Tony, sir. And he is my neighbor. He was selling fish for me, sir.
Q And then?
A That's all, sir. When Lara mentioned to me the name
Tony, we have the same guess. The one who as pin pointed as Tony, I
never thought that he would do that, that is why I was wondering why his
name was mentioned as the person who killed. But as far as I know, he
has done nothing anything wrong to us. I never believed that he is a
killer. 26
The
trial court simply based its conviction on the ante mortem statements of
the victim and assumed and concluded that it was the appellant Antonio
Lazarte who killed the victim in conspiracy with his three companions.
No person can be convicted on mere assumptions and conclusions.
Accusation
is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. The
prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for
the most careful scrutiny of the testimony (evidence) of the state, both
oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by
the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could
arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by
the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be
one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring
his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must
survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. 27
As
it stands now, the weakness of the appellant's alibi can not be held
against him in view of the absence of his clear and positive
identification as one of the culprits. And while the alibi may not have
been proven so satisfactorily as to leave no room for doubt, such an
infirmity can not strengthen the weakness of the prosecution's evidence,
the reason being that in a criminal prosecution the State must rely on
the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. 28 Alibi need not be inquired into if the prosecution's evidence fails to satisfy the test of moral certainty. 29
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED and appellant Antonio Lazarte y Mogallon is hereby ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
2 TSN, January 13, 1988, 16; rollo, 35.
3 Original records, 423.
4 Decision, 14, penned by Judge Martin Villarama, National Capital Region, Regional Trial court, Branch 156, Pasig; Rollo, 28.
5 5 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 ed., 294; People v. Elizaga, No. 78794, November 21, 1988, 167 SCRA 516.
6 TSN, September 18, 1987,.3.
7 Mockabee vs. Commonwealth, 78 Ky 380, 382 cited in 5 Moran, supra, 302.
8 Decision, 10.
9 TSN, September 18, 1987, 2-3.
10 TSN, September 18, 1987, 3.
11 U.S. vs. Virrey 37 Phil. 618, 625; People vs. Ortiz, 55 Phil. 993.
12 5 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 296, citing Shepard vs. U.S., 66, 78 L ed., p. 197. Decision, 10; rollo, 24.
13 Sec. 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People v. Patian L-33049, November 29. 1976.
14 TSN, September 18, 1987, 3.
15 Ibid., 7-8.
16 Ibid., 8.
17 Ibid 4.
18 TSN. February 9, 1989, 3-4.
19 People v. Beltran, L-31860, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 246, 250.
* Sec. 5. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. (Rule 133, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines)
20 People vs. Austria, et al., G.R. No. 55109, April 8,1991; People vs. Tanchoco, 76 Phil. 463; U.S. vs. Indica 17 Phil. 325; U.S. vs. Santos, I Phil. 222.
21 Manning vs. John Hancock, 100 U.S. 693, 698, cited in 6 Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 ed. 164; People vs. Austria, et al., supra; U.S. v. Ross, 92 U.S. 281, 284.
22 Decision, 12; Rollo, 26.
23 People v. Elizaga, supra, 521.
24 People v. Beltran, 61 SCRA 246, 255; People v. Herila, 51 SCRA 31; People vs. Cunanan, 19 SCRA 769, 781; People v. Murray, 105 Phil. 591; U.S. v. Sespene et al., 102 Phil. 209, 210; People v. Caggavan 94 Phil. 11 8; People v. Tagasa, 68 Phil. 153; U.S. v. McMann, 4 Phil. 561.
25 TSN, September 14, 1988, 6-7: rollo, 85-86.
26 Id., 6-7; rollo, 86-87.
27 People v. Dramayo, L-21325, October 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 59,64.
28 People vs. Somontano L-45366-88, March 27, 1984, 128 SCRA
415, 426; People vs. Basuel L-28215, October 13, 1972, 47 SCRA 207, 222.
29 People v. Rodolfo Salguero y Llaneras, et al., G.R. No. 89117, June 19, 1991; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 67858, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 432, 452.
HDobox apk
ReplyDeleteis a free HD streaming app featuring a vast library of movies and series. No ads or login needed—just quick access to subtitles, smooth playback, and daily content updates. HDobox turns your Android into a personal cinema for on-demand viewing.
Delta Executor is a powerful Roblox script executor for Android. Run custom Lua scripts without root, unlock game mods, and automate tasks effortlessly. Regular updates ensure compatibility with the latest Roblox builds, making Delta Executor indispensable for mobile modders and gamers.
ReplyDelete