compiled cases in evidence

7/25/2019 Compiled Cases in Evidence

1/109

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.!E "L#E$ % #EL CRU$, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I N

&UISUM!ING, J.:

!o" auto#atic "evie$ is the decision%p"o#ul&ated on !eb"ua"' %(, %))*, b' the Re&ional +"ial Cou"tof Ba'o#bon&, Nueva ica'a, B"anch *, in C"i#inal Case No. /%01. It found appellant Abe alde' Dela C"u &uilt' be'ond "easonable doubt fo" violatin& Section ) of the Dan&e"ous D"u&s Act of%)* 2R.A. No. 3415, as a#ended b' R.A. No. *31). 6e $as sentenced to suffe" the penalt' ofdeath b' lethal in7ection.

In an Info"#ation dated Septe#be" 3, %))3, appellant $as cha"&ed as follo$s89+hat on o" aboutSepte#be" 1, %))3, at Sitio Bulan, Ba"an&a' Sa$#ill, Municipalit' of illave"de, P"ovince of Nuevaica'a, Philippines, and $ithin the 7u"isdiction of this 6ono"able Cou"t, the above-na#ed accused,$ho $as cau&ht in flagrante delicto and $ithout autho"it' of la$, did then and the"e $ilfull' 2sic5,unla$full' and feloniousl' plant, cultivate and cultu"e seven 2*5 full' &"o$n #a"i7uana plants :no$nas Indian 6e#p $ei&hin& .%)4 :ilos, f"o# $hich dan&e"ous d"u&s #a'be 2sic5 #anufactu"ed o"de"ived, to the da#a&e and p"e7udice of the &ove"n#ent of the Republic of the Philippines.

9+hat the p"ope"t' $he"e the said seven 2*5 full' &"o$n #a"i7uana plants $e"e planted, cultivatedand cultu"ed shall be confiscated and escheated in favo" of the &ove"n#ent.

9CN+RAR; +


2/109

uphill t"e: f"o# the nea"est ba"an&a' "oad, the police ope"atives a""ived at the place pinpointed b'thei" info"#ant. +he police found appellant alone in his nipa hut. +he', then, p"oceeded to loo:a"ound the a"ea $he"e appellant had his kaingin and sa$ seven 2*5 five-foot hi&h, flo$e"ina"i7uana plants in t$o "o$s, app"o@i#atel' 1 #ete"s f"o# appellant>s hut.1 P Balut as:edappellant $ho o$ned the p"ohibited plants and, acco"din& to Balut, the latte" ad#itted that the' $e"ehis.3+he police up"ooted the seven #a"i7uana plants, $hich $ei&hed .%)4 :ilo&"a#s.*+he police

too: photos of appellant standin& beside the cannabis plants.(

Appellant $as then a""ested. ne ofthe plants, $ei&hin& %.0)0 :ilo&"a#s, $as sent to the Philippine National Police C"i#e cloc: A.M.,Septe#be" 1, %))3, he $as $eedin& his ve&etable fa"# in Sitio Bulan $hen he $as called b' ape"son $hose identit' he does not :no$. 6e $as as:ed to &o $ith the latte" to 9see so#ethin&.9%4

+his un:no$n pe"son then b"ou&ht appellant to the place $he"e the #a"i7uana plants $e"e found,app"o@i#atel' %00 #ete"s a$a' f"o# his nipa hut.%1!ive a"#ed police#en $e"e p"esent and the'#ade hi# stand in f"ont of the he#p plants. 6e $as then as:ed if he :ne$ an'thin& about the#a"i7uana &"o$in& the"e. =hen he denied an' :no$led&e the"eof, SP


3/109

+he p"osecution p"esented SP/ +ipa' as its "ebuttal $itness. 6is testi#on' $as offe"ed to "ebutappellant>s clai# that the #a"i7uana plants $e"e not planted in the lot he $as cultivatin&./ +ipa'p"esented a s:etch he #ade,4$hich sho$ed the location of #a"i7uana plants in "elation to the oldand ne$ nipa huts of appellant, as $ell as the closest nei&hbo". Acco"din& to +ipa', the #a"i7uanaplot $as located 40 #ete"s a$a' f"o# the old hut of alde and 10 #ete"s distant f"o# the hut ofCa"lito Pascua.1+ipa' ad#itted on c"oss-e@a#ination that no su"ve'o" acco#panied hi# $hen he

#ade the #easu"e#ents.3

6e fu"the" stated that his basis fo" clai#in& that appellant $as the o$ne"o" plante" of the seied plants $as the info"#ation &iven hi# b' the police info"#e" and the p"o@i#it'of appellant>s hut to the location of said plants.*

!indin& appellant>s defense insipid, the t"ial cou"t held appellant liable as cha"&ed fo" cultivation ando$ne"ship of #a"i7uana plants as follo$s8

9=6ERE!RE, findin& the accused ?Is &uilt be'ond "easonable doubtF

245 Is the sentence of death b' lethal in7ection co""ectF
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt29


4/109

+he fi"st and second issues $ill be 7ointl' discussed because the' a"e inte""elated.

Appellant contends that the"e $as unla$ful sea"ch. !i"st, the "eco"ds sho$ that the la$ enfo"ce"shad #o"e than a#ple ti#e to secu"e a sea"ch $a""ant. Second, that the #a"i7uana plants $e"e foundin an unfenced lot does not "e#ove appellant f"o# the #antle of p"otection a&ainst un"easonablesea"ches and seiu"es. 6e "elies on the "ulin& of the S Sup"e#e Cou"t in Terry v. Ohio, 3! US ",

!# L. Ed !d $$, $$ S. Ct. "$%$ &"%$', to the effect that the p"otection a&ainst un"easonable&ove"n#ent int"usion p"otects people, not places.

!o" the appellee, the ffice of the Solicito" ?ene"al a"&ues that the "eco"ds clea"l' sho$ that the"e$as no sea"ch #ade b' the police tea#, in the fi"st place. +he S? points out that the #a"i7uanaplants in uestion $e"e &"o$n in an unfenced lot and as each &"e$ about five 215 feet tall, the' $e"evisible f"o# afa", and $e"e, in fact, i##ediatel' spotted b' the police office"s $hen the' "eached thesite. +he seied #a"i7uana plants $e"e, thus, in plain vie$ of the police office"s. +he instant case#ust, the"efo"e, be t"eated as a $a""antless la$ful sea"ch unde" the 9plain vie$9 doct"ine.

+he cou"t a ()o upheld the validit' of the sea"ch and confiscation #ade b' the police tea# on thefindin& that8

9...It see#s the"e $as no need fo" an' sea"ch $a""ant. +he police#en $ent to the plantation site#e"el' to #a:e a ve"ification. =hen the' found the said plants, it $as too #uch to e@pect the# toappl' fo" a sea"ch $a""ant. In vie$ of the "e#oteness of the plantation site 2the' had to $al: fo" si@hou"s bac: and fo"th5 and the dan&e"s lu":in& in the a"ea if the' sta'ed ove"ni&ht, the' had a valid"eason to confiscate the said plants upon discove"' $ithout an' sea"ch $a""ant. Mo"eove", theevidence sho$s that the lot $as not le&all' occupied b' the accused and the"e $as no fence $hichevinced the occupant>s desi"e to :eep t"espasse"s out. +he"e $as, the"efo"e, no p"ivac' to p"otect,hence, no sea"ch $a""ant $as "eui"ed.9/0

+he Constitution/% la's do$n the &ene"al "ule that a sea"ch and seiu"e #ust be ca""ied on thest"en&th of a 7udicial $a""ant. the"$ise, the sea"ch and seiu"e is dee#ed 9un"easonable.9Evidence p"ocu"ed on the occasion of an un"easonable sea"ch and seiu"e is dee#ed tainted fo"bein& the p"ove"bial f"uit of a poisonous t"ee and should be e@cluded./ Such evidence shall beinad#issible in evidence fo" an' pu"pose in an' p"oceedin&.//

In the instant case, the"e $as no sea"ch $a""ant issued b' a 7ud&e afte" pe"sonal dete"#ination ofthe e@istence of p"obable cause. !"o# the decla"ations of the police office"s the#selves, it is clea"that the' had at least one 2%5 da' to obtain a $a""ant to sea"ch appellant>s fa"#. +hei" info"#ant had"evealed his na#e to the#. +he place $he"e the cannabis plants $e"e planted $as pinpointed. !"o#the info"#ation in thei" possession, the' could have convinced a 7ud&e that the"e $as p"obablecause to 7ustif' the issuance of a $a""ant. But the' did not. Instead, the' up"ooted the plants andapp"ehended the accused on the e@cuse that the t"ip $as a &ood si@ hou"s and inconvenient tothe#. =e need not unde"sco"e that the p"otection a&ainst ille&al sea"ch and seiu"e isconstitutionall' #andated and onl' unde" specific instances a"e sea"ches allo$ed $ithout $a""ants./4

+he #antle of p"otection e@tended b' the Bill of Ri&hts cove"s both innocent and &uilt' ali:e a&ainstan' fo"# of hi&h-handedness of la$ enfo"ce"s, "e&a"dless of the p"aise$o"thiness of thei" intentions.

=e find no "eason to subsc"ibe to Solicito" ?ene"al>s contention that $e appl' the 9plain vie$9doct"ine. !o" the doct"ine to appl', the follo$in& ele#ents #ust be p"esent8

2a5 a p"io" valid int"usion based on the valid $a""antless a""est in $hich the police a"ele&all' p"esent in the pu"suit of thei" official dutiesG
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt34


5/109

2b5 the evidence $as inadve"tentl' discove"ed b' the police $ho have the "i&ht to be$he"e the' a"eG and

2c5 the evidence #ust be i##ediatel' appa"entG and

2d5 plain vie$ 7ustified #e"e seiu"e of evidence $ithout fu"the" sea"ch./1

In the instant case, "ecall that P Balut testified that the' fi"st located the #a"i7uana plants befo"eappellant $as a""ested $ithout a $a""ant./3 6ence, the"e $as no valid $a""antless a""est $hichp"eceded the sea"ch of appellant>s p"e#ises. Note fu"the" that the police tea# $as dispatched toappellant>s kaingin p"ecisel' to sea"ch fo" and up"oot the p"ohibited flo"a. +he seiu"e of evidence in9plain vie$9 applies onl' $he"e the police office" is not sea"chin& fo" evidence a&ainst the accused,but inadve"tentl' co#es ac"oss an inc"i#inatin& ob7ect./* Clea"l', thei" discove"' of the cannabisplants $as not inadve"tent. =e also note the testi#on' of SP +ipa' that upon a""ivin& at the a"ea,the' fi"st had to 9loo: a"ound the a"ea9 befo"e the' could spot the ille&al plants./(Patentl', the seied#a"i7uana plants $e"e not 9i##ediatel' appa"ent9 and a 9fu"the" sea"ch9 $as needed. In su#, the#a"i7uana plants in uestion $e"e not in 9plain vie$9 o" 9open to e'e and hand.9 +he 9plain vie$9doct"ine, thus, cannot be #ade to appl'.

No" can $e sustain the t"ial cou"t>s conclusion that 7ust because the #a"i7uana plants $e"e found inan unfenced lot, appellant could not invo:e the p"otection affo"ded b' the Cha"te" a&ainstun"easonable sea"ches b' a&ents of the State. +he "i&ht a&ainst un"easonable sea"ches andseiu"es is the i##unit' of one>s pe"son, $hich includes his "esidence, his pape"s, and othe"possessions./)+he &ua"antee "efe"s to 9the "i&ht of pe"sonal secu"it'940of the individual. As appellantco""ectl' points out, $hat is sou&ht to be p"otected a&ainst the State>s unla$ful int"usion a"epe"sons, not places.4%+o conclude othe"$ise $ould not onl' #ean s$i##in& a&ainst the st"ea#, it$ould also lead to the absu"d lo&ic that fo" a pe"son to be i##une a&ainst un"easonable sea"chesand seiu"es, he #ust be in his ho#e o" office, $ithin a fenced 'a"d o" a p"ivate place. +he Bill ofRi&hts belon&s as #uch to the pe"son in the st"eet as to the individual in the sanctua"' of hisbed"oo#.

=e the"efo"e hold, $ith "espect to the fi"st issue, that the confiscated plants $e"e evidentl' obtaineddu"in& an ille&al sea"ch and seiu"e. As to the second issue, $hich involves the ad#issibilit' of the#a"i7uana plants as evidence fo" the p"osecution, $e find that said plants cannot, as p"oducts of anunla$ful sea"ch and seiu"e, be used as evidence a&ainst appellant. +he' a"e f"uits of the p"ove"bialpoisoned t"ee. It $as, the"efo"e, a "eve"sible e""o" on the pa"t of the cou"t a ()oto have ad#ittedand "elied upon the seied #a"i7uana plants as evidence to convict appellant.

=e no$ p"oceed to the thi"d issue, $hich "evolves a"ound the sufficienc' of the p"osecution>sevidence to p"ove appellant>s &uilt. 6avin& decla"ed the seied #a"i7uana plants inad#issible inevidence a&ainst appellant, $e #ust no$ add"ess the uestion of $hethe" the "e#ainin& evidencefo" the p"osecution suffices to convict appellantF

In convictin& appellant, the t"ial cou"t li:e$ise "elied on the testi#on' of the police office"s to theeffect that appellant ad#itted o$ne"ship of the #a"i7uana $hen he $as as:ed $ho planted the#. It#ade the follo$in& obse"vation8

9It #a' be t"ue that the ad#ission to the police b' the accused that he planted the #a"i7uana plants$as #ade in the absence of an' independent and co#petent counsel. But the accused $as not, atthe ti#e of police ve"ificationG unde" custodial investi&ation. 6is ad#ission is, the"efo"e, ad#issible inevidence and not violative of the constitutional fiat that ad#ission &iven du"in& custodial investi&ationis not ad#issible if &iven $ithout an' counsel.94
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt42


6/109

Appellant no$ a"&ues that his ad#ission of o$ne"ship of the #a"i7uana plants in uestion cannot beused a&ainst hi# fo" bein& violative of his "i&ht to counsel du"in& the police investi&ation. 6ence, it$as e""o" fo" the t"ial cou"t to have "elied upon said ad#ission of o$ne"ship. 6e sub#its that theinvesti&ation conducted b' the police office"s $as not a &ene"al inui"', but $as #eant to elicitinfo"#ation on the o$ne"ship of the #a"i7uana plants. Appellant theo"ies that since the investi&ationhad na""o$ed do$n to hi#, co#petent and independent counsel should have assisted hi#, $hen

the police sou&ht info"#ation f"o# hi# "e&a"din& the o$ne"ship of the p"ohibited plants. Appellantclai#s the p"esu#ption of "e&ula"it' of dut' of office"s cannot be #ade to appl' to his pu"po"tedvolunta"il' confession of o$ne"ship of the #a"i7uana plants. No" can it ove""ide his constitutional "i&htto counsel du"in& investi&ation.

+he ffice of the Solicito" ?ene"al believes othe"$ise. +he S? ave"s that appellant $as not 'etunde" custodial investi&ation$hen he ad#itted to the police that he o$ned the #a"i7uana plants. 6is"i&ht to co#petent and independent counsel, acco"din&l', had not 'et attached. Mo"eove",appellantHs failu"e to i#pute an' false #otive fo" the police office"s to falsel' accuse hi# indicatesthat the p"esu#ption of "e&ula"it' in the pe"fo"#ance of official duties b' police office"s $as notsufficientl' "ebutted.

+he Constitution plainl' decla"es that an' pe"son unde" investi&ation fo" the co##ission of anoffense shall have the "i&ht8 2%5 to "e#ain silentG 25 to have co#petent and independent counselp"efe"abl' of his o$n choiceG and 2/5 to be info"#ed of such "i&hts. +hese "i&hts cannot be $aivede@cept in $"itin& and in the p"esence of counsel.4/An investi&ation be&ins $hen it is no lon&e" a&ene"al inui"' but sta"ts to focus on a pa"ticula" pe"son as a suspect, i.e., $hen the policeinvesti&ato" sta"ts inte""o&atin& o" e@actin& a confession f"o# the suspect in connection $ith analle&ed offense.44 +he #o#ent the police t"' to elicit ad#issions o" confessions o" even plaininfo"#ation f"o# a pe"son suspected of havin& co##itted an offense, he should at that 7unctu"e beassisted b' counsel, unless he $aives the "i&ht in $"itin& and in the p"esence of counsel.41

In the instant case $e findthat, f"o# the sta"t, a tipste" had fu"nished the police appellant>s na#e as$ell as the location of appellant>s fa"#, $he"e the #a"i7uana plants $e"e alle&edl' bein& &"o$n.=hile the police ope"ation $as supposedl' #eant to #e"el' 9ve"if'9 said info"#ation, the police chief

had li:e$ise issued inst"uctions to a""est appellant as a suspected #a"i7uana cultivato". +hus, at theti#e the police tal:ed to appellant in his fa"#, the latte" $as al"ead' unde" investi&ation as asuspect. +he uestionin& b' the police $as no lon&e" a &ene"al inui"'.43

nde" c"oss-e@a#ination, P Balut stated, he 9did not 'et ad#it that he is the cultivato" of that#a"i7uana so $e 7ust as:ed hi# and I thin: the"e is no need to info"# 2hi# of5 his constitutional "i&htsbecause $e a"e 7ust as:in& hi#...94* In t"'in& to elicit info"#ation f"o# appellant, the police $asal"ead' investi&atin& appellant as a suspect. At this point, he $as al"ead' unde" custodialinvesti&ation and had a "i&ht to counsel even if he had not 'et been a""ested. Custodial investi&ationis 9uestionin& initiated b' la$ enfo"ce#ent office"s afte" a pe"son has been ta:en into custod' o"othe"$ise dep"ived of his f"eedo# of action in an' si&nificant $a'.94(As a suspect, t$o a"#edpolice#en inte""o&ated appellant. Behind his inuisito"s $e"e a ba"an&a' peace office" and th"ee

othe" a"#ed police#en.

4)

All had been dispatched to a""est hi#.

10

!"o# these ci"cu#stances, $e#a' infe" that appellant had al"ead' been dep"ived of his f"eedo# of action in a si&nificant $a', evenbefo"e the actual a""est. Note that even befo"e he $as a""ested, the police #ade hi# inc"i#inatin&l'pose fo" photos in f"ont of the #a"i7uana plants.

Mo"eove", $e find appellant>s e@t"a7udicial confession fla$ed $ith "espect to its ad#issibilit'. !o" aconfession to be ad#issible, it #ust satisf' the follo$in& "eui"e#ents8 2%5 it #ust be volunta"'G 25 it#ust be #ade $ith the assistance of co#petent and independent counselG 2/5 it #ust be e@p"essGand 245 it #ust be in $"itin&.1%+he "eco"ds sho$ that the ad#ission b' appellant $as ve"bal. It $as
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt51


7/109

also uncounselled. A ve"bal ad#ission alle&edl' #ade b' an accused du"in& the investi&ation,$ithout the assistance of counsel at the ti#e of his a""est and even befo"e his fo"#al investi&ation isnot onl' inad#issible fo" bein& violative of the "i&ht to counsel du"in& c"i#inal investi&ations, it is alsohea"sa'.1Even if the confession o" ad#ission $e"e 9&ospel t"uth9, if it $as #ade $ithout assistanceof counsel and $ithout a valid $aive" of such assistance, the confession is inad#issible in evidence,"e&a"dless of the absence of coe"cion o" even if it had been volunta"il' &iven.1/

It is funda#ental in c"i#inal p"osecutions that befo"e an accused #a' be convicted of a c"i#e, thep"osecution #ust establish b' p"oof be'ond "easonable doubt that a c"i#e $as co##itted and thatthe accused is the autho" the"eof.14+he evidence a""a'ed a&ainst the accused, ho$eve", #ust notonl' stand the test of "eason,11it #ust li:e$ise be c"edible and co#petent.13Co#petent evidence is9&ene"all' ad#issible9 evidence.1*Ad#issible evidence, in tu"n, is evidence 9of such a cha"acte" thatthe cou"t o" 7ud&e is bound to "eceive it, that is, allo$ it to be int"oduced at t"ial.91(

In the instant case, the t"ial cou"t "elied on t$o pieces of p"obative #atte" to convict appellant of theoffense cha"&ed."*+hi"+hese $e"e the seied #a"i7uana plants, and appellant>s pu"po"tedl' volunta"'confession of o$ne"ship of said #a"i7uana plants to the police. the" than these p"oofs, the"e $asno othe" evidence p"esented to lin: appellant $ith the offense cha"&ed. As ea"lie" discussed, it $as

e""o" on the t"ial cou"t>s pa"t to have ad#itted both of these p"oofs a&ainst the accused and to have"elied upon said p"oofs to convict hi#. !o" said evidence is doubl' tainted.

!i"st, as ea"lie" pointed out, the seied #a"i7uana plants $e"e obtained in violation of appellant>sconstitutional "i&hts a&ainst un"easonable sea"ches and seiu"es. +he sea"ch and seiu"e $e"e voida- initiofo" havin& been conducted $ithout the "euisite 7udicial $a""ant. +he p"osecution>s ve"' o$nevidence clea"l' establishes that the police had sufficient ti#e to obtain a $a""ant. +he"e $as nosho$in& of such u"&enc' o" necessit' fo" the $a""antless sea"ch o" the i##ediate seiu"e of the#a"i7uana plants sub7ect of this case. +o "eite"ate, said #a"i7uana plants cannot be utilied to p"oveappellant>s &uilt $ithout "unnin& afoul of the constitutional &ua"antees a&ainst ille&al sea"ches andthe inad#issibilit' of evidence p"ocu"ed pu"suant to an unla$ful sea"ch and seiu"e.

Second, the confession of o$ne"ship of the #a"i7uana plants, $hich appellant alle&edl' #ade to the

police du"in& investi&ation, is not onl' hea"sa' but also violative of the Bill of Ri&hts. +he pu"po"tedconfession $as #ade $ithout the assistance of co#petent and independent counsel, as #andatedb' the Cha"te". +hus, said confession cannot be used to convict appellant $ithout "unnin& afoul ofthe Constitution>s "eui"e#ent that a suspect in a c"i#inal investi&ation #ust have the se"vices ofco#petent and independent counsel du"in& such investi&ation.

In su#, both the ob7ect evidence and the testi#onial evidence as to appellant>s volunta"' confessionof o$ne"ship of the p"ohibited plants "elied upon to p"ove appellant>s &uilt failed to #eet the test ofConstitutional co#petence.

+he Constitution dec"ees that, 9In all c"i#inal p"osecutions, the accused shall be p"esu#ed innocentuntil the cont"a"' is p"oved...91)+o 7ustif' the conviction of the accused, the p"osecution #ust adduce

that uantu# of evidence sufficient to ove"co#e the constitutional p"esu#ption of innocence. +hep"osecution #ust stand o" fall on its evidence and cannot d"a$ st"en&th f"o# the $ea:ness of theevidence fo" the accused.30Absent the "eui"ed de&"ee of p"oof of an accused>s &uilt, he isentitled toan acuittal.3%In this case, the seied #a"i7uana plants lin:in& appellant to the c"i#e cha"&ed a"e#ise"abl' tainted $ith constitutional infi"#ities, $hich "ende" these inad#issible 9fo" an' pu"pose inan' p"oceedin&.93No" can the confession obtained du"in& the uncounselled investi&ation be useda&ainst appellant, 9it bein& inad#issible in evidence a&ainst hi#.93/ =ithout these p"offe"ed butp"osc"ibed #ate"ials, $e find that the p"osecution>s "e#ainin& evidence did not even app"o@i#ate
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_2000.html#fnt63


8/109

the uantu# of evidence necessa"' to $a""ant appellant>s conviction. 6ence, the p"esu#ption ofinnocence in his favo" stands. Pe"fo"ce, his acuittal is in o"de".

In acuittin& an appellant, $e a"e not sa'in& that he is lil'-$hite, o" pu"e as d"iven sno$. Rathe", $ea"e decla"in& his innocence because the p"osecution>s evidence failed to sho$ his &uilt be'ond"easonable doubt. !o" that is $hat the basic la$ "eui"es. =he"e the evidence is insufficient to

ove"co#e the p"esu#ption of innocence in favo" of the accused, then his 9acuittal #ust follo$ infaithful obeisance to the funda#ental la$.934

'HEREFORE, the decision p"o#ul&ated on !eb"ua"' %(, %))*, b' the Re&ional +"ial Cou"t ofBa'o#bon&, Nueva ica'a, B"anch *, in C"i#inal Case No. /%01, findin& Abe alde ' Dela C"u,&uilt' be'ond "easonable doubt of violatin& Section ) of the Dan&e"ous D"u&s Act of %)*, andi#posin& upon hi# the death penalt', is he"eb' REERSED and SE+ ASIDE fo" insufficienc' ofevidence. Appellant is ACI++EDand o"de"ed RE


9/109

t"eache"' and the aid of a"#ed #en, did then and the"e $illfull', unla$full' andfeloniousl' shoot ABSA

In its effo"t to secu"e the conviction of the accused, the p"osecution p"esented a total of si@teen 2%35$itnesses8 Me"c' Be"iJa,


10/109

Cent"al Police 6eadua"te"s. +he Ado"s $e"e info"#ed of thei" constitutional "i&hts to "e#ain silentand to choose thei" o$n counsel. +he' $e"e then b"ou&ht to the PNP C"i#e


11/109

215 Re'naldo +. Ado" L both hands, ne&ativeG%

235 Allan +. Ado" L both hands, positive.

Absalon Cu'a S"., fathe" of deceased Cu'a III, said that the :illin& of his son $as d"iven b' the lon&-standin& feud bet$een the Ado"s and his fa#il'. 6e said that Diosdado ". had ea"lie" accused his

othe" son


12/109

police station, ?odof"edo na""ated to a ce"tain Calabia that that #o"nin&, his f"iend Bautista found a&un alon& the "oad and &ave it to hi#. 6e hid the &un unde" a coconut t"un:. Calabia "ela'ed theinfo"#ation to Ma7o" Idian $ho di"ected P/ Nepo#uceno to &o $ith ?odof"edo to &et the &un.?odof"edo led P/ Nepo#uceno to $he"e he hid the &un, "et"ieved it and handed it to the latte".+he' then "etu"ned to the police headua"te"s $he"e he $as 7ailed. 6e asse"ted that the &unp"esented in cou"t is diffe"ent f"o# the &un he su""ende"ed to the police./0

Bautista co""obo"ated ?odof"edoHs sto"'. 6e testified that he found the &un $hich ?odof"edo 'ieldedto P/ Nepo#uceno. 6e said that he $as on his $a' to see ?odof"edo to bo""o$ #one' $hen hechanced upon the hand&un on the path$a'. 6e &ave the &un to ?odof"edo and the latte" tested it b'pullin& its t"i&&e". Afte" fi"in& the &un, ?odof"edo "e#oved the e#pt' shells and th"e$ the#.?odof"edo then $"apped the &un $ith plastic and hid it unde" a fallen coconut t"un:./%

Mean$hile, Diosdado ". $as a""ested on ctobe" ), %))(, at Ba"an&a' DoJa, "ani, Bataan, andco##itted to the Na&a Cit' ail on Nove#be" %*, %))(, $hileDiosdado III su""ende"ed to the cou"tand $as co##itted to the sa#e cit' 7ail on Nove#be" , %))(. n Nove#be" /, %))(, bothDiosdado ". and Diosdado III $e"e a""ai&ned and ente"ed a plea of not &uilt'. 6ence, t"ial a&ainstthe# co##enced and p"oceeded 7ointl' $ith the case of the "e#ainin& accused, ?odof"edo.

+he p"osecution p"esented Pablo Calsis/as a $itness a&ainst Diosdado ". and Diosdado III. Calsistestified that on Ma"ch %0, %))*, at a"ound *8/0 in the evenin&, he d"opped b' the house ofC"esenciana Mendoa $ho# he fondl' called


13/109

Diosdado III also too: the $itness stand. n Ma"ch %0, %))*, at a"ound seven oHcloc: in theevenin&, he $as at thei" house at one %, Pacol, Na&a Cit', $atchin& television $ith his pa"ents andcousins Re'naldo and Allan $hen the' hea"d &unshots. +he' i&no"ed the &unshots, continued$atchin& television and slept at ei&ht oHcloc:. +he follo$in& da', at a"ound si@ oHcloc: in the #o"nin&,$hile he $as fetchin& $ate", fou" 245 police#en a""ived at thei" house and tal:ed to his fathe".+he"eafte", his fathe" called hi#, his b"othe" ?odof"edo, uncle Rosalino and cousins Allan and

Re'naldo. +he police#en then "euested all of the# to &o to the PNP Cent"al Police 6eadua"te"sfo" investi&ation "e&a"din& the :illin&s of Chave and Cu'a. pon "eachin& the police headua"te"s,the' $e"e inte"vie$ed b' the #edia and afte"$a"ds b"ou&ht to the p"ovincial headua"te"s $he"ethe' $e"e sub7ected to pa"affin tests. +he' $e"e then b"ou&ht bac: to the Cent"al Police6eadua"te"s and late" allo$ed to &o bac: ho#e to Pacol.

+hen, so#eti#e in ctobe", %))*, his fathe" $as a""ested b' the police. Diosdado III $as at thei""esidence $hen his fathe" $as pic:ed up. nl' his fathe" $as ta:en b' the police. 6e continued to"eside in thei" house until Ap"il, %))(, $hen he t"ansfe""ed to Sa&u"on&, San Mi&uel, +abaco, Alba',to $o": as a fishe"#an. n Nove#be" %, %))(, he "eceived a lette" f"o# his fathe" tellin& hi# toco#e ho#e. +hus, he $ent ho#e the follo$in& da'. n Nove#be" /, %))(, he su""ende"ed to thecou"t.4/

+he defense also p"esented Ba"an&a' Captain osue Pe"e and an uncle of Diosdado ". andDisodado III, ai#e Bobiles. Pe"e testified that he $as the ba"an&a' captain of Pacol f"o# %)(until Ma', %))*. In %))3, C"esenciana Mendoa left thei" ba"an&a' pe"#anentl' to live $ith he"child"en in Manila because she $as sic:l' and alone in he" house. 6e said that Mendoa neve"ca#e bac:. 6e does not :no$ an' Pablo Calsis and the

latte" could not have tal:ed to Mendoa on Ma"ch %0, %))*, because at that ti#e, Mendoa $as notthe"e and he" house $as al"ead' abandoned.44 Si#ila"l', Bobiles confi"#ed the testi#on' thatDiosdado III $o":ed as a fishe"#an in +abaco and sta'ed in his "esidence f"o# Ma' %, %))(, untilNove#be" %))( $hen Diosdado III "eceived a lette" f"o# his fathe" and had to &o ho#e.41

In "ebuttal ho$eve", p"osecution $itness SP% !e"nande asse"ted that he inte"vie$ed C"esenciana

Mendoa that fateful ni&ht of Ma"ch %0, %))*.43Afte" the "ebuttal $itness $as p"esented, the cases$e"e finall' sub#itted fo" decision.4*

n Au&ust , %))), the t"ial cou"t held that 9a chain of ci"cu#stances @ @ @ lead to a sound andlo&ical conclusion that indeed the accused 2Diosdado III and ?odof"edo5 co##itted the offensecha"&ed94(and as such "ende"ed 7udent L

=6ERE!RE, p"e#ises conside"ed, this cou"t finds the accused ?odof"edo B. Ado"and Diosdado B. Ado" III ?I


14/109

+he ail =a"den of the Na&a Cit' Dist"ict ail is he"eb' o"de"ed to fo"th$ith "eleasef"o# its custod' the accused Diosdado B. Ado", "., unless his fu"the" detention is$a""anted b' an' othe" le&al cause o" causes.

S RDERED.4)

6ence, this 7oint appeal inte"posed b' Disodado III and ?odof"edo. +he' #aintain that the t"ial cou"t&"avel' e""ed in convictin& the# of #u"de" based on ci"cu#stantial evidence. +he testi#on' ofp"osecution $itness Pablo Calsis that he sa$ the# "unnin& a$a' f"o# the scene of the c"i#e $asconcocted. +he hand&un tu"ned in b' ?odof"edo $as not the sa#e &un p"esented b' thep"osecution du"in& the t"ial. +he unusual discove"' of a slu& f"o# the head of the deceased - th"ee2/5 da's afte" the autops' $as conducted and afte" the cadave" $as tu"ned ove" to the fa#il' of thevicti# - $as uite doubtful. Even the supposed d'in& decla"ation of the victi# specificall' pointed toneithe" Diosdado III no" ?odof"edo. And, the t"ial cou"t e""ed in ad#ittin& in evidence those ta:ena&ainst the# in violation of thei" constitutional "i&hts to counsel du"in& custodial investi&ation.10

+he "ules of evidence allo$ the cou"ts to "el' on ci"cu#stantial evidence to suppo"t its conclusion of&uilt.1%It #a' be the basis of a conviction so lon& as the co#bination of all the ci"cu#stances p"oven

p"oduces a lo&ical conclusion $hich suffices to establish the &uilt of the accused be'ond "easonabledoubt.1All the ci"cu#stances #ust be consistent $ith each othe", consistent $ith the theo"' that allthe accused a"e &uilt' of the offense cha"&ed, and at the sa#e ti#e inconsistent $ith the h'pothesisthat the' a"e innocent and $ith eve"' othe" possible, "ational h'pothesis e@cept that of &uilt.1/+heevidence #ust e@clude each and eve"' h'pothesis $hich #a' be consistent $ith thei" innocence.14

Also, it should be acted on and $ei&hed $ith &"eat caution.11Ci"cu#stantial evidence $hich has notbeen adeuatel' established, #uch less co""obo"ated, cannot b' itself be the basis of conviction.13

+hus, fo" ci"cu#stantial evidence to suffice, 2%5 the"e should be #o"e than one ci"cu#stanceG 25 thefacts f"o# $hich the infe"ences a"e de"ived a"e p"ovenG and 2/5 the co#bination of all theci"cu#stances is such as to p"oduce a conviction be'ond "easonable doubt.1*


15/109

identif'in& the Ado"s not$ithstandin& his asse"tion that he :ne$ and sa$ the# pe"sonall'. =e defe"to his di"ect e@a#ination L

A++;. +ERBI 2P"ivate P"osecuto"58. ;ou said 'ou "eco&nied the pe"sons "unnin&, could 'ou tell us thei" na#esFPAB


16/109

Diosdado ". $as not at the scene of the c"i#e absent an' indication that the lo$e" cou"t ove"loo:edso#e facts o" ci"cu#stances $hich if conside"ed $ould alte" the outco#e of the case.31

=hile it is t"ue that the cou"ts a"e not bound to accept o" "e7ect an enti"e testi#on', and #a' believeone pa"t and disbelieve anothe",33ou" Constitution and the la$ #andate that all doubts #ust be"esolved in favo" of the accused. Calsis co##itted an obvious blunde" in identif'in& the supposed

assailants $hich this Cou"t cannot si#pl' let &o. n the cont"a"', it c"eates "easonable doubt in ou"#inds if Calcis "eall' sa$ the pe"sons he alle&edl' sa$ o" if he $as even $he"e he said he $as thatevenin&. !o", it is ele#enta"' that the positive identification of the accused is c"ucial in establishin&his &uilt be'ond "easonable doubt. +hat is $antin& in the instant case.

=hat is #o"e, CalsisH asseve"ations, at the outset, could no lon&e" be used a&ainst ?odof"edo sinceboth the p"osecution and the defense have al"ead' "ested and the case a&ainst ?odof"edo $asal"ead' sub#itted fo" decision $hen Calsis $as p"esented.3*Neithe" can the' still be used a&ainstDiosdado ". $ho $as al"ead' acuitted b' the t"ial cou"t.

Both Diosdado III and ?odof"edo denied the cha"&es hu"led a&ainst the#. But, $hile it is t"ue thatalibi and denial a"e the $ea:est of the defenses as the' can easil' be fab"icated,3(absent such clea"

and positive identification, the doct"ine that the defense of denial cannot p"evail ove" positiveidentification of the accused #ust 'ield to the constitutional p"esu#ption of innocence.3) 6ence,$hile denial is concededl' f"a&ile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be basedthe"eon.*0+he "ule in c"i#inal la$ is fi"#l' ent"enched that ve"dicts of conviction #ust be p"edicatedon the st"en&th of the evidence fo" the p"osecution and not on the $ea:ness of the evidence fo" thedefense.*%

+he second ci"cu#stance is the hand&un tu"ned in b' ?odof"edo. But this $as bun&led b' thep"osecution. Ma7o" Idian, Deput' Chief of Police of the Na&a Cit' Police Station, to $ho# thehand&un $as tu"ned ove" afte" ?odof"edo su""ende"ed it, identified it as a calibe" ./( "evolve", thus L

A++; +ERBI 2P"ivate P"osecuto"58. =hat :ind of fi"ea"# $as itFMAR IDIAN8A. Revolve" hand&un, calibe" ./( $ith 3 "ounds a##unition.. =hat is the calibe"FA. ./( calibe".*

Si#ila"l', P/ Nepo#uceno $ho then had been $ith the PNP fo" ei&ht 2(5 'ea"s al"ead' and to$ho# ?odof"edo tu"ned in the hand&un, li:e$ise identified it as a calibe" ./(, thus L

A++; +ERBI 2P"ivate P"osecuto"58. =hat is the calibe" of that &unF

P/ NEPMCEN8A. ./( calibe".*/

6o$eve", Insp. !ul&a", Chief of the !i"ea"# Identification Section of the PNP C"i#e


17/109

Could it be that the hand&un $as "eplaced befo"e it $as tu"ned ove" to the PNP C"i#e


18/109

and alfalfa. A pe"son $ho uses tobacco #a' also have nit"ate o" nit"ite deposits onhis hands since these substances a"e p"esent in the p"oducts of co#bustion oftobacco. +he p"esence of nit"ates o" nit"ites, the"efo"e, should be ta:en onl' as anindication of a possibilit' but not of infallibilit' that the pe"son tested has fi"ed a &un.

In fine, the ad#issions #ade b' ?odof"edo to Ma7o" Idian and P/ Nepo#uceno includin& the &un

in uestion cannot be conside"ed in evidence a&ainst hi# $ithout violatin& his constitutional "i&ht tocounsel. ?odof"edo $as al"ead' unde" custodial investi&ation $hen he #ade his ad#issions andsu""ende"ed the &un to the police autho"ities. +he police had al"ead' be&un to focus on the Ado"sand $e"e ca""'in& out a p"ocess of inte""o&ations that $as lendin& itself to elicitin& inc"i#inatin&state#ents and evidence8 the police $ent to the Ado" "esidence that sa#e evenin& upon bein&info"#ed that the Ado"s had a lon&-standin& &"ud&e a&ainst the Cu'asG the follo$in& da', all the#ale #e#be"s of the Ado" fa#il' $e"e told to &o to the police stationG the police $as also info"#edof the d'in& decla"ation of deceased Chave pointin& to the Ado"s as the assailantsG the Ado"s $e"eall sub7ected to pa"affin e@a#inationG and, the"e $e"e no othe" suspects as the police $as notconside"in& an' othe" pe"son o" &"oup of pe"sons. +he investi&ation thus $as no lon&e" a &ene"alinui"' into an unsolved c"i#e as the Ado"s $e"e al"ead' bein& held as suspects fo" the :illin&s ofCu'a and Chave.

Conseuentl', the "i&hts of a pe"son unde" custodial investi&ation, includin& the "i&ht to counsel,have al"ead' attached to the Ado"s, and pu"suant to A"t. III, Sec. %2%5 and 2/5, %)(* Constitution,an' $aive" of these "i&hts should be in $"itin& and unde"ta:en $ith the assistance of counsel.Ad#issions unde" custodial investi&ation #ade $ithout the assistance of counsel a"e ba""ed asevidence.*(+he "eco"ds a"e ba"e of an' indication that the accused have $aived thei" "i&ht tocounsel, hence, an' of thei" ad#issions a"e inad#issible in evidence a&ainst the#. As $e have held,a suspectHs confession, $hethe" ve"bal o" non-ve"bal, $hen ta:en $ithout the assistance of counsel$ithout a valid $aive" of such assistance "e&a"dless of the absence of such coe"cion, o" the fact thatit had been volunta"il' &iven, is inad#issible in evidence, even if such confession $e"e

&ospel t"uth.*)+hus, in be 8. Peope,(0the death $eapon, a fou"-inch :itchen :nife, $hich $asfound afte" the accused b"ou&ht the police to his house and pointed to the# the pot $he"e he had

concealed it, $as ba""ed f"o# ad#ission as it $as discove"ed as a conseuence of an uncounselede@t"a7udicial confession.

=ith ha"dl' an' substantial evidence left, the p"osecution li:e$ise pla'ed up the feud bet$een theAdo"s on one hand and the Chavees and the Cu'as on the othe" hand, and su&&ested that theAdo"s had an a@e to &"ind a&ainst the Chavees and the Cu'as. !o" su"e, #otive is not sufficient tosuppo"t a conviction if the"e is no othe" "eliable evidence f"o# $hich it #a' "easonabl' be adducedthat the accused $as the #alefacto".(% Motive alone cannot ta:e the place of p"oof be'ond"easonable doubt sufficient to ove"th"o$ the p"esu#ption of innocence.(

All told, cont"a"' to the p"onounce#ents of the t"ial cou"t, $e cannot "est eas' in convictin& the t$o25 accused based on ci"cu#stantial evidence. !o", the pieces of the said ci"cu#stantial evidence

p"esented do not ine@o"abl' lead to the conclusion that the' a"e &uilt'.(/

+he p"osecution $itnessfailed to identif' the accused in cou"t. A cloud of doubt continues to hove" ove" the &un used and theslu& "ecove"ed. +he d'in& decla"ation and pa"affin e@a#ination "e#ain un"eliable. ?odof"edoHsuncounseled ad#issions includin& the &un he tu"ned in a"e ba""ed as evidence. And, the supposed#otive of the accused is si#pl' insufficient. Plainl', the facts f"o# $hich the infe"ence that theaccused co##itted the c"i#e $e"e not p"oven. Acco"din&l', the &uilt of the accused cannot beestablished, #o"e so to a #o"al ce"taint'. It is $hen evidence is pu"el' ci"cu#stantial that thep"osecution is #uch #o"e obli&ated to "el' on the st"en&th of its o$n case and not on the $ea:nessof the defense, and that conviction #ust "est on nothin& less than #o"al ce"taint'.(4


19/109

Conseuentl', the case of the p"osecution has been "educed to nothin& but #e"e suspicions andspeculations. It is ho"nboo: doct"ine that suspicions and speculations can neve" be the basis ofconviction in a c"i#inal case.(1Cou"ts #ust ensu"e that the conviction of the accused "ests fi"#l' onsufficient and co#petent evidence, and not the "esults of passion and p"e7udice.(3 If the alle&edinculpato"' facts and ci"cu#stances a"e capable of t$o 25 o" #o"e e@planations, one of $hich isconsistent $ith the innocence of the accused, and the othe" consistent $ith his &uilt, then the

evidence is not adeuate to suppo"t conviction.(*

+he cou"t #ust acuit the accused because theevidence does not fulfill the test of #o"al ce"taint' and is the"efo"e insufficient to suppo"t a 7udentof conviction.(( Conviction #ust "est on nothin& less than a #o"al ce"taint' of the &uilt of theaccused.() +he ove""idin& conside"ation is not $hethe" the cou"t doubts the innocence of theaccused but $hethe" it ente"tains a "easonable doubt as to his &uilt.)0It is thus ap"opos to "epeat thedoct"ine that an accusation is not, acco"din& to the funda#ental la$, s'non'#ous $ith &uilt L thep"osecution #ust ove"th"o$ the p"esu#ption of innocence $ith p"oof of &uilt be'ond "easonabledoubt. +he p"osecution has failed to discha"&e its bu"den. Acco"din&l', $e have to acuit.

IN "IE' 'HEREOF, the Decision of the Re&ional +"ial Cou"t of Na&a Cit', B". 1, in C"i#. CasesNos. )*-3(%1 and )*-3(%3 dated Au&ust , %))), findin& accused-appellants ?odof"edo B. Ado" andDiosdado B. Ado" III &uilt' be'ond "easonable doubt of t$o 25 counts of #u"de" and i#posin& onthe# the penalt' of "eclusion pe"petua, is he"eb' REERSED and SE+ ASIDE. Accused-appellants?odof"edo B. Ado" and Diosdado B. Ado" III a"e ACI++ED on "easonable doubt and thei"IMMEDIA+E RE


20/109

of an undete"#ined calibe" of a &un the"eb' inflictin& #o"tal $ounds $hich is the cause of hisi##ediate death.

Cont"a"' to A"ticle 4( of the Revised Penal Code, in "elation to RA *31), as a#ended.%

appellant pleaded not &uilt' du"in& his a""ai&n#ent on ul' *, 000.

Culled f"o# the evidence fo" the p"osecution is its follo$in& ve"sion of the case8

n une /, 000, at a"ound 840 a.#., $hile


21/109

*31), and afte" ta:in& into account the p"esence of one &ene"ic a&&"avatin& ci"cu#stance ofd$ellin&, $ithout an' #iti&atin&, the said accused is he"eb' sentenced to suffe" the sup"e#e penalt'of DEA+6 b' lethal in7ection. 6e is fu"the" di"ected to inde#nif' the hei"s the a#ount of !I!+;+6SAND PESS as da#a&es fo" the death of the victi#, anothe" !I!+; +6SAND PESS ase@e#pla"' da#a&es, actual e@penses in the a#ount of +6IR+; !R +6SAND PESS, plus topa' the costs. Pu"suant to section of R.A. *31) and section %0 of Rule % of the Rules of Cou"t,

let the enti"e "eco"d of this case be fo"$a"ded to the Sup"e#e Cou"t fo" auto#atic "evie$.

S RDERED.%4

In his b"ief, appellant p"offe"s the follo$in& assi&n#ent of e""o"s8

I.

+6E


22/109

It bea"s notin& that the evidence "elied upon b' the p"osecution is ci"cu#stantial.

It is settled that fo" ci"cu#stantial evidence to suffice to convict, the follo$in& "euisites #ust be #et8%5 the"e is #o"e than one ci"cu#stanceG 5 the facts f"o# $hich the infe"ences a"e de"ived a"ep"ovenG and /5 the co#bination of all ci"cu#stances is such as to p"oduce a conviction be'ond"easonable doubt.%(

+he fi"st ci"cu#stance $hich the p"osecution sou&ht to p"ove is that appellant $as seen leavin& thehouse $he"e the victi# la' bleedin& of &unshot $ounds not lon& afte" a &unshot $as hea"d.

P"osecution $itness de&"ee of attentionat that ti#eG 2/5 the accu"ac' of an' p"io" desc"iption &iven b' the $itnessG 245 the level of ce"taint'de#onst"ated b' the $itness at the identificationG 215 the len&th of ti#e bet$een the c"i#e and theidentificationG and, 235 the su&&estiveness of the identification p"ocedu"e.02nde"sco"in& supplied5

+he totality of circ)0tance0 test has been fashioned to assu"e fai"ness as $ell as co#pliance $ithconstitutional "eui"e#ents of due p"ocess in "e&a"d to out-of-cou"t identification.%

Appl'in& the above-said test, the"e a"e na&&in& doubts if


23/109

+hus, b' cloc: of the sa#e #o"nin& the"e $e"eope"atives f"o# the Pue"to Police Station and 'ou said the' investi&ated 'ou about the incidentFA 8 ;es, #a>a#. 8 =ho a#on& the police office"sFA 8 P/ Eddie A:ut, P/ Ruben and P/ Achas. 8 ;ou onl' desc"ibed to the# $hat 'ou sa$, the desc"iption of the suspectFA 8 ;es, #aHa#. 8 About his bein& sli# builtFA 8 ;es, #a>a#. 8 ;ou could not dete"#ine $hethe" he is a fai" s:inned o" da": pe"sonFA 8 I could not dete"#ine. 8 In fact 'ou could not dete"#ine $hethe" the"e is #a": on his faceFA 8 ;es, #a>a#.

8 ;ou said that on une 4, 000 'ou $e"e info"#ed that the"e $as al"ead' a suspect a""ested b'the policeFA 8 ;es, #a>a#. 8 But 'ou $e"e not o" 'ou did not acco#pan' the police office" $he"e that suspect $as a""estedFA 8 No, #a>a#. 8 So it $as not 'ou $ho pointed to the suspect in o"de" fo" hi# to be a""estedFA 8 No #aHa#. 8 And $hen 'ou $ent to the Pue"to Police Station te% 4/tro7e to %o te ((pe7tA 8 ;es #a>a#. 8 =hen did 'ou fi"st :no$ his na#eFA 8 !"o# #' b"othe". 8 =henFA 8 =hen he $ent to the house on une 4 in the #o"nin&.

8 'ere 4 %o (ee te ((pe7t 4/(4e te po47e (tt4o/FA 8 He :( (t4 4/(4e te 7e :e/ te% et me (ee. 8 I/ oter :or(, :e/ %o (: 4m e :( 4/(4e te 7eFA 8;e(, ma#. 8 And the police office" pointed to 'ou that that is Ruel Bacon&uisFA 8 ;es, #a>a#. 8 And afte" pointin& to 'ou the' told 'ou that he $as the suspectF
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/dec2003/gr_149889_2003.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/dec2003/gr_149889_2003.html#fnt27


24/109

A 8 ;es, #a>a#. 8 And because of that, 'ou $e"e convinced that he $as the oneFA 8 I $as convinced because his face is the sa#e pe"son $ho# I sa$ 7u#p ove" the fence.(

2E#phasis and unde"sco"in& supplied5A sho$up, such as $hat $as unde"ta:en b' the police in the identification of appellant b'


25/109

'HEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Re&ional +"ial Cou"t, B"anch %(, Ca&a'an de "o Cit'findin& appellant RE< BACN?IS ' INSN &uilt' of #u"de" is he"eb' REERSEDAND SE+ASIDE and appellant is ACI++ED the"eof. 6e is o"de"ed IMMEDIA+E


26/109

be fed and d"essed up. 6e" vocabula"' $as li#ited and #ost of the ti#e she e@p"essed he"self b'#otions.

Col. +eofisto Salcedo $as then P"ovincial Co##ande" of Misa#is ccidental. !ou" secu"it' #en$e"e assi&ned to hi#, t$o of $ho# $e"e accused Constable Ruel P"ieto and accused-appellantMo"eno +u#i#pad.

+he Salcedo fa#il', co#posed of Col. Salcedo, his $ife Pasto"a, his son Ale@ande" and $ife anddau&hte" Sand"a, lived in a t$o-sto"e' office"s> ua"te"s inside Ca#p 'an, bastos.92

M"s. Pasto"a Salcedo, $o""ied of he" dau&hte">s condition, b"ou&ht he" to Re&ina 6ospital. Sand"a$as able to "elieve he"self the follo$in& da' but still "e#ained #ood' and i""itable. She "efused tota:e a bath in spite of scoldin&s f"o# he" #othe". She did not $ant to eat and $heneve" she did, she$ould vo#it.

Sand"a $as b"ou&ht to a docto" in "ouieta Cit' fo" a second chec:up. D". Conol, the e@a#inin&ph'sician, o"de"ed a u"inal'sis. ose C. &estational a&e $as euivalent to %*.% $ee:s. )Anothe" ult"a-sounde@a#ination at the nited Docto"s Medical Cente" 2DMC5 at ueon Cit' on Septe#be" %%, %)()confi"#ed that she $as indeed p"e&nant. 5

n anua"' %%, %))0, Sand"a &ave bi"th to a bab' bo' $ho $as na#ed acob Salcedo. 6ence, thefilin& of the co#plaint 6b' M"s. Pasto"a Salcedo.

Du"in& the investi&ation conducted b' the CIS, about thi"t' 2/05 pictu"es of diffe"ent pe"sons $e"elaid on the table and Sand"a $as as:ed to pic: up the pictu"es of he" assailants. Sand"a sin&led outthe pictu"es of Mo"eno +u#i#pad and Ruel P"ieto. ?


27/109

9dito ha$a:,9 and holdin& he" b"easts to e#phasie. She li:e$ise $ent th"ou&h the #otion of "e#ovin&he" pant', utte"in& at the sa#e ti#e 9hubad pant'.9

Sand"a identified in open cou"t accused Mo"eno +u#i#pad and Ruel P"ieto as the pe"sons $ho"aped he" and said she $ished the# dead, as the' did so#ethin& bad to he". 11 She once a&ainde#onst"ated ho$ she $as se@uall' abused. She held he" t$o thi&hs $ith he" t$o hands ne@t to he"

se@ual o"&an sa'in&, 9pant'9 and then placed he" hand on he" b"east and &estu"ed as if she $e"esuc:in&. She also touched he" p"ivate o"&an and #ade a push and pull #ove#ent. 12

Du"in& the t"ial, the accused #oved that a blood test, both 9Ma7o" Blood ?"oupin& +est9 and 9PhenoBlood +'pin&9 be conducted on the offended pa"t', he" child acob and the t$o accused. +he "esultof the test conducted b' the Ma:ati Medical Cente" sho$ed that acob Salcedo has a t'pe 99blood, Sand"a Salcedo t'pe 9B9, accused Ruel P"ieto t'pe 9A9 and accused-appellant t'pe 99.

Both accused ancho"ed thei" defense on #e"e denial contendin& that it $as i#possible fo" the# tohave co##itted the c"i#e of "ape.

Afte" t"ial on the #e"its, the t"ial cou"t convicted Mo"eno +u#i#pad of the c"i#e cha"&ed but

acuitted the othe" accused, Ruel P"ieto, on "easonable doubt, statin& that he 9has a diffe"ent t'pe ofblood $ith 20ic5 the child acob Salcedo as his t'pe of blood is 9A9, $hile that of child acob Salcedoist'pe 99.

+he dispositive po"tion of the decision "eads8

=6ERE!RE, p"e#ises conside"ed, the Cou"t finds the accused, P%Mo"eno +u#i#pad, &uilt' be'ond "easonable doubt of the c"i#e of Rape, ascha"&ed in the info"#ation, and pu"suant to the p"ovisions of A"ticle //1 ofthe Revised Penal Code, as a#ended, the"e bein& no a&&"avatin& no"#iti&atin& ci"cu#stance attendant in the co##ission of the c"i#e, saidaccused Mo"eno +u#i#pad is he"eb' sentenced to suffe" the penalt' ofRECLUSIO6 PERPETU/G to inde#nif' the offended &i"l, Sand"a Salcedo, inthe a#ount of P0,000.00G and to suffe" the othe" accesso"' penaltiesp"ovided fo" b' la$sG and to pa' the costs of the p"oceedin&s.

n "easonable doubt, accused Ruel P"ieto is he"eb' decla"ed ACI++EDf"o# the cha"&e.

S RDERED. 1*

Accused-appellant assi&ns the follo$in& as e""o"s of the lo$e" cou"t8

%. +he lo$e" cou"t e""ed in not app"eciatin& the i#possibilit' of co##ittin&

the offense cha"&ed $ithout detection.

. +he lo$e" cou"t e""ed in convictin& the accused-appellant base on #a7o"blood &"oupin& test :no$n as AB and R6S test, not a pate"nal test :no$nas ch"o#oso#es o" 6


28/109

Accused-appellant a"&ues that it $as i#possible fo" hi# to have co##itted the c"i#e of "apebecause #ost of the ti#e he and his co-accused Ruel P"ieto $e"e to&ethe" $ith Col. Salcedo oninspection tou"s $hile the victi# $as al$a's in the co#pan' of he" #othe". 6e fu"the" contends thatit $as li:e$ise i#possible fo" Sand"a, if she had "eall' been #olested, not to have shouted out ofpain, she bein& a vi"&in. As if addin& insult to in7u"', accused-appellant su&&ests that it $as Sand"a>sb"othe", C"istophe" Salcedo, alle&edl' a d"u& use", $ho could have "aped he".

=e a"e not convinced.

It is t"ue that the accused usuall' $ent $ith Col. Salcedo du"in& inspection tou"s but so#eti#es the'$e"e left behind and $ould pla' pin&pon& o" ca"d &a#es $ith Sand"a at the &"ound floo" of thehouse. =hile Sand"a $as al$a's $ith he" #othe", the"e $e"e ti#es $hen she $as left alone in thehouse $ith the accused. 1)

M"s. Pasto"a Salcedo testified8

6o$ #an' secu"it' #en "e#ain if 'ou can "ecall $hen 'ou" husband "epo"ted fo"$o":F

A +$o 25. =ho $e"e these secu"it' #en $ho "e#ainedFA Mo"eno +u#i#pad and Ruel P"ieto. 6o$ about the othe" secu"it' #en +an&&an and Colal7oFA M' husband sent 20ic5 the# fo" an e""and and so#eti#e the' used to &o $ith #'husband to the office. Eve"' ti#e $hen 'ou" husband is out $hat the' do $hile the' $e"e 20ic5 at theheadua"te"FA I sa$ the# sleepin& and so#eti#e the' $e"e pla'in& at the po"ch $ith #' dau&hte"Sand"a pla'in& pin&pon& and so#eti#e the' $e"e listenin& #usic. =he"e did the' pla' usuall' ta:e placeFA


29/109

PRS. RAMS8=ill 'ou please de#onst"ate befo"e this 6ono"able Cou"t $hat Mo"eno and Ruel didto 'ouFRECRD8+he $itness $hen she stood up held both he" thi&hs 20ic5 $ith he" t$o hand 20ic5do$n to he" se@ual o"&an sa'in& a $o"d 9pant'9 and she placed he" hand on he"

b"east and did so#ethin& as if suc:in& and held he" p"ivate pa"t 20ic5 and did a pushand pull #ove#ent and she c"ied. =hen 'ou said that the"e $as a push and pull #ove#ent of the bod' and $henthis $as bein& done did 'ou feel painFA ;es pain. =hat pa"t of 'ou" bod' is painfulFRECRD8+he $itness touchin& he" p"ivate pa"ts. Did 'ou also see blood on 'ou" se@ual o"&anFA ;es. =he"e did 'ou see these bloodFRECRD8+he $itness touchin& he" p"ivate pa"ts.

=hen this push and pull #ove#ent $as bein& #ade, did 'ou see a #an>s o"&anFA ;es si". =he"e did 'ou see this #ale o"&anFA =itness touchin& he" p"ivate pa"t. =ho did this to 'ou, $ho "e#oved 'ou" pant'FA Mo"eno and Ruel. Did 'ou see Mo"eno ta:in& off his pantsFA ;es. Did 'ou see his se@ o"&anFA +he $itness touchin& he" p"ivate pa"ts. 6o$ about this Ruel, did 'ou see if he ta:en 20ic5 off his pantsFA ;es.

Did 'ou see his se@ o"&anFA ;es, $itness a&ain touchin& he" p"ivate pa"t. Both of the#FA ;es. =he"e did Mo"eno and Ruel "e#oved 20ic5 'ou" pant'FA Mo"eno. In 'ou" houseFA ;es. =hat pa"t of 'ou" house did Mo"eno and Ruel "e#ove 'ou" pant'FA Do$nstai"s Mo"eno and Ruel "e#ove pant'. =hat pa"t of the &"ound floo", $as it outside o" inside the "oo#FA In the "oo#. 7hen &0ic' 5oreno and R)el are in0ide the co)rtroo no+, can yo) oint to the8

A 9e0. 7ill yo) lea0e oint to theFPRS. RAMS8Ma' $e "euest the accused to stand up 'ou" hono"FRECRD8Both accused stood up f"o# $he"e the' $e"e sittin& inside the cou"t"oo#.PRS. RAMS8=ho is that pe"son 2p"osecuto" Ra#os point to accused Mo"eno +u#i#pad5FA Mo"eno.


30/109

RECRD8+he $itness pointin& to a ce"tain pe"son $ho is standin& and $hen as:ed $hat is hisna#e, he "eadil' ans$e"ed that he is Mo"eno +u#i#pad.PRS. RAMS8=ho is that pe"son standin& besides Mo"enoFA oel.

PRS. RAMS8If 'ou" hono" please, she could not p"onounced 20ic5 $ell the $o"d Ruel but the $a'she called this na#e is oel $hich "efe"s to the sa#e pe"son $ho is one of theaccused in this case.1?

Melinda o' Salcedo, the victi#>s siste"-in-la$, testified that Sand"a de#onst"ated to he" ho$ she$as "avished b' the t$o accused, thus8

No$, $ill 'ou please tell us $hat did Sand"a Salcedo told 20ic5 'ou as to ho$ she$as abusedFA B' $hat she had stated the"e $e"e also actions that she #ade. =ill 'ou please de#onst"ate to this 6ono"able Cou"t ho$ did Sand"a Salcedo $as

abused as na""ated o" de#onst"ated to 'ou b' Sand"a SalcedoFA Acco"din& to he" she $as held in he" thi&h and then she $as hu&&ed and then thepant' $as ta:en off and #a:in& a push and pull #ove#ent 2$itness de#onst"ationb' holdin& he" thi&h5F No$, afte" Sand"a Salcedo told 'ou and de#onst"ated to 'ou ho$ she $asabused. =hat else did Sand"a Salcedo tell 'ou if she had told 'ou an' #o"e #atte"FA She did not sa' an'thin& #o"e. No$, $hen Sand"a Salcedo "efused to tal: o" sa' an'thin& else. =hat happenedne@tFA +hen it $as Celsa $ho as:ed he". =he"e $e"e 'ou $hen Celsa as:ed Sand"a SalcedoFA I $as 7ust beside he". ;ou said that afte" Sand"a Salcedo "efused to tal:, Celsa did the uestionin&, did

'ou hea" the uestion bein& as:ed b' Celsa to Sand"a SalcedoFA ;es. And $hat $as the uestion bein& as:ed b' Celsa to Sand"a SalcedoFA Celsa as:ed Sand"a Salcedo as to $hat othe" thin&s that these t$o had done tohe"F And $hat if an' did Sand"a Salcedo tell 'ou as to $hat $as done to he"FA B' $a' of tal:in& and action. And $hat $as the ans$e" of Sand"a SalcedoFA 6e 20ic5 ans$e"ed it b' action and tal:in&. And $hat $as the ans$e" of Sand"a Salcedo as "elated b' he" to Celsa th"ou&h$o"ds and actionFRECRD8+he $itness de#onst"ated b' holdin& his 20ic5 nipple &oin& do$n to he" thi&h.

=hat else had t"anspi"ed ne@tFA No #o"e. No$, $heneve" Sand"a Salcedo #entioned the na#es of accused Mo"eno+u#i#pad and Ruel P"ieto, have 'ou obse"ved $hose na#es $as usuall'#entioned fi"st b' Sand"a SalcedoFA She #entioned fi"st the na#e of Mo"eno +u#i#pad and Ruel. And $hat happened afte" thatFA I info"#ed #' #othe"-in-la$ of $hat Sand"a Salcedo had told us.


31/109

=hen did 'ou tell 'ou" #othe"-in- la$ about $hat Sand"a Salcedo told 'ou andCelsaFA +hat ve"' evenin& si".1+

Accused-appellant si#plisticall' and uite e""oneousl' a"&ues that his conviction $as based on the#edical findin& that he and the victi# have the sa#e blood t'pe 99.

Accused-appellants> culpabilit' $as established #ainl' b' testi#onial evidence &iven b' the victi#he"self and he" "elatives. +he blood test $as adduced as evidence onl' to sho$ that the alle&edfathe" o" an' one of #an' othe"s of the sa#e blood t'pe #a' have been the fathe" of the child. Asheld b' this Cou"t in 1anice 5arie 1ao v0.Co)rt of /eal0198

Pate"nit' Q Science has de#onst"ated that b' the anal'sis of blood sa#plesof the #othe", the child, and the alle&ed fathe", it can be establishedconclusivel' that the #an is not the fathe" of a pa"ticula" child. But &"oupblood testin& cannot sho$ onl' a possibilit' that he is. Statutes in #an'states, and cou"ts in othe"s, have "eco&nied the value and the li#itations ofsuch tests. So#e of the decisions have "eco&nied the conclusive

p"esu#ption of non-pate"nit' $he"e the "esults of the test, #ade in thep"esc"ibed #anne", sho$ the i#possibilit' of the alle&ed pate"nit'. +his is oneof the fe$ cases in $hich the 7udent of the Cou"t #a' scientificall' beco#pletel' accu"ate, and intole"able "esults avoided, such as have occu""ed$he"e the findin& is allo$ed to tu"n on o"al testi#on' conflictin& $ith the"esults of the test. +he findin&s of such blood tests a"e not ad#issible top"ove the fact of pate"nit' as the' sho$ onl' a possibilit' that the alle&edfathe" o" an' one of #an' othe"s $ith the sa#e blood t'pe #a' have beenthe fathe" of the child.

=6ERE!RE, accused-appellant>s &uilt of the c"i#e of "ape havin& been p"oven be'ond"easonable doubt, the decision appealed f"o# is he"eb' A!!IRMED.

S RDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Ba&uio Cit'

EN BANC

?.R. No. %/3*3 Ap"il 4, 00%

PEP


32/109

+he challen&ed testi#on' of $itness Ruben Me"iales follo$s8/n 1 Au&ust %))3 at about (800oHcloc: in the evenin& $hile he $as $atchin& television $ith his fa#il' his do&s ba":ed. 6is #othe"$ho $as app"ehensive that thei" co$ #i&ht be stolen p"odded hi# to chec: the distu"bance. +o alla'he" fea"s he stood up, too: his flashli&ht and t"ud&ed the unpaved path to$a"ds his co$ that $astied to a #an&o t"ee. +hen the noise &"e$ loude" thus a"ousin& his suspicion that so#ethin& $as"eall' $"on&. Afte" t"ansfe""in& his co$ nea"e" to his house, he $ent inside the :itchen, stood atop

the conc"ete $ashbasin, hid hi#self behind the ba#boo slats and peeped outside to obse"ve. +heda":ness helped conceal hi# f"o# outside vie$ $hile the li&ht f"o# the t$o 25 bulbs positioned atabout th"ee 2/5 #ete"s f"o# $he"e he stood filte"ed th"ou&h the slats and illu#ined the su""oundin&s.+he"e $as also #oon in the s:'.

A fe$ #inutes late", he sa$ ba"an&a' captain ai#e Ca"po to&ethe" $ith =a"lito Ibao suspiciousl'stoopin& nea" his ba"n. 6e :ne$ ai#e and =a"lito ve"' $ell. ai#e $as his uncle and =a"lito livedin his nei&hbo"hood. =a"litoHs son Roche $as also the"eG he $as standin& b' the #an&o t"ee. +he'$e"e all loo:in& in the di"ection of !lo"entino Dula'Hs house $hich $as about a #ete" to the southf"o# $he"e he $as. 6e also sa$ sca" Ibao, anothe" son of =a"lito, st"idin& to$a"ds Dula'Hs hut. Assoon as he "eached the hut sca" lifted the 0a+ali#at nea" the $all and hu"led so#ethin& inside.sca" then scu""ied off to$a"ds the nea"b' c"ee: $ith Roche follo$in& hi#. Seconds late", a loude@plosion shoo: the enti"e nei&hbo"hood and +e"esita Dula'Hs sc"ea#s b"o:e into the ni&ht.

Ruben Me"iales "ushed outside. 6e "an to$a"ds !lo"entinoHs hut but $as dete""ed b' da":ness. 6e"etu"ned ho#e to ta:e his flashli&ht and "aced bac: to lend aid to +e"esita. Inside the hut he $asstunned b' the te""if'in& &o"e that &"eeted hi# L a bloodied !lo"entino c"adled in the a"#s of his$eepin& $ido$, No"$ela and Nissan l'in& side b' side on a cot both doused in blood, and a#otionless No"#a $hose head $as ooin& $ith blood.

Realiin& the e@i&enc' of the situation, he left the c"i#e scene to bo""o$ the 7eepne' of ;rgy.


33/109

n 1 ctobe" %))3 ai#e Ca"po $as ta:en into custod' b' the police, $hile Roche Ibao eludeda""est until ) Dece#be" %))3 $hen he $as app"ehended b' police office"s in


34/109

In convictin& ai#e Ca"po, =a"lito Ibao, sca" Ibao and Roche Ibao of the #ultiple #u"de" of!lo"entino, No"$ela and Nissan Dula' and the atte#pted #u"de" of Noe#i Dula' the t"ial cou"t &avefull c"edit to the testi#on' of Ruben.%0It accepted his st"ai&htfo"$a"d testi#on' and "uled that 9at noinstance th"ou&hout the t$in testi#onies of Me"iales did the Cou"t notice a t$itch of falsehood on hislips.9%%Acco"din&l', in acco"dance $ith Sec. 3, RA *31), and A"t. 4( ofThe Revi0ed Penal Codethet"ial cou"t i#posed upon all of the accused the sup"e#e penalt' of death and o"de"ed the# to

solida"il' inde#nif' the hei"s of the deceased as $ell as Noe#i Dula' in the a#ount ofP300,000.00.%

!o"th$ith, the case $as elevated to this Cou"t fo" auto#atic "evie$. Afte" the filin& of b"iefs, theaccused filed an/ddend) to /ellant=0 ;riefu"&in& that the favo"able "esult of thei" lie detecto"tests $ith the NBI be ad#itted into the "eco"ds.%/

A lie detecto" test is based on the theo"' that an individual $ill unde"&o ph'siolo&ical chan&es,capable of bein& #onito"ed b' senso"s attached to his bod', $hen he is not tellin& the t"uth. +heCou"t does not put c"edit and faith on the "esult of a lie detecto" test inas#uch as it has not beenaccepted b' the scientific co##unit' as an accu"ate #eans of asce"tainin& t"uth o" deception.%4

+he e@plosion b' #eans of a hand &"enade on the ni&ht of 1 Au&ust %))3 "esultin& in the death of!lo"entino, No"$ela and Nissan Dula' and in the $oundin& of Noe#i Dula' is an ad#itted fact. +heidentit' of the pe"pet"ato"s, as tenaciousl' uestioned b' the accused, depends upon the c"edibilit'of Ruben Me"iales.

In this appeal, accused-appellants challen&e the ve"acit' of the testi#on' of Ruben Me"ialesp"i#a"il' on t$o 25 &"ounds8 fir0t, RubenHs testi#on' in cou"t is diffe"ent f"o# and is cont"adicto"' tohis affidavit of 4 ctobe" %))3G and 0econd, Ruben is not a disinte"ested $itness because he has a&"ud&e a&ainst the Ibaos.

Consistent $ith &ivin& due defe"ence to the obse"vations of the t"ial cou"t on c"edibilit' of $itnesses,$e a&"ee $ith the cou"t a ()o$hen it believed Ruben Me"iales #o"e than the defense $itnesses.%1

Indeed, the t"ial cou"t is best euipped to #a:e an assess#ent of $itnesses, and its factual findin&sa"e &ene"all' not distu"bed on appeal unless it has ove"loo:ed, #isunde"stood o" dis"e&a"dedi#po"tant facts,%3$hich is not t"ue in the p"esent case.

+he t$in a"&u#ents the"efo"e "aised b' accused-appellants a&ainst the testi#on' of Ruben Me"ialesa"e devoid of #e"it. A sc"utin' of the "eco"ds "eveals that his testi#on' is not inconsistent $ith hisaffidavit of 4 ctobe" %))3 inas#uch as the fo"#e" #e"el' supplied the details of the event $hichthe latte" failed to disclose. But assu#in& that the"e $as an' inconsistenc', it is settled that$heneve" an affidavit cont"adicts a testi#on' &iven in cou"t the latte" co##ands &"eate" "espect.%*

Such inconsistenc' is uni#po"tant and $ould not even disc"edit a fallible $itness.%(

+he #e"e fact that Ruben ad#itted ha"bo"in& "esent#ent a&ainst the Ibaos fo" the #u"de" of hisb"othe" Delfin does not confi"# that he fab"icated his sto"'. 6is f"an:ness in ad#ittin& his "esent#ent

a&ainst the Ibaos should even be conside"ed in his favo".%)

+he"e is li:e$ise nothin& unnatu"al in RubenHs attitude of concealin& hi#self behind the :itchen $allinstead of $a"nin& the Dula's of the loo#in& dan&e" to thei" lives. It is a $ell-:no$n fact that pe"sons"eact diffe"entl' to diffe"ent situations L the"e #a' be so#e $ho $ill "espond violentl' to ani#pendin& dan&e" $hile the"e #a' be othe"s $ho $ill si#pl' assu#e a c"avenl' de#eano". In thiscase, Ruben $as "uled b' his fea" "athe" than b' his "eason, but fo" this alone, his c"edibilit' shouldnot be doubted.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt19


35/109

/roo0ai#eHs i#putation that Ruben had ad#itted to hi# $hile in 7ail that he lied in his testi#on',$e find this accusation fa"cical as nothin& $as eve" offe"ed in suppo"t the"eof. +he loneco""obo"ative testi#on', $hich $as that of Roche, does not inspi"e belief since Roche hi#selfad#itted ove"hea"in& the conve"sation $hile ai#e to&ethe" $ith othe" p"isone"s $as const"uctin& ahut outside of his cell at about th"ee 2/5 #ete"s a$a'. As co""ectl' hinted b' the p"osecution, thenoise &ene"ated b' the const"uction #ade it unli:el' fo" Roche to hea" conve"sations th"ee 2/5

#ete"s a$a'.0

+he defense p"offe"ed b' the accused is alibi. But this is futile. B' his o$n ad#ission, ai#e $asonl' a hund"ed and fift' 2%105 #ete"s a$a' f"o# the scene of the c"i#e. In fact, it $ould onl' ta:ehi# thi"t' 2/05 #inutes, at the #ost, to be at the place of the Dula's.

Mo"e so fo" the Ibaos $ho ac:no$led&ed that the' $e"e havin& a pa"t' 7ust a stoneHs th"o$ a$a'f"o# the c"i#e scene at the ti#e of the e@plosion. Cu"iousl' thou&h, if the' $e"e indeed "evelin&inside thei" house on that fateful ni&ht, then $e cannot co#p"ehend $h' the' did not &o out toinvesti&ate afte" hea"in& the blast. Besides, it $as "athe" st"an&e fo" the Ibaos not to have 7oinedthei" nei&hbo"s $ho had instantaneousl' #illed outside to vie$ the #a'he#. +hei" conduct indeedbet"a'ed the#.

!u"the", the i##ediate fli&ht and ta""iance of the Ibaos to


36/109

At this point, $e ta:e e@ception to the cou"t a uo>s a$a"d of da#a&es in the 9ne&otiated a#ount ofP300,000.00.9 It appea"s that unde" the auspices of the t"ial cou"t counsel fo" the defense ente"edinto an o"al co#p"o#ise $ith the public p"osecuto", $hich $as subseuentl' "atified b' the p"ivateco#plainant, li#itin& the a#ount of civil liabilit' to P300,000.00. =enote the discou"se bet$een thecou"t and the counsel fo" both pa"ties "e&a"din& the a$a"d8

PRS. CRP8 @ @ @ @ 2=5e $ould li:e to ente" into stipulation the civil aspectof the case.

CR+8 A"e the accused confident that the' could be acuitted in this caseF Att'San&la'F

A++;. SAN? clai#s but the full a#ount in cash.9

+he "eui"e#ents unde" both p"ovisions a"e #et $hen the"e is a clea" #andate e@p"essl' &iven b'the p"incipal to his la$'e" specificall' autho"iin& the pe"fo"#ance of an act.*It has not escaped ou"attention that in the p"esent case counsel fo" both pa"ties had no special po$e" of atto"ne' f"o# thei"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_132676_2001.html#fnt27


37/109

clients to ente" into a co#p"o#ise. 6o$eve", insofa" as +e"esita $as conce"ned, she $as app"ised ofthe a&"ee#ent and in fact had si&ned he" na#e as inst"ucted b' the cou"t, the"eb' tacitl' "atif'in&the sa#e. As fo" accused-appellants, the afo"ecited dialo&ue bet$een the cou"t and counsel doesnot sho$ that the' $e"e eve" consulted "e&a"din& the p"oposed settle#ent. In the absence of aspecial po$e" of atto"ne' &iven b' accused-appellants to thei" counsel, the latte" can neithe" bindno" co#p"o#ise his clients> civil liabilit'. Conseuentl', since Att'. San&la' and Att'. Rafael had no

specific po$e" to co#p"o#ise the civil liabilit' of all accused-appellants, its app"oval b' the t"ial cou"t$hich did not ta:e the p"ecautiona"' #easu"es to ensu"e the p"otection of the "i&ht of accused-appellants not to be dep"ived of thei" p"ope"t' $ithout due p"ocess of la$, could not le&alie it. !o"bein& violative of e@istin& la$ and 7u"isp"udence, the settle#ent should not be &iven fo"ce and effect.

In li&ht of the fo"e&oin&, the a$a"d of da#a&es #ust be set aside and a ne$ one ente"ed $ith all theci"cu#stances of the case in #ind. !o" the death of !lo"entino, No"$ela and Nissan Dula', civilinde#nit' at P10,000.00 each o" a total a#ount of P%10,000.00 is a$a"ded to thei" hei"s. +his is inaddition to the a$a"d of #o"al da#a&es at an a&&"e&ate a#ount of P%10,000.00 fo" thei" e#otionaland #ental an&uish. =ith "espect to Noe#i, an inde#nit' of P/0,000.00 $ould be 7ust and p"ope".All ta:en, an a$a"d of P//0,000.00 is &"anted.

!ou" 245 #e#be"s of the Cou"t #aintain thei" position that RA *31), insofa" as it p"esc"ibes thedeath penalt', is unconstitutionalG neve"theless the' sub#it to the "ulin& of the Cou"t, b' a #a7o"it'vote, that the la$ is constitutional and that the death penalt' should be acco"din&l' i#posed.

=6ERE!RE, the assailed Decision of the t"ial cou"t findin& accused-appellants AIME CARP,SCAR IBA, =AR


38/109

>PUNN, J.:

E'e$itness identification is vital evidence and, in #ost cases, decisive of the success o" failu"e ofthe p"osecution.1Sub7ect of the Cou"t>s sc"utin' in the instant c"i#inal case is the c"edibilit' of achild>s alle&ed e'e$itness account on $hich the appellant>s conviction b' the t"ial cou"t $as solel'ancho"ed.

At a"ound th"ee o>cloc: in the ea"l' #o"nin& of Dece#be" %1, %))%, thi"t'-th"ee 'ea" old Cesa"icto"ia $as stabbed to death $hile sleepin& b' his seven-'ea" old son Ch"istophe" in a "ented#a:eshift "oo# in +ondo, Manila.

Appellant Ro#an Meneses $as cha"&ed $ith the #u"de" of Cesa" icto"ia, in an Info"#ation datedDece#be" *, %))%, $hich "eads8

+hat on o" about Dece#be" %1, %))%, in the Cit' of Manila, Philippines, thesaid accused, $ith evident p"e#editation and t"eache"', did then and the"e$illfull', unla$full' and feloniousl', $ith intent to :ill, attac:, assault and usepe"sonal violence upon one CESAR IC+RIA ' !ERNANDE, b' then and

the"e stabbin& the latte" $ith a fan :nife 2balison&5 on the diffe"ent pa"ts of hisbod', the"eb' inflictin& upon the said CESAR IC+RIA ' !ERNANDE#o"tal $ounds $hich $e"e the di"ect and i##ediate cause of his deathi##ediatel'.2

+he p"osecution p"esented the follo$in& $itnesses8 Ch"istophe" R. icto"ia, SP/ ai#e Mendoa,SP/ Edua"do ?onales and Medico-s "ented #a:eshift "oo# to sleep afte" he 2Ch"istophe"5 $as $hipped b' his b"othe".Ch"istophe">s othe" siblin&s lived else$he"e in +ondo and his #othe" $as livin& in ueon. 6e

fu"the" testified that he $as a$a:ened f"o# sleep and sa$ his fathe" bein& stabbed in the hea"t $itha 9veinte nueve.9 Afte" the assailant "an a$a', Ch"istophe" c"ied.

SP/ ai#e Mendoa, a police investi&ato" of the =este"n Police Dist"ict testified that on Dece#be"%1, %))%, a :a&a$ad of Ba"an&a' %/, one ), +ondo, Manila called the p"ecinct info"#in& hi# thatCesa" icto"ia $as found stabbed to death. =ith th"ee police#en, Mendoa i##ediatel' $ent to thec"i#e scene, a""ivin& the"e at a"ound th"ee o>cloc: in the #o"nin&. Mendoa desc"ibed the scene asa #a:eshift "oo# about th"ee b' five sua"e #ete"s. +he "oo# $as connected b' a divide" $ith adoo" to a house o$ned b' the Spouses A"diete, the victi#>s landlo"d. +he police#en sa$ the victi#>sbloodied bod', $ith seve"al stab $ounds, l'in& on a $ooden bed.

Mendoa testified that $hen he uestioned Ch"istophe", $ho $as then in the house, Ch"istophe"could not identif' no" desc"ibe the attac:e", but that the child said he could identif' hi# because he

:ne$ his face. n "e-di"ect e@a#ination ho$eve", Mendoa said that Ch"istophe" identified theassailant as appellant.

Mendoa and the police#en b"ou&ht Ch"istophe" to the p"ecinct $he"e his state#ent $as ta:en. *

Afte" the appellant $as a""ested and tu"ned ove" to the investi&ato"s on Dece#be" 3, %))%,Ch"istophe" $as a&ain b"ou&ht to the p"ecinct $he"e, du"in& a conf"ontation $ith appellant,Ch"istophe" identified appellant as the pe"son $ho stabbed his fathe". )
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt4


39/109

SP/ Edua"do C. ?onales testified that at about t$o o>cloc: in the #o"nin& of Dece#be" 1, %))%,he a""ested appellant. +he a""est $as based on the "epo"t of An&elina icto"ia, appellant>s $ife, $hoi#plicated appellant in the c"i#e. +he police#en found appellant at the place pointed to b' An&elina,$hich $as a flo$e" bo@ at the co"ne" of +uaon and Mithi St"eets. !"is:ed, appellant 'ielded abalison&. Afte" announcin& that the' $e"e police#en and that appellant $as bein& a""ested as thesuspect in the stabbin& of Cesa" icto"ia, ?onales and his co#panions b"ou&ht appellant to Police

Station No. . Appellant $as late" t"ansfe""ed to the 6o#icide Section.

n c"oss-e@a#ination, ?onales stated that he and his co#panions #e"el' 9invited9 appellant to &o$ith the# to the police station fo" investi&ation, but that at the police station, appellant ve"ball'ad#itted to stabbin& Cesa" icto"ia.5

Medico-s death.9

In this appeal, appellant assi&ns to the t"ial cou"t the follo$in& e""o"s8

I

+6E +RIA< CR+ ERRED IN N+ ?IIN? EC


40/109

II

+6E +RIA< CR+ ERRED IN CNIC+IN? APPE


41/109

A Because that po"tion, the"e $as a doo", the"e $as a doo" befo"e 'ou can &etinside.!ISCA< Ss testi#on' bein&i#p"obable, is not c"edible. Evidence is c"edible $hen it is 9such as the co##on e@pe"ience of#an:ind can app"ove as p"obable unde" the ci"cu#stances. =e have no test of the t"uth of

hu#an testi#on', e@cept its confo"#it' to ou" :no$led&e, obse"vation, and e@pe"ience.915

=e no$ conside" the identification itself. =e note a &la"in& disc"epanc', not inconseuential, in thetesti#on' of SP/ Mendoa "e&a"din& Ch"istophe">s identification of appellant. SP/ Mendoatestified thus8

=he"e $as the son of the victi# $hen 'ou a""ivedFA Inside the house, si".CR+8 Did 'ou tal:ed 20ic5 to the son of the victi#FA ;es, si". =hat did he tell 'ouFA :e told e he can ree-er the 0)0ect +henever he 0ee0 hi again.

+hen he can identif' hi#FA ;es, ;ou" 6ono".A++;. SARMIEN+8 So at the tie that yo) +ere there, the 0on of the victi +a0 not a-le to tell yo)+ho the 0)0ect +a0FA 9e0, 0ir.@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neithe" the $ife no" the husband "efe""in& to the spouses A"diete, no" the son tell'ou that the' sa$ the :illin&FA +he son of the victi# said that he can identified 20ic5 the suspect. Did 'ou as:ed 20ic5 hi# if he can identif'FA ;es, si".

And $hat did he tell 'ouFA 6e :no$s the face of the suspect. Did 'ou as: hi# the na#e of the suspect, if he :no$s hi# at that ti#eFA :e can?t tell the nae. Did he tell 'ou the desc"iption of the suspectFA :e can?t tell the de0crition of the 0)0ect -)t he in0i0t &0ic' that if he can 0ee hiagain, he can identify. 16
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/mar1998/gr_111742_1998.html#fnt16


42/109


43/109

c"i#es a"e neve" "epo"ted, fo" one "eason o" anothe". But once the victi# decides to#a:e a c"i#inal co#plaint, then he $ill al#ost inva"iabl' na#e o" desi&nate thepe"pet"ato" of the c"i#e i##ediatel', if he is able to do so. +he occasional failu"e of aco#plainant to do this is a dan&e" si&nal of $hich the cou"ts have so#eti#es ta:ennote.

In an Idaho p"osecution fo" "ape, fo" e@a#ple, the co#plainin& $itness identified thedefendant at the t"ial, but had not accused hi# $hen #a:in& he" o"i&inal co#plaint tothe police, even thou&h he $as p"eviousl' :no$n to he". As an e@planation, shetestified she had not "eco&nied hi# du"in& the co##ission of the c"i#e. +heensuin& conviction $as "eve"sed on the &"ound that the evidence of identification$as insufficient. In an lo$a p"osecution fo" assault $ith intent to co##it "ape, theco#plainant $as a 'oun& #a""ied $o#an $ho had :no$n the defendant p"io" to theco##ission of the alle&ed c"i#e. She identified hi# at the t"ial, but ad#itted that shehad not "eco&nied hi# du"in& the assault, fo" he had a veil cove"in& his face. It $asafte" he left, she testified that it ca#e to he" #ind that he assault, and on the sa#eda', she beca#e af"aid to sta' alone at ho#e $hile $aitin& fo" he" husband to "etu"n,and as:ed none othe" than the defendant to $ait $ith he" Q a cou"se of action that$hich $as co##ented upon b' the appellate cou"t $hich "eve"sed the conviction on&"ounds $hich included the insufficienc' of the evidence of identification.

In a Ne$ ;o": #u"de" p"osecution, the victi#>s $ido$ identified the defendant p"io" tohe" husband>s :ille"s. Althou&h she :ne$ the defendant p"io" to he" husband>s death,she ad#itted that she had not na#ed hi# to the police on the ni&ht of the c"i#e, andad#itted also that she had told the co"one" that she had neve" befo"e seen he"husband>s #u"de"e"s. A conviction fo" #u"de" in the fi"st de&"ee $as "eve"sedbecause the t"ial 7ud&e had failed to cha"&e the 7u"' that the' should conside" thosefacts in dete"#inin& the accu"ac' of the identification. And in a "ecent Ne$ ;o":"obbe"' p"osecution, it $as b"ou&ht out that the t$o $o#en $ho had identified thedefendant at the t"ial had not i##ediatel' na#ed hi# to the police, even thou&h the'had :no$n hi# p"eviousl', since he $as the son of an acuaintance of one of the#.

+he conviction $as "eve"

compiled cases in evidence

Documents