SOURCE: 2011-0047: BENJAMIN JESALVA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE PHILIPPINES S (G.R. NO. 1877251! JANUAR" 2011 NACHURA J.# SUBJECTS: HOMICI$E% CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVI$ENCE% CUSTO$IAN INVESTIGATION. (BRIEF TITLE: JESALVA VS. PEOPLE# &'''''''''''''''''''''''''''-& HAT IS CUSTO$IAL INVESTIGATION) C*+,/ /3+,/,/ 66+ , 9 *+,// //,/, ;9 < 6=>, /=6+ ,6 ?6+ @+ ; , /, =*+,9 6 ,@6 =,/ / 9 +///=, <9. HAT $OES CUSTO$IAL INVESTIGATION PRESUPPOSE) T@/+ ?6+*??++ ,@, @ /+ +*+?=, @3/ =>>/,, =6/> ,@, ,@ /3+,/,6 /+ ,69/ , /=/, /6>,/ 6 =++/ 6> @/>. HEN $OES THE RULE ON CUSTO$IAL INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION BEGIN TO APPL") APPL") T@ 6* ;/+ , ?6, , = + + + ,@ /3+,/,/ =++ , ; 6 /*/69 /, *+3 =6/> /6=,/ /+ /> *? ?6,/=*6 +*+?=, <@ @+ ; , /, =*+,9 , <@> ,@ ?/= <* ,@ /6=, /,66,69 *+,/+ <@/=@ , , /=/, /=6/>/,/ +,,>,+. SUPPOSE THE SUSPECT ENT TO THE POLICE STATION AN$ NARRATE$ EVENTS FREEL") IS HE CONSI$ERE$ UN$ER POLICE INVESTIGATION) N. T@ ++/ +,,>,+ @6/ <6 +?,*+9 > ;9 ?,/,/6 <6 , , /=/, ,@6*@ *+,//. I, < + +,;/+@ ,@, ?,/,/6 ,,@6 ,@ +,,>, ,@, L,/=/ *>? *, @/+ 3@/= , 6* 12:D0 .>. S?,>;6 ! 1!!2. T@ RTC ,@ CA / , ,@66 66 / @/ ,@, ,@ =+,/,*,/ ?6=*6 6 =*+,/ /3+,/,/ /+ , ??/=; / ,@ /+,, =+.
G.R. N. 187725
J*69 1! 2011
BENJAMIN JESALVA Petitioner, JESALVA Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES Respondent. Respondent. DECISION NACHURA J .: .:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 on Certiorari under Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Pro!edure, see"in# the reversal of the Court of $ppeals %C$& De!ision ' dated O!to(er 1), '**+, whi!h affired with odifi!ation the de!ision - of the Re#ional rial Court %RC& of Sorso#on, Sorso#on, dated Nove(er 1+, 1//), findin# petitioner Ben0ain esalva alias Ben Sa(aw4 %petitioner& #uilt2 (e2ond reasona(le dou(t of the !rie of 3oi!ide. The Facts
On Septe(er 11, 1//', the Chief of Poli!e of Sorso#on, Sorso#on, filed a !riinal !oplaint for rustrated 5urder a#ainst petitioner. our da2s thereafter, or on Septe(er 1, 1//', the !oplaint was aended, !har#in# petitioner with the !rie of 5urder, as the vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo 7 %6eti!ia& died on Septe(er 14, 1//'.) $fter !ondu!tin# a hearin# on the (ail appli!ation of petitioner, the 5uni!ipal rial Court %5C& of Sorso#on, Sorso#on, on De!e(er 1+, 1//', #ranted hi (ail. + On anuar2 11, 1//-, the 5C re!oended the filin# of 5urder a#ainst petitioner, and then ordered the transittal of the re!ords of the !ase to the Provin!ial Prose!utor of Sorso#on. / hus, petitioner was !har#ed with the !rie of 5urder in an Inforation 1* dated anuar2 '7, 1//-, whi!h reads8 hat on or a(out the /th da2 of Septe(er, 1//' in the 5uni!ipalit2 of Sorso#on, Provin!e of Sorso#on, Philippines, and within the 0urisdi!tion of this 3onora(le Court, the a(ove9naed a!!used, with intent to "ill, ta"in# advanta#e of superior stren#th, with trea!her2 and evident preeditation with the use of otor vehi!le a nd durin# ni#ht tie, did then and there :wilfull2;, unlawfull2 and feloniousl2 atta!", assault, anhandle and use personal violen!e upon :6eti!ia; $ldeo, infli!tin# upon the latter serious and ortal wounds whi!h dire!tl2 !aused her death shortl2 thereafter, to the daa#e and pre0udi!e of her le#al heirs. CONR$R< O 6$=. =hen arrai#ned on 5ar!h 1, 1 //-, petitioner entered a plea of not #uilt2 to the offense !har#ed.11 hereafter, trial on the erits ensued. In the !ourse of the trial, two var2in# versions arose. >ersion of the Prose!ution he testionies of the prose!ution witnesses are essentiall2 suari?ed (2 the Offi!e of the Soli!itor @eneral %OS@&, as follows8 In the evenin# of Septe(er +, 1//', witness @loria 3a(o!, to#ether with the vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo, Ben0ain esalva %petitioner&, Elo# A(aldo, 1' o 5ontales and Ro2 Paladin were at Nenas pla!e pla2in# ah0on#. $ !ertain 5rs. En!inas and $tt2. $li(anto were also there. $t a(out 1* o!lo!" that ni#ht, @lorias #roup left Nenas pla!e and (oarded the Isu?u panel of petitioner. =ith the e!eption of o 5ontales, the #roup pro!eeded to Bistro Christina to eat and drin". =hile @loria had softdrin", 6eti!ia dran" two %'& (ottles of (eer, and the rest !onsued (eer a nd :;undador until 118-* in the evenin#. $fter the2 ate and dran", the #roup, with the e!eption of Elo# A(aldo who fla##ed down a tri!2!le, on!e a#ain (oarded petitioners Isu?u panel as it was usuall2 petitioner who drove the hoe. he vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo was seated at the front seat. Petitioner dropped Ro2 Paladin at his house
first, followed (2 @loria, who resided soe '* eters awa2 fro 6eti!ias house. =hile at @ lorias house, petitioner wanted to drin" soe ore (ut @loria told hi to defer it until the net da2 (e!ause the stores were alread2 !losed. @loria then #ave 6eti!ia three %-& sti!"s of (ar(e!ue and a!!opanied her and petitioner at the #ate. $fter petitioner and 6eti!ia (oarded the Isu?u :panel;, the forer iediatel2 a!!elerated his !ar and went to the dire!tion of 7th Street instead of towards )th Street where 6eti!ias house was situated. $t a(out 1'8'* earl2 ornin# of Septe(er /, 1//', the #roup of SPO1 Ed#ardo 5endo?a %SPO1 5endo?a& of the Sorso#on PNP 5o(ile Patrol Se!tion !han!ed upon petitioners Isu?u :panel; in St. Rafael Su(division in :Our 6ad2s >illa#e; O6>, Pan#pan#, Sorso#on. he poli!e patrol tea approa!hed the vehi!le and SPO1 5endo?a fo!used a flashli#ht at the front portion of the vehi!le to !he!" what was #oin# on. here, SPO1 5endo?a saw petitioner who he "new sin!e !hildhood seated in front of the wheel so he !alled out his nae. Instead of heedin# his !all, however, petitioner did not respond, iediatel2 started the en#ine and sped awa2 toward Sorso#on town proper whi!h is dire!tl2 opposite his pla!e of residen!e whi!h is i!ol, Sorso#on, Sorso#on. $t a(out the sae tie that ni#ht, Noel Ol(es, a driver for the 5CS Sisters holdin# offi!e at the Bishops Copound in Sorso#on, Sorso#on, was also in O6> Pan#pan#. =hile he was wal"in# fro a !ertain 6eas house, he saw a woan na"ed fro the waist down and l2in# on her (ell2 on the hi#hwa2. 3er 0eans and :pant2; were (eside her. Be!ause it was rainin#, Ol(es pitied her so he !arried her and her thin#s to the shed soe 1* eters awa2. $s he was doin# so, a tri!2!le (ein# driven (2 Eduardo De >era fo!used its headli#ht in his dire!tion. De >era !alled out, =hat is that Be!ause he re!eived no response fro Noel Ol(es, he de!ided to (rin# his passen#er hoe first and 0ust !oe (a!" to !he!" the site later. 5eanwhile, upon rea!hin# the shed, Ol(es noti!ed that the woan was (leedin# that he even #ot stained with her (lood. $fraid that he i#ht (e ipli!ated, he hurriedl2 left the woan at 3a?elwood su!h that when De >era !ae (a!", he no lon#er found Ol(es. De >era then pro!eeded to the poli!e station to report the in!ident to :SPO1; Balaoro. De >era, SPO1 Balaoro and SPO1 Sin!ua eventuall2 returned to !o( the area (ut to no avail. On their wa2 (a!" at a(out 181 o!l o!" %si!& in the ornin#, the2 et 6t. Ca#uia tal"in# with Noel Ol(es. De >era lost no tie in identif2in# hi to (e the an he saw with the woan. $t this point, Ol(es aditted the alle#ation (ut professed inno!en!e. 3e aditted he left the woan in 3a?elwood where the poli!e found her. Eventuall2, Ol(es was investi#ated (2 the poli!e and was not released until the net da2. 3owever, (e!ause the eviden!e pointed to petitioner as the last person seen with the vi!ti, a sear!h for hi was !ondu!ted. 3e surrendered at one %1& o!lo!" in the afternoon a!!opanied (2 is!al ose a2ona, his first !ousin. 1he prose!ution hi#hli#hted that, per testion2 of @ loria 3a(o!, 6eti!ia dis!losed to her that petitioner was !ourtin# 6eti!ia. 3owever, 6eti!ia told petitioner that the2 should 0ust reain as friends (e!ause she was alread2 arried, and that she loved her handsoe hus(and. 14 5oreover, the prose!ution asseverated that, at around 1'8'* a.. of Septe(er /, 1//', whi le !ondu!tin# patrol in St. Rafael Su(division, 1 to#ether with other poli!e offi!ers, Senior Poli!e Offi!er 1 Ed#ardo 5endo?a %SPO1 5endo?a&, (2 usin# his flashli#ht, saw petitioner on (oard his vehi!le a lone. Apon si#ht, petitioner iediatel2 started his vehi!le and drove toward the town proper of Sorso#on, whi!h was dire!tl2 opposite his residen!e in i!ol, Sorso#on, disre#ardin# SPO1 5endo?as
!alls.17 6astl2, at a(out 18** p.. of Septe(er /, 1//', petitioner, to#ether with his first !ousin is!al ose a2ona %is!al a2ona&, went to the poli!e station, wherein he voluntaril2 intiated to SPO4 =illia Desder %SPO4 Desder& that 6eti!ia 0uped out of his vehi!le. 1) $t a(out 18'* p.. of Septe(er /, 1//', SPO' EnriFue Renoria, to#ether with other poli!e offi!ers, is!al a2ona, and petitioner inspe!ted the pla!e, whi!h petitioner identified as the pla!e where he and 6eti!ia sat. he2 found (loodstains thereat. 1+ $fter the prose!ution presented twelve %1'& witnesses, the defense oved for leave of !ourt to file deurrer to eviden!e. On e(ruar2 '1, 1 //4, the defense filed (efore the RC, Bran!h 1, its Deurrer to Eviden!e,1/ whi!h the RC, Bran!h 1, denied in its Order '* dated ul2 +, 1//4. On $u#ust 11, 1//4, the defense filed a 5otion '1 for Re!onsideration of the Order dated ul2 +, 1//4 and Inhi(ition of Presidin# ud#e, whi!h the prose!ution opposed. he Presidin# ud#e of the RC, Bran!h 1, voluntaril2 inhi(ited hiself fro ta"in# an2 further a!tion in the !aseG '' hen!e, the !ase was re9raffled to the RC, Bran!h '. $!tin# on the pendin# 5otion for Re!onsideration of the defense, the Presidin# ud#e of the RC, Bran!h ', denied the sae and set the re!eption of eviden!e of the defense. '>ersion of the Defense In his relativel2 short stint on the witness stand, petitioner denied that he "illed 6eti!ia. 3e testified that he did not have an2 reason to "ill her, and that he had an2 reasons wh2 he should not "ill her .'4 he prose!ution anifested that it would not !ondu!t a !ross9eaination on the person of petitioner as his testion2 was tantaount to pure denial. ' o prove that there was a (ro"en !hain of !ir!ustantial eviden!e, the d efense presented, as witness, Eduardo de >era. he C$ narrated8 1'. Eduardo de >era de!lared that on Septe(er /, 1//' at a(out 1'8-* a.., he was drivin# his tri!2!le en route to O6>, Pan#pan#, Sorso#onG upon rea!hin# the 0un!tion of the national road or hi#hwa2, he saw a an and a woan three eters fro the ed#e of the roadG he stopped his tri!2!le and fo!used the headli#ht of his tri!2!le towards the twoG he saw the woan leanin# on the left ar of the an while the an was on a sFuattin# positionG he as"ed the what is that and did not #et an2 responseG that the an was hidin# his fa!e and saw little (lood on the !lothes of the woanG he saw the woan with !lothes, a polo shirt and pantsG he de!ided to (rin# hoe his passen#er hoe %si!& first and then returned to the s!ene (ut found no one thereG he reported the atter to :SPO1; Balaoro, who iediatel2 a!!opanied hi to the p la!eG the2 sear!hed for the an and woan (ut the2 !ould not find theG the2 !he!"ed the Sorso#on Provin!ial 3ospital (ut no(od2 had (een (rou#ht thereG then the2 pro!eeded (a!" to the 0un!tion and later to the Sorso#on town properG upon rea!hin# Baran#a2 u#os, the2 saw :6t.; Ca#uia tal"in# with a an, who he %De >era& re!o#ni?ed as the an with the woanG :6t.; Ca#uia dire!ted the an to #o to Poli!e Su(9Station 1G at the poli!e Su(9Station 1, h e !ae to "now the nae of the an H Noel Ol(esG he saw (loodstains on Ol(es ars, hands, fa!e and noseG the poli!e interro#ated hi a(out it and he replied that he 0ust helped the woan. On !ross9eaination, he aditted that he has "nown :petitioner; for a lon#tieG and he has #ood relationship with hiG :petitioner; was his (ondsan in Criinal Case No. /9-/+/ for ille#al possession of firears and (e!ause of this, he is inde(ted to hi and he thus wants to repa2 his #ratitude to :petitioner;G :petitioner; reFuested hi to (e a witness in the !ase. '7
Relative to the su(seFuent events, the C$ suari?ed the testionies of SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro and Noel Ol(es %Ol(es&, as follows8 7. SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro essa2ed that at ar ound 18** a.. of Septe(er /, 1//', Eduardo De >era reported to hi at the Poli!e Su(9Station 1 that he saw a an, who was in sFuattin# position, and a woan, who had (lood on the upper ri#ht (reast of her !lothes, lean:in#; a#ainst the an and that after De >era (rou#ht his tri!2!le passen#er hoe, he returned to the site (ut he !ould not find the two an2oreG upon re!eivin# the report, he %SPO1 Balaoro&, to#ether with SPO1 Sin!ua and De >era, pro!eeded to the diversion road, at the 0un!tion #oin# to the hospital and Pan#pan#, Sorso#on, Sorso#on to investi#ateG the2 sear!hed the pla!e and went to the hospital (ut found nothin#G on their wa2 (a!", at around 181 :a..; the2 saw Noel Ol(es tal"in# with 6t. Ca#uia at Baran#a2 u#osG De >era pointed to Ol(es as the an he saw with the woan at the !rossin# so the2 (rou#ht hi to Poli!e Su(9Station 1 for investi#ationG Ol(es told the that he saw the woan l2in# on the side of the road so he tried to lift her up (ut when he saw the tri!2!le %De >eras& he (e!ae afraid as he i#ht (e ipli!ated in the !rie so he (rou#ht her to 3a?elwood, whi!h is five eters awa2 fro the hi#hwa2G at '8' a.. the patrol tea found 6eti!ia $ldeo, who the2 found na"ed fro the waist downG at the #ara#e o f 3a?elwoodG the2 found the lon# pants of the vi!ti l2in# (eside her and noted that her pant2 was still on one of her "neesG the vi!tis (od2 appeared to have (een laid downG the2 did not find an2 (lood in the #ara#e e!ept where the vi!tis (od2 was found outside the #ara#e, the2 saw the other pair of shoes of a woan and thi!" (loodstainsG he %SPO1 Balaoro& (rou#ht Ol(es to Balo#o station and entrusted hi to their investi#ator. ). Noel Ol(es testified that he is a driver for the 5CS Sisters who are holdin# offi!e at the Bishops Copound in Sorso#on, Sorso#onG that on Septe(er +, 1//), h e went out with his friends Dann2, O!a and El2 in $lendras to drin" a (ottle of #inG at around 78-* p.. he went to downtown Sorso#on and roaed around until 1*8-* p..G then he went to Baha2 ainan and at a(out 118** or 118-* p.., he went to Pena ast ood and too" a (ottle of (eerG upon the invitation of 6ea, he went inside Pena and dran" another (ottle of (eerG he (rou#ht 6ea to her hoe at O6>, Pan#pan#, Sorso#on, Sorso#onG fro 6eas house, he wal"ed and upon rea!hin# the 0un!tion of O6>, he saw a woan l2in# on her (ell2 na"ed fro the waist downG the woan was 0ust utterin# #uttural soundG her 0eans and pant2 were 0ust l2in# (eside herG ta"in# pit2 on the woan and sin!e it was rainin# that ni#ht, he !arried the woan to a near(2 shed in order that she would not (e run over (2 otor vehi!lesG he also too" the pant2 and the 0eans to the shedG he noti!ed that a tri!2!le stopped for a while and fo!used its headli#ht on the and pro!eeded on its wa2G when he laid down the woan in the shed, he noti!ed that she was (leedin# and he was stained with her (loodG after seein# the (lood, he #ot s!ared and leftG he wal"ed towards the Sorso#on town proper and after a(out fort29five inutes, two poli!e:e;n apprehended hi and (rou#ht hi to the poli!e station for investi#ationG while (ein# investi#ated, he was no t apprised of his !onstitutional ri#hts and ade to si#n the poli!e (lotterG he was detained as he was a suspe!t for the in0uries of the vi!tiG after ) or + hours, he was releasedG and he ee!uted a Sworn Stateent and affired its !ontents. ') Dr. $ntonio Dioneda, r .'+ and Dr. =ilhelino $(rantes %Dr. $(rantes& testified on the in0uries suffered (2 6eti!ia, whi!h eventuall2 !aused her death8
/. Dr. $ntonio Dionedas testified that he en!ountered on Septe(er /, 1//' a patient (2 the nae of 6eti!ia $ldeo, who was in !oatose stateG she sustained the followin# in0uries %1& severe !ere(ral !ontusionG %'& '. ! pun!tured wound, o!!ipital area %-& . ! pun!tured wound, parietal left area:G; %4& ultiple !ontusion heatoa antero lateral aspe!t deltoid left area:G; %& !ontusion heatoa -rd upper left arG %7& !ontusion heatoa left el(ow:G; %)& a(rasion left el(ow:G; %+& heatoa, -rd left thi#h:G; %/& a(rasion ri#ht "nee:G; %1*& ultiple !onfluent a(rasion ri#ht foot:G; %11& !ontusion heatoa ri#ht hand:G; %1'& a(rasion ri#ht el(ow:G; %1-& !ontusion heatoa ri#ht el(ow:G; and %14& s"ull9se#ented fra!ture parietal (one with separation. 3e eplained that the pun!tured wound in the o!!ipital area %lower (a!" of the s"ull& was !aused (2 a pe((le whi!h the2 re!overed fro said areaG the pun!tured wound on the parietal left area was !aused (2 a sharp o(0e!t and a2 have (een se!ondar2 to a fall on a rou#h surfa!eG the first three findin#s !ould also have (een !aused (2 the pun!h ade (2 the perpetratorG the fourth findin# !ould have ( een !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or a pun!h or a stron# #ripG the fifth and the sith findin#s !ould have (een !aused also (2 soe of the a(ove9entioned eansG the ei#hth findin# !ould have (een !aused (2 a fall or ru((in# on a hard o(0e!tG the ninth findin# !ould have (een !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or a fist (low while the tenth findin# !ould have (een !aused (2 a fall on a rou#h o(0e!t and the "nee ru((in# on a rou#h o(0e!tG the eleventh findin# !ould have (een due to a fall or (2 (ein# dra##edG the twelfth findin# !ould (e !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or (2 a fall or (2 fist (low and the thirteenth findin# !ould also (e !aused (2 a fall or fist (low. 3e stated :that; the vi!ti died despite the o peration he perfored on her. 14. Dr. =ilhelino $(rantes H 3e eplained the different "inds of in0uries sustained (2 the vi!ti. In addition, he stated that sin!e there were wounds sustained (2 the vi!ti in the dorsu part of the foot and sustained i n0uries on (oth "nees, upper portion of the (a!" of the hand, the vi!ti !ould have (een thrown off while un!ons!ious. '/ he RCs Rulin# On Nove(er 1+, 1//), the RC ruled in favor of the prose!ution, findin# petitioner #uilt2 (e2ond reasona(le dou(t (ased on !ir!ustantial eviden!e, not of the !rie of 5urder, (ut of 3oi!ide. he RC ratio!inated that, in the a(sen!e of an2 dire!t eviden!e or testionies of e2ewitnesses, trea!her2 was not esta(lished, and that evident preeditation and a(use of superior stren#th were not dul2 proven. hus, the RC disposed of the !ase in this wise8 =3EREORE, preises !onsidered, the Court finds the a!!used Ben0ain esalva alias Ben Sa(aw #uilt2 (e2ond reasona(le dou(t of the !rie of 3oi!ide penali?ed under $rt. '4/ of the Revised Penal Code and !onsiderin# that there was no a##ravatin# nor iti#atin# !ir!ustan!es attendant thereto and ta"in# into !onsideration the Indeterinate Senten!e 6aw, the !ourt here(2 senten!es the a!!used to suffer the indeterinate penalt2 of ei#ht %+& 2ears and one %1& da2 of prision a2or as iniu to twelve %1'& 2ears and one %1& da2 of re!lusion teporal as aiu and to pa2 death indenit2 of the su of P*,***.** to the le#al heirs of the vi!ti, plus P 4',).4 for !opensator2 daa#es plus P*,***.** (2 wa2 of oral daa#es and P1*,***.** as attorne2s fees %People v. $#uilu?, 5ar!h 11, 1//'&.
SO ORDERED.-* $##rieved, petitioner appealed to the C$.-1 he C$s Rulin# On O!to(er 1), '**+, the C$ pertinentl2 held, aon# others, that petitioner !ould not point to Ol(es as the !ulprit (e!ause, when Eduardo de >era saw the forer holdin# on to 6eti!ia in a sFuattin# position, Ol(es was in the a!t of liftin# her in order to (rin# her to the near(2 shed. he C$ opined that, if an2 isdeed or oission !ould (e attri(uted to Ol(es, it was his failure to (rin# 6eti!ia to a near(2 hospital, (e!ause his fear of (ein# ipli!ated in the !rie !louded his (etter 0ud#ent. hus8 $ll told, =e find that the prose!utions eviden!e suffi!e to sustain the a!!used9appellants !onvi!tion for hoi!ide. $s to the award of attorne2s fees, =e find the award of P1*,***.** (2 the trial !ourt eritorious, the re!ords reveal that servi!es of private prose!utor was en#a#ed. Ander $rti!le '4/ of the Revised Penal Code, hoi!ide is p unisha(le (2 re!lusion teporal. =ith the attendant iti#atin# !ir!ustan!e of voluntar2 surrender of a!!used9appellant, the penalt2 re!lusion teporal is iposed in its iniu period. $!!ordin#l2, a!!used9appellant Ben0ain . esalva should suffer the indeterinate penalt2 of =E6>E %1'&
E %1'& ICIN@ PEIIONER O 3E CRI5E O 3O5ICIDE B$SED ON PARE6< CIRCA5S$NI$6 E>IDENCE =ERE BO3 NO IN $CCORD =I3 ES$B6IS3ED ARISPRADENCE REKAIRIN@ 3$ SAC3 BE $CED =I3 C$AION $ND 3$ $66 3E ESSENI$6 $CS 5AS BE CONSISEN =I3 3E 3ESI@$ION DESPIE
SAICIEN E>IDENCE ON RECORD 3$ 3E =OA6D 3$>E BEEN DE$INED B< 3E PO6ICE 3$D 3IS ISC$69CO5P$NION NO :$EN; 3I5 ANDER 3IS CASOD<.- Petitioner ar#ues that no eviden!e was ever introdu!ed as to how, when, and where 6eti!ia sustained her in0uries. No witness ever testified as to who was responsi(le for her in0uries. 3e refutes the prose!utions !ontention that, even if he too" the 7th Street, the sae !ould still lead to the )th Street, where 6eti!ias house is lo!ated. Petitioner stresses that Ol(es should have (een !onsidered as a suspe!t in this !ase, !onsiderin# that he was the last person seen with 6eti!ia when she was still alive. 3e avers that the stateents he ade at the poli!e station are not adissi(le in eviden!e, !onsiderin# that he was, te!hni!all2, under !ustodial investi#ation, and that there was no waiver of his ri#ht to reain silent. -7 5oreover, petitioner alle#es that the fatal in0uries sustained (2 6eti!ia, per the testion2 of Dr. $(rantes, are !onsistent with a fall, there(2 su##estin# petitioners inno!en!e. Petitioner !lais that the eviden!e shows that there was ore (lood in 3a?elwood than in the pla!e where Ol(es spotted 6eti!ia, there(2 su##estin# that soethin# worse than her 0upin# out of the vehi!le i#ht have happened. -) On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, throu#h the OS@, ar#ues that onl2 Fuestions of law a2 (e entertained ( 2 this Court, and that we a!!ord #reat respe!t to fa!tual findin#s of the trial !ourt espe!iall2 when affired (2 the C$. he OS@ insists that the C$, affirin# the RCs rulin#, did not err in !onvi!tin# petitioner on the (asis of !ir!ustantial eviden!e, (e!ause the parti!ular !ir!ustan!es enuerated (2 (oth the RC and the C$ satisfa!toril2 eet the reFuireents of the rules and of 0 urispruden!e for !onvi!tion. 5oreover, the OS@ !lais that the stateents ade (2 petitioner (efore SPO4 Desder, in the presen!e of is!al a2ona, were voluntaril2 #iven and were not el i!ited on !ustodial investi#ation. 6astl2, the OS@ !ounters that petitioner was not deprived of his ri#hts sin!e he was never held for Fuestionin# (2 an2 poli!e offi!er upon arrivin# at the poli!e station and, (esides, he was a!!opanied (2 his first !ousin, is!al a2ona.-+ Our Rulin# he Petition is (ereft of erit. Custodial investi#ation refers to an2 Fuestionin# initiated (2 law enfor!eent offi!ers after a person has (een ta"en into !ustod2 or otherwise deprived of his freedo of a!tion in an2 si#nifi!ant wa2. his presupposes that he is suspe!ted of havin# !oitted a !rie and that the i nvesti#ator is tr2in# to eli!it inforation or a !onfession fro hi . -/ he rule (e#ins to operate at on!e, as soon as the investi#ation !eases to (e a #eneral inFuir2 into an unsolved !rie, and dire!tion is aied upon a parti!ular suspe!t who has (een ta"en into !ustod2 and to who the poli!e would then dire!t interro#ator2 Fuestions whi!h tend to eli!it in!riinatin# stateents. 4* he assailed stateents herein were spontaneousl2 ade (2 petitioner a nd were not at all eli!ited throu#h Fuestionin#. It was esta(lished that petitioner, to#ether with his !ousin is!al a2ona, personall2 went to the poli!e station and voluntaril2 ade the stateent that 6eti!ia 0uped out of his vehi!le at around 1'8-* a.. of Septe(er /, 1//'. 41he RC and the C$ did not, therefore, err in holdin# that the !onstitutional pro!edure for !ustodial investi#ation is not appli!a(le in the instant !ase. Be that as it a2, even without these stateents, petitioner !ould still (e !onvi!ted of the !rie of 3oi!ide. he prose!ution esta(lished his !opli!it2 in the !rie throu#h !ir!ustantial eviden!e, whi!h were !redi(le and suffi!ient, and whi!h le d to the ines!apa(le !on!lusion that petitioner
!oitted the said !rie. Indeed, when !onsidered in their totalit2, the !ir!ustan!es point to petitioner as the !ulprit. Dire!t eviden!e of the !oission of the !rie !har#ed is not the onl2 atri wherefro a !ourt a2 draw its !on!lusions and findin#s of #uilt. here are instan!es when, althou#h a witness a2 not have a!tuall2 witnessed the !oission of a !rie, he a2 still (e a(le to positivel2 identif2 a suspe!t or a!!used as the perpetrator of a !rie as when, for instan!e, the latter is the person last seen with the vi!ti iediatel2 (efore and ri#ht after the !oission of the !rie. his is the t2pe of positive identifi!ation, whi!h fors part of !ir!ustantial eviden!e. In the a(sen!e of dire!t eviden!e, the prose!ution a2 resort to addu!in# !ir!ustantial eviden!e to dis!har#e its (urden. Cries are usuall2 !oitted in se!ret and under !ondition where !on!ealent is hi#hl2 pro(a(le. If dire!t eviden!e is insisted upon under all !ir!ustan!es, the #uilt of vi!ious felons who !oitted heinous !ries in se!ret or in se!luded pla!es will (e hard, if not well9ni#h ipossi(le, to prove. 4' hus, there !an (e a verdi!t of !onvi!tion (ased on !ir!ustantial eviden!e when the !ir!ustan!es proved for an un(ro"en !hain whi!h leads to a fair and reasona(le !on!lusion pinpointin# the a!!used, to the e!lusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of the !rie. 3owever, in order that !ir!ustantial eviden!e a2 (e suffi!ient to !onvi!t, the sae ust !opl2 with these essential reFuisites, vi?.8 %a& there is ore than one !ir!ustan!eG %(& the fa!ts fro whi!h the inferen!es are derived are provenG and %!& the !o(ination of all the !ir!ustan!es is su!h as to produ!e a !onvi!tion (e2ond reasona(le dou(t. 4=e a!!ord respe!t to the followin# findin#s of the C$, affirin# those of the RC8 $fter a thorou#h review of the re!ords of the !ase, =e find that the !ir!ustantial eviden!e proved (2 the prose!ution, when viewed in its entiret2, points unerrin#l2 to :petitioner; Ben0ain esalva as the person responsi(le for the death of the vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo. rul2, the followin# !o(ination of the !ir!ustan!es whi!h !oprised su!h eviden!e fors an un(ro"en !hain that points to :petitioner; and no other, as the perpetrator of the !rie, to wit8 1. :Petitioner; Ben0ain esalva %who was previousl2 !ourtin# the vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo, and who the latter advised to stop as she was alread2 arried& to#ether with @loria 3a(o!, and si other individuals left Nena $(les house at 1* p.. of Septe(er +, 1//' after pla2in# ah0on# thereat. he2 rode in :petitioners; red panel. '. Ben0ain esalva, 6eti!ia $ldeo, @loria 3a(o! and two others pro!eeded to Bistro Christina. :Petitioner;, to#ether with other two ale !opanions, !onsued one (ottle of undador, in addition to the three (ottles of (eer. $t 118-* p.., the #roup left the pla!e. -. $fter droppin# one ale !opanion at his house, Ben0ain esalva, to#ether with 6eti!ia $ldeo, pro!eeded to (rin# @loria 3a(o! to her hoe, whi!h was onl2 twent2 eters awa2 fro 6eti!ias residen!e. 4. $fter sta2in# at @loria 3a(o!s house for five inutes, and denied another drin", Ben0ain esalva iediatel2 a!!elerated his vehi!le en route to 7th Street instead of the shorter and dire!t route, the )th street, where 6eti!ia $ldeos house is lo!atedG . 6eti!ia $ldeo never rea!hed hoe as testified (2 her hus(and Efren $ldeoG
7. $t around 1'8'* a.. of Septe(er /, 1//', the poli!e patrollin# the St. Ra:f;ael Su(division saw the red panel thereat and when the2 approa!hed and (eaed a flashli#ht, the2 saw Ben0ain esalva (ehind the wheel, who suddenl2 drove awa2 in the dire!tion of Sorso#on town proper, opposite to where he lives. SPO1 Eduardo 5endo?a told Ben0ain esalva %who he had "nown sin!e his teen9a#e 2ears& to stop (ut the latter did not respond or heed his !allG ). $t 1'8-* o!lo!" %si!& of even date, Noel Ol(es saw the (od2 of 6eti!ia $ldeo sprawled on her (ell2 at the !rossin#L0un!tion of O6>, Pan#pan# Sorso#on, Sorso#on, na"ed fro the waist down. 3e lifted her up and (rou#ht the (od2 at 3a?elwood, whi!h is a(out 1* eters awa2 fro the hi#hwa2. +. he poli!e found the (od2 of the vi!ti at 3a?elwood at around '81 a.. of the sae da2, and (rou#ht her to the Sorso#on Provin!ial 3ospital in !oatose !ondition. /. he poli!e pro!eeded to infor the vi!tis sister, who in turn infored the vi!tis hus(and of the in!ident. 1*. In the ornin# of Septe(er /, 1//', the poli!e loo"ed for Ben0ain esalva to invite hi at the poli!e station (ut was not a(le to find hi. 11. $t around 18** o!lo!" p.. of Septe(er /, 1//', Ben0ain esalva, to#ether with his first !ousin, $sst. Prose!utor ose a2ona, presented hiself at the PNP Sorso#on, Sorso#on headFuarters, where he voluntaril2 stated that the vi!ti 6eti!ia $ldeo was his passen#er in his vehi!le at a(out 1'8-* in the earl2 ornin# of Septe(er /, 1//' at St. Rafael Su(division (ut upon rea!hin# the !rossin# of O6>, Pan#pan#, Sorso#on, Sorso#on near the Provin!ial 3ospital, she 0uped o ut of his vehi!le. hese de!larations were re!orded in the poli!e (lotter (2 PO1 EnriFue :Renoria; upon the instru!tion of SPO4 =illia Desder, the PNP Sorso#on Chief Investi#ator. 1'. $t a(out 18-* p.. of the sae da2, a poli!e tea, to#ether with :petitioner; and $sst. Prose!utor a2ona, went to St. Ra:f;ael Su(division to !ondu!t an o!ular inspe!tion. :Petitioner; pointed to the poli!e the pla!e where he and the vi!ti spent their tie. he poli!e photo#raphed what appear:ed; to (e (loodstains 0ust two eters awa2 fro the pla!e pointed (2 :petitioner;. 1-. Dr. $ntonio Dioneda testified that the pun!tured wound i n the o!!ipital area was !aused (2 a pe((le whi!h he re!overed fro said areaG the pun!tured wound in the parietal left area was !aused (2 a sharp o(0e!t and a2 have (een se!ondar2 to a fall on a rou#h surfa!e, the !ere(ral !ontusion, the pun!tured wound in the o!!ipital and in the parietal area !ould also (e !aused (2 a pun!h (2 the perpetrator. $s to the ultiple !ontusion heatoa anterior lateral aspe!t of the deltoid left area was !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or a pun!h or a stron# #ripG the !ontusion heatoa on the upper left ar and left el(ow !ould as well (e siilarl2 !aused (2 a (lunt i nstruent or a pun!h or a stron# #rip. $s to the a(rasion on the ri#ht "nee, the sae !ould have (een !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or a fist (low. he ultiple !onfluent a(rasion:s; on the ri#ht foot !ould have (een !aused (2 a fall on a rou#h o(0e!t. he a(rasions on the ri#ht el(ow !ould have (een !aused (2 a (lunt instruent or (2 a fall or (2 a fist (low. he sae is true with the !ontusion heatoa found on the vi!tis ri#ht el(ow.44
Petitioners ere denial !annot outwei#h the !ir!ustantial eviden!e !learl2 esta(lishin# his !ulpa(ilit2 in the !rie !har#ed. It is well9settled that the positive de!larations of a prose!ution witness prevail over the (are denials of an a!!used. he eviden!e for the prose!ution was found (2 (oth the RC and the C$ to (e suffi!ient and !redi(le, while p etitioners defense of denial was wea", self9servin#, spe!ulative, and un!orro(orated. Petitioners silen!e as to the atters that o!!urred durin# the tie he was alone with 6eti!ia is deafenin#. $n a!!used !an onl2 (e eonerated if the prose!ution fails to eet the Fuantu of proof re Fuired to over!oe the !onstitutional presuption of inno!en!e. =e find that the prose!ution has et this Fuantu of proof in this !ase. 4 $ll told, we find no reversi(le error in the assailed C$ de!ision whi!h would warrant the odifi!ation u!h less the reversal thereof. =3EREORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court of $ppeals De!ision dated O!to(er 1), '* *+ in [email protected]. CR No. ''1'7, affirin# with odifi!ation the de!ision of the Re#ional rial Court, Bran!h ', Sorso#on, Sorso#on, in Criinal Case No. -'4-, is here(2 $IR5ED. Costs a#ainst petitioner. SO ORDERED.
