348 - People v. Kinok

PEOPLE
v. KINOK
November 13, 2001 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | AKGL | Burden of Proof > Relate to Burden of Evidence

CASE SUMMARY: During the trial of the criminal case against the accused, Luz and Ronel positively identified
that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime. Instead of establishing a defense (e.g., alibit) they merely
relied on the testimonies of their barriomates that Luz did not divulge the accused’s names to their
barriomates.
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the
commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the person
or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the
prosecution throughout the trial. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of
proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the information
or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making
it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima facie
case.
NATURE: APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court
FACTS:
• Julius Kinok and Tapante Saligan were charged with the murder of William Aguipo. During
arraignment, they both pleaded not guilty.
• During trial, Luz Aguipo (wife of victim) testified.
o At around 12:30 past midnight, she was awakened by a muffled gunburst. She immediately
got up, looked over the window and saw the two accused both holding guns which were
pointed at where her husband was later found dead. She was able to identify the two as the
moon and stars were shinning brightly and there was a pile of woods and bamboos which
were burning.
o Thereafter, she went back to lie down on her bed. She could not go back to sleep because she
was scared that the two would come back to strafe their house and kill them all.
o The following afternoon, they proceeded to the municipal hall of Kiblawan and subsequently
to the Gregoria Matas District Hospital for an autopsy of the cadaver.
o Luz had four policemen friends in Kiblawan who told her to reveal the identities of the
culprits. She told them that she would do-so at the proper time.
o After the burial, she went to the Kiblawan Police Station and executed a sworn statement to
support her complaint against the two accused.
• Ronel Mande (13-year old nephew of William and Luz) also testified.
o He was himself awakened by the noise coming from the horse and pigs. When he tried to
look at the place where the horse and pigs were, he saw the two accused both holding
firearms which were directed and poked at the walling of the store where William was
sleeping. As he was looking, he heard a muffled gunburst. Thereupon, he ducked and lay
down on the floor.
o Unable to sleep, Ronel noticed that his clothes were wet. Thinking that the children upstairs
had urinated, he went upstairs and woke his Aunt Luz complaining that he was wet with
urine. She found out that the blood came from William whose wounds were oozing with
blood.
o While Luz was crying, Ronel told her that he saw the persons who shot the victim. She
warned him not to tell any one because the accused might come back and retaliate against
them.
• Neither of the two accused took the witness stand. In their defense, only Alfredo Canacan and
Flaviana Solo testified.
o Alfredo Canacan, a resident and barangay councilman, testified that at 5am, he heard some
cries and being curious, he entered their house and there he saw the body of William Aguipo
lying on the floor wrapped by a blanket wet with blood. He noticed that when Luz saw the
forearm of her husband, she shouted, “giwakgiwak, gikitkit si William,” which means,
“William was eaten by the witch”.
o Flaviana Solo, brgy. Captain, corroborated Alfredo Canacan’s testimony.

[RTC] Ordered the accused Julius Kinok alias Yos Bla-an and Tapante Saligan alias Tapante Bla-an guilty of the
crime of murder as charged.

Accused’s arguments before SC
The TC erred in the following:
(1) In finding that the evidence for the prosecution has established the identity of the killers;
(2) In concluding that delay on the part of Luz Aguipo in naming the assailants did not weaken her
testimony;
(3) In holding that Ronel Mande, although the victim’s nephew, is a credible witness; and
(4) In convicting the appellants despite the fact that no ill motive on their part has been established by
the prosecution.

ISSUE: W/N the prosecution was able to positively identify that the accused were the perpetrators of the
crime? YES!

RULING:
1. Ronel Mande, prosecution witness, positively identified appellants. Likewise, Luz Aguipo positively
identified the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
• Instead of controverting the above testimonies and defending themselves, appellants merely chose to
remain silent. They relied solely on the testimonies of their barriomates who claimed that Luz Aguipo
and Ronel Mande did not inform them of the names of the perpetrators.

2. In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the
commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity
of the person or persons responsible therefor.
• This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the
trial.
• However, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting
evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the information or has
established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused
making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to
overthrow, that prima facie case.
• When the prosecution has already established a prima facie case, more so when the offense charged
is grave and sufficient enough to send the accused behind bars for life or may even warrant the
imposition of the supreme penalty of death, then in order to meet and destroy the effects of said
prima facie case and so as to shift the burden of producing further evidence to the prosecution, the
party making the denial must produce evidence tending to negate the blame asserted to such a point
that, if no more evidence is given, his adversary cannot win the case beyond reasonable doubt.
(People v. Resano)
As applied
• Appellants’ unexplainable silence, in the midst of the overwhelming evidence established by the
prosecution against them, leads to no other conclusion than that they are guilty as charged.

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed with modification.

348 - People v. Kinok

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

348 - People v. Kinok

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

348 - People v. Kinok

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE

You might also like