G.R. No.

179535               June 9, 2014 whereabouts are still unknown, said Sotero Paredes having been earlier
charged with the same offense, and is now undergoing trial before Branch 90,
JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a. DANILO ESPINELI, Petitioner, of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, then armed with firearms, conspiring,
vs. confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Respondent. treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and
RESOLUTION shoot one Alberto Berbon y Downie with the use of said firearms, thereby
inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds on his head and different
parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
prejudice of the heirs of said Alberto Berbon y Downie. CONTRARY TO LAW.10
Jurisprudence teaches us that "for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to
Petitioner was arrested on July 1, 1997 and when arraigned on July 7, 1997
support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other,
with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.11
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent x x x."1 Thus, conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the The facts show that in the early evening of December 15, 1996, Alberto Berbon
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and y Downie (Alberto), a 49-year old Senior Desk Coordinator of the radio station
reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, DZMM, was shot in the head and different parts of the body in front of his
as the guilty person.2 house in Imus, Cavite by unidentified malefactors who immediately fled the
crime scene on board a waiting car.
Assailed in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari 3 is the July 6, 2007
Decision4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02252 which Meanwhile, the group of Atty. Orly Dizon (Atty. Dizon) of the National Bureau of
modified the August 31, 1999 Decision5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Investigation (NBI) arrested and took into custody one Romeo Reyes (Reyes)
Imus, Cavite, Branch 90, by finding petitioner Jose Espineli a.k.a. Danilo for the crime of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon. Reyes confided to the
"Danny" Espineli (petitioner) guilty of the crime of homicide instead of murder. group of Atty. Dizon that he was willing to give vital information regarding the
Berbon case. In due course, NBI Agent Dave Segunial(NBI Agent Segunial)
interviewed Reyes on February 10, 1997 and reduced his statement into writing
Also questioned is the CA’s September 14, 2007 Resolution 6 denying
whereby Reyes claimed that on December 15, 1996, he saw petitioner and
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.7
Sotero Paredes (Paredes) board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber
firearm and armalite, respectively; and that petitioner told Paredes that "ayaw
Factual Antecedents ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon."12 Subsequently, Reyes posted
bail and was released on February 14, 1997. Thenceforth, he jumped bail and
On June 24, 1997, an Information 8 charging petitioner with the crime of murder was never again heard of. NBI Agent Segunial testified on these facts during
was filed before the RTC,9 the accusatory portion of which reads as follows: the trial.

That on or about the 15th day of December, 1996 in the Municipality of Imus, The victim’s widow, Sabina Berbon (Sabina) likewise testified. According to
Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable her, sometime in the third week of February 1997 Reyes sought financial help
Court, the above-named accused, together with one (1) Sotero Paredes and so he could transfer his family to the province and protect them from any
three (3) other unidentified persons, whose real names, identities and untoward consequence that may result from his giving information to the NBI
regarding the death of Sabina’s husband. Sabina gave him the total amount of Furthermore, considering that he is a high risk prisoner, his transfer to the
₱1,500.00 and promised to help him in applying for the witness protection National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, is immediately ordered.
program. This was affirmed on the witness stand by Sabina’s brother,
Bartolome Pakingan. After that, however, Reyes never came back. SO ORDERED.15

Another prosecution witness, Rodolfo Dayao (Rodolfo), testified that he sold his Petitioner seasonably appealed his conviction before this Court. Pursuant,
red Ford Escort car to three persons who came to his residence in the however, to the Court’s pronouncement in People v. Mateo, 16 the case was
afternoon of September 1, 1996. He later identified the said car from the ordered transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition through a
photographs presented to him by the police officers. Resolution17 dated March 22, 2006.

Dr. Ludivino J. Lagat (Dr. Lagat), the NBI Medico-Legal Officer who conducted Ruling of the Court of Appeals
a post-mortem examination on Alberto, declared in his Autopsy Report that the
victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds in the head and body. He also stated In its Decision18 promulgated on July 6, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification
that based on the size of the gunshot wounds or entrance, high-powered guns the findings of the trial court. It ratiocinated that since none of the prosecution
were used in the killing. witnesses saw how the killing of the victim was perpetrated, the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated. Neither can
Petitioner, on the other hand, did not adduce evidence for his defense. Instead, nighttime serve as an aggravating circumstance as the time of the commission
he filed a Demurrer to Evidence13 without leave of court. As no action of the crime was not even alleged in the Information. In view thereof, the CA
whatsoever was taken thereon by the trial court, petitioner just moved that the found petitioner guilty only of homicide instead of murder. The decretal portion
case be deemed submitted for decision. of the appellate court’s Decision reads:

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. The appealed Decision dated August 31, 1999 of the Regional
In its Decision14 dated August 31, 1999, the trial court adjudged petitioner guilty Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 90 is hereby AFFIRMED with
of murder, thus: MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is hereby sentenced to an
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a. DANILO indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
"Danny" ESPINELI, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
crime of "Murder" as charged. He is, therefore, sentenced to suffer the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Alberto In all other respects, the said decision STANDS.
Berbon y Downie, the civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00, and actual and
compensatory damages in the total amount of ₱135,000.00 as funeral In the service of his sentence, accused-appellant shall be credited in full with
expenses (Exhibit "H"), interment fee of ₱8,360.00 (Exhibit "C"), medical the period of his preventive imprisonment.
expenses in the total amount of ₱1,519.45 (Exhibit[s] "D", "D-1" and "D-2") and
for the contract fees of Memorial Park Care the amount of ₱15,700.00 (Exhibit With costs against the accused-appellant.
"E").
SO ORDERED.19
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration20 which the CA denied acquittal.26 It is also of the view that the prosecution failed to discharge its
in its Resolution21 dated September 14, 2007. burden of proving petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, this Petition. The Court’s Ruling

Arguments of the Parties The Petition is devoid of merit.

Petitioner posits that the CA should not have affirmed the Decision of RTC as Truly, "direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from
the latter erred: which a court may draw its finding of guilt." 27 The rules of evidence allow a trial
court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
1. x x x [in admitting, considering and giving] probative value to Exhibit Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a fact in issue
"A", the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" of [Reyes] because [he] was not through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
presented in court to confirm, affirm and authenticate the contents of established."28 Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial
his sworn statement. It resulted in the denial of petitioner’s evidence would be sufficient to convict the offender "if i)there is more than one
constitutional right to confront and cross-examine his accusers.22 circumstance; ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven; and
iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
2. x x x [in convicting] the [petitioner] based on unproven, inadmissible beyond reasonable doubt."29 All the circumstances must be consistent with one
circumstantial evidence.23 another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the
3. x x x in not acquitting the petitioner for failure of the prosecution to
circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
prove [his guilt] beyond reasonable doubt x x x.24
reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others
as the guilty person.30
In sum, petitioner anchors his quest for the reversal of his conviction on the
alleged erroneous admission in evidence of the Sinumpaang Salaysay25 of
In this case, the circumstances found by the CA as forming an unbroken chain
Reyes for being hearsay and inadmissible. He avers that the said sworn
leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that petitioner, to the exclusion of
statement should not have been given probative value because its contents
all others, is the guilty person are the following:
were neither confirmed nor authenticated by the affiant. Thus, all
circumstances emanating from or included in the sworn statement must be
totally brushed aside as lacking any evidentiary and probative value. Petitioner 1. In the morning of December 15,1996, petitioner was heard telling his
emphasizes that as found by the courts below, there was no direct evidence co-accused Sotero Paredes (Sotero) "ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng
linking him to the crime; therefore, he wants this Court to review the sufficiency bukas yang si Berbon" before boarding a red car. Sotero was holding
of the circumstantial evidence upon which his conviction was based as he an armalite rifle while petitioner was armed with a .45 caliber pistol;
believes that the same failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The said red car was identified or recognized by prosecution witness
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing respondent Rodolfo to be the same car he had sold to Sotero for ₱10,000.00 in
People of the Philippines, concurs with the petitioner and recommends his September 1996;
 3. The victim Alberto was fatally shot later in the day (December 15, Petitioner takes vigorous exception to the said findings, insisting that the said
1996) by unidentified gunmen who thereafter immediately fled riding a sworn statement belongs to the category of hearsay evidence and therefore
red car; and inadmissible. He asserts that its contents were never confirmed or
authenticated by Reyes, thus, it lacks probative value.
4. Post-mortem examination of the victim’s body showed that he
sustained multiple gunshot wounds, the nature, severity and The Court is unconvinced.
characteristics of which indicate that they were inflicted using high-
powered guns, possibly anarmalite rifle and .22 caliber pistol.31 The hearsay evidence rule as provided under Section 36, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court states:
The records reveal that there was no eyewitness to the actual killing of Alberto.
Thus the courts below were forced to render their verdict of conviction on Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
circumstantial evidence as sanctioned under Section 4, Rule 13332 of the Rules excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
of Court. The central issue now confronting this Court is whether the personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except
prosecution has amply proved by circumstantial evidence petitioner’s guilt as otherwise provided in these rules.
beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals sufficiently competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it
support petitioner’s conviction. is sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the
The Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence presented in this case in the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is
light of the standards discussed above and finds the foregoing circumstantial otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to
evidence sufficient to support a judgment of conviction. Several reasons establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made.
deserve our acceptance of the circumstances upon which petitioner’s Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the
conviction was based, to wit: fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and
the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of
First, NBI Agent Segunial testified that he had investigated Reyes and reduced the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
the latter’s statement into writing declaring, among others, that in the morning constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
of December 15, 1996, he (Reyes) overheard petitioner telling Sotero "Ayaw ko such a fact.34 This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant
nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon" and saw them armed with .45 caliber statements.35
pistol and an armalite, respectively, before boarding a red car. The CA gave
weight to Reyes’ sworn statement in this wise: In the present case, the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial that while he was
investigating Reyes, the latter confided to him that he (Reyes) heard petitioner
The probative value of Romeo Reyes’s worn statement as to the words spoken telling Sotero "Ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon" and that he
by appellant to his co-accused Sotero Paredes in the morning of December 15, saw the two (petitioner and Sotero) armed with a .45 caliber pistol and an
1996 cannot be disputed. x x x33 armalite, respectively, before boardinga red car, cannot be regarded as
hearsay evidence. This is considering that NBI Agent Segunial’s testimony was
not presented to prove the truth of such statement but only for the purpose of
establishing that on February 10, 1997, Reyes executed a sworn statement Lastly, petitioner’s escape from detention on August 26, 1998 while the case
containing such narration of facts. This is clear from the offer of the witness’ was pending can also be considered as another circumstance since it is a
oral testimony.36 Moreover, NBI Agent Segunial himself candidly admitted that strong indication of his guilt.
he is incompetent to testify on the truthfulness of Reyes’ statement. 37 Verily
then, what the prosecution sought to be admitted was the fact that Reyes made All told, this Court finds the concordant combination and cumulative effect of
such narration of facts in his sworn statement and not necessarily to prove the the alleged established circumstances, which essentially were the same
truth thereof. Thus, the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial is in the nature of an circumstances found by the trial court and the appellate court, to have satisfied
independently relevant statement where what is relevant is the fact that Reyes the requirement of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, the
made such statement and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. In such a incriminating circumstances, when taken together, constitute an unbroken
case, the statement of the witness is admissible as evidence and the hearsay chain of events enough to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner was
rule does not apply.38 Moreover, the written statement of Reyes is a notarized responsible for the killing of the victim.
document having been duly subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Cesar A.
Bacani, a supervising agent of the NBI. As such, it may be presented in Besides, it is "[a]n established rule in appellate review x x x that the trial court’s
evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being a prima factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and
facie evidence of the due execution of this instrument or document involved the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from
pursuant to Section 30 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. As held in Gutierrez the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. These
v. Mendoza-Plaza,39 a notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by
authenticity and due execution which must be rebutted by clear and convincing the CA,"40 as in this case.
evidence. Here, no clear and convincing evidence was presented by petitioner
to overcome such presumption. Clearly, therefore, the CA did not err in its
The Crime Committed and the Proper Penalty.
appreciation of Reyes’ sworn statement as testified to by NBI Agent Segunial.
The Court agrees with the CA that petitioner is guilty only of the crime of
Second, the identification and recognition through photograph by Rodolfo of
homicide in view of the prosecution’s failure to prove any of the alleged
the 1971 Ford Escort red colored car as the same car he had sold to Sotero in
attendant circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime. As aptly
September 1996 clearly and convincingly prove that it was the very same red
observed by the appellate court:
car used in the killing of Alberto on December 15, 1996.
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is
Third, Alberto was shot and killed on December 15, 1996 and the gunmen
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation
immediately fled the scene riding a red car which was identified as the same
of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, and the
car previously sold by Rodolfo to Sotero.
latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime. However, as none
of the prosecution witnesses saw how the killing was perpetrated, abuse of
Fourth, though the testimony of Dr. Lagat was limited to the post-mortem superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case. Neither can nighttime
examination of the cadaver of Alberto, his findings that the victim suffered serve as an aggravating circumstance, the time of the commission of the crime
multiple gunshot wounds and that the same were caused by high-powered was not even alleged in the Information.41 (Citations omitted)
guns, served as corroborative evidence and contributed in a significant way in
establishing the level of proof that the law requires in convicting petitioner.
The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of homicide is reclusion
temporal.42 In view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of ESPINEL! is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim ALBERTO BERBON
the sentence should be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium y DOWNIE PS0,000.00 as moral damages as well as interest on all the
term which has a duration of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) damages assessed at the legal rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of
day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the minimum should be this judgment until fully paid.
within the range of prision mayor which has a duration of six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years. Thus, the imposition by the CA of an indeterminate SO ORDERED.
prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is in order. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Petitioner’s Civil liability

While the CA correctly imposed the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, it

Anent the award of actual damages, this Court sees no reason to disturb the
amount awarded by the trial court as upheld by the CA since the itemized
medical and burial expenses were duly supported by receipts and other
documentary evidence.

The CA did not grant any award of damages for loss of earning capacity and
rightly so. Though Sabina testified as to the monthly salary of the deceased,
the same remains unsubstantiated. "Such indemnity cannot be awarded in the
absence of documentary evidence except where the victim was either self-
employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws.''44 The exceptions find no application in this case.

In addition and in conformity with current policy, an interest at the legal rate of
6% per annum is imposed on all the monetary awards for damages from date
of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The
Decision dated July 6, 2007 and Resolution dated September 14, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02252 are AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATIONS that petitioner JOSE ESPINEL! a.k.a. DANILO "DANNY''