People of the Philippines vs. Fernandez

Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction where there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are drawn are proven, and their combination produces proof beyond reasonable doubt; conspiracy and guilt may be established from the accused’s concerted presence at the locus criminis, timely apprehension, flight, and possession of weapons.

Aida Sison, 72, lived in her house at Barangay West Poblacion, Rizal, Laguna, with a store on the ground floor and her maid Avelina Hernandez. Appellants Angel Fernandez, Marco Fernandez, and Rodolfo Tulagan were ambulant vendors of slippers from Mandaluyong, while their co-accused Alex Ramos, alias “Bulko,” grew up in the locality and had worked in a bakery near Aida’s store. The charge was robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, with the death penalty unavailable under the 1987 Constitution.

On the evening of October 26, 1987, Aida Sison, a 72-year-old store owner, and her maid Avelina Hernandez were killed in Aida’s residence at Barangay West Poblacion, Rizal, Laguna. At about 11:30 p.m., Jonas Isleta reported the robbery-slaying to Patrolman Dante Asegurado of the Rizal Police Force; the Sison residence stood a few meters from the police station. A team of six policemen led by Station Commander Lt. Alberto E. Pabellon surrounded the house, entered after securing the area, and found the bloodied, lifeless bodies of Aida and Avelina. The house, with a store on the ground floor, was in complete disarray. Patrolmen Geminiano Bagsik and Crispin Reyes searched the Sison compound and saw Angel Fernandez and Marco Fernandez crawling on the ground about five meters from the house; Bagsik collared Angel, who was holding a double-bladed dagger stained with blood, while Reyes apprehended Marco. Both were brought to the police station and investigated by Patrolman Asegurado. At about 6:00 a.m. the following day, Rodolfo Tulagan was apprehended at the western part of the poblacion not far from the Sison residence; he had been with Angel and Marco that evening but hid near the fence of a schoolhouse a few meters from the scene, and a knife (lanseta) was found in his possession during his arrest.

Pedro Sison, Jr., Aida’s eldest son, was at work when the incident occurred. Upon learning of the killings, he rushed home but found his mother and her maid lying prostrate on the ground in a pool of blood. His mother’s pieces of jewelry valued at P150,000.00 were missing, and the robbers also took P50,000.00 in cash. The family spent P33,049.00 for the funeral expenses of the two victims. Dr. Leon E. Rondilla, Jr., conducted the postmortem examination on October 27, 1987. Aida died due to “intracranial hemorrhage secondary to craniocerebral injuries due to trauma”; a hard object was used to hit her head, causing fractures on the occipital and parietal regions and severe brain damage. Avelina sustained at least three stab wounds on her neck and about twenty-two incised wounds on different parts of her body, and the frontal region of her head was also fractured. Based on the nature and number of wounds, Dr. Rondilla declared that Avelina was assaulted by at least two assailants using different weapons, particularly sharp-edged instruments like the dagger and knife (Exhibits “H” and “I”) confiscated from Angel and Rodolfo, respectively.

The defense presented a different account. Angel and Rodolfo were ambulant peddlers of slippers in Mandaluyong. Angel claimed that in the morning of October 26, 1987, Alex Ramos invited him to buy lanzones from his parents’ plantation in Rizal, Laguna. Initially reluctant because he had met Alex only for the second time that morning, Angel consulted Rodolfo, who agreed to accompany him, and also asked his cousin Marco to join them. That morning, the three appellants went to Laguna with Alex. At about 3:00 p.m., they alighted in front of Aida’s store at West Poblacion, Rizal, Laguna; Alex knew Aida because he grew up in the locality and worked in a bakery near her store. Alex and Aida conversed for a while, and after an hour Alex left to meet friends. He returned at about 7:00 p.m. with two friends and asked Aida to permit them to drink lambanog inside the store, which she allowed. Alex and his friends drank while appellants ate biscuits and drank soft drinks. At about 10:00 p.m., Aida advised Alex to take appellants home so they could rest; he obeyed and left his two friends at Aida’s store. On their way to Alex’s house, they took a shortcut via Rizal School. After a ten-minute walk, Alex told appellants that he had to return to the store because he had something to say to his friends, leaving appellants waiting inside the school compound. Between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., appellants heard a woman screaming for help, saying: “Saklolo, mga kapitbahay, papatayin kami nina Alex Ramos.” Initially they stayed in the school compound, but when they heard gunshots, Angel became fearful and advised Marco and Rodolfo to leave the school premises as they might be suspected as the culprits. At the school’s gate, Angel and Marco were intercepted by policemen, mauled, and brought to the police station.

According to appellants, the policemen continued manhandling Angel and Marco at the police station to force them to admit participation in the robbery-slaying. During interrogation, Angel sustained a gunshot wound on his buttocks; the following morning he was brought to San Pablo City Hospital for treatment and returned to the municipal jail after two days. Rodolfo, arrested the following day, also claimed he was maltreated by the police. On November 2, 1987, the three appellants signed sworn statements prepared by the policemen without the assistance of counsel. Thereafter, they returned to the scene and re-enacted the crime. The prosecution had no eyewitness; its evidence consisted of the testimonies of Patrolmen Dante Asegurado and Geminiano Bagsik, Dr. Leon Rondilla, Jr., and Pedro Sison, Jr., along with the physical evidence recovered from appellants.

• Insufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Appellants argued that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction, there being no eyewitness to the crime.
• Third-Party Liability: Appellants pointed to Alex Ramos and his two friends as the criminals, claiming that Alex lured them to Laguna to buy lanzones and that they were merely at the school compound when they heard the victim scream naming Alex.
• Police Fabrication and Maltreatment: Appellants averred that the policemen were only zealous to resolve the case the soonest possible time, hence named them as culprits and planted evidence against them; they also claimed they were mauled and forced to sign sworn statements without assistance of counsel.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to support the judgment of conviction against appellants.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether nighttime, dwelling, and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Yes. Conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence satisfying the requisites under Section 4, Rule 133; the totality of the prosecution’s circumstances excluded reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: Yes. The circumstantial evidence sufficiently established appellants’ participation and common design in the robbery and killings, as shown by their arrival together, presence at the locus criminis, possession of weapons, and simultaneous flight.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. Nighttime was deliberately sought, dwelling was proved, and abuse of superior strength attended the attack on the female victims, one of whom was in her seventies.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence proves a fact in issue without inference; circumstantial evidence proves it indirectly and requires the factfinder to draw an inference. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that no greater degree of certainty is required for circumstantial evidence than for direct evidence; in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Applying these standards, the Court found that appellants arrived together and proceeded to Aida’s store on the afternoon of October 26, 1987; by their own admission, they were at the locus criminis shortly before the incident; they had the means to commit the crime; Marco and Angel were apprehended inside the Sison compound soon after the killing, with Angel still holding a blood-stained dagger; Rodolfo was arrested the following morning near the crime scene with a knife after concealing himself and attempting to leave the locality. These circumstances, coupled with the timely arrival of authorities, the disarray in the Sison residence, the missing cash and jewelry, and the absence of proof of ill motive on the part of the arresting officers, convinced the Court that only appellants and Alex Ramos had access to the money and valuables. The Court rejected the defense that Alex and his friends committed the crime, finding it unbelievable that appellants would trust a stranger, that Alex would involve them, and that appellants—ambulant slippers vendors—would travel to buy lanzones without money or any agreement on earnings and transport. The non-recovery of the loot was attributed to the failure to arrest Alex Ramos. In the absence of any other known motive, the Court drew the inference that the same person who killed the occupants also committed the robbery. The Court also upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.
• Conspiracy: The Court resolved the corollary issue of conspiracy through the same circumstantial evidence. It found that appellants arrived together, were at the locus criminis shortly before the incident, had the means to commit the crime, and fled when authorities arrived; Marco and Angel were caught inside the compound and Rodolfo concealed himself and attempted to leave. These circumstances were clear indicia of a common criminal design and guilt, and the conviction for robbery with homicide—charged as committed by conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another—was affirmed.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Nighttime is not per se aggravating; it is aggravating when deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate the crime. The Court found appellants took advantage of the darkness of the night. Although not alleged in the Information, Alex and appellants also employed craft by pretending to be customers to gain easy access to Aida’s store. Dwelling was proved and appreciated. Abuse of superior strength was also present because the victims were women, one in her seventies, who could hardly put up a fight against their male attackers, and the number and nature of their wounds supported this conclusion.

• Circumstantial Evidence — Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue and requires the factfinder to draw an inference. Conviction based on it is sufficient if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. No greater degree of certainty is required than for direct evidence. The Court applied this rule to affirm the conviction based on appellants’ presence at the locus criminis, timely apprehension, flight, and possession of weapons.
• Conspiracy by Circumstantial Evidence — The Court did not articulate a separate conspiracy test; it treated the circumstantial evidence as establishing a common criminal design. Appellants’ concerted arrival, presence at the locus criminis, possession of weapons, and simultaneous flight were clear indicia of guilt and conspiracy.
• Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance — Nighttime is not per se aggravating; it is considered aggravating only if deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime. The Court found appellants took advantage of the darkness of the night.
• Dwelling — Dwelling is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when the crime is committed in the victim’s residence. The Court found this circumstance proved.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength is present where the attackers are male and the victims are women, one of whom was in her seventies, who could hardly put up a fight; the number and nature of the wounds buttress this conclusion. The Court appreciated this circumstance.
• Credibility of Arresting Officers — The testimony of arresting officers, with no motive or reason to falsely impute a serious charge against the accused, is credible. The Court found no proof that the police officers harbored ill motive to falsely testify against appellants.
• Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve respect, having observed the deportment of witnesses during trial. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment.
• Motive in Robbery with Homicide — In the absence of any other known motive for the crime, it is reasonable to infer that the same person who killed the occupants of the house also committed the robbery. The Court applied this inference because the Sison residence was in disarray and the cash and jewelry were missing.
• Resort to Circumstantial Evidence — Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community. The Court relied on this principle in affirming the conviction.

• "Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." — This passage states the canonical requisites for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which the Court applied to affirm the conviction.
• "No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused." — This passage clarifies that circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence and is subject to the same reasonable-doubt standard.
• "The timely apprehension of appellants Marco and Angel inside the compound, Angel's possession of the dagger stained with blood at the time of his arrest, Rodolfo's act of concealing himself from the arresting officers and his foiled attempt to leave the locality the following day, are clear indicia of said appellants' guilt." — This passage identifies the specific circumstances the Court treated as sufficient indicia of guilt.
• "Nighttime is not per se aggravating, but it is considered as such if it was deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime." — This passage states the controlling rule on nighttime as an aggravating circumstance and explains why it was appreciated against appellants.

• People vs. Ilaoa, et al., G.R. No. 94308, June 16, 1994 — Cited with Section 4, Rule 133, on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction.
• People vs. Pajarit, 82770, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 678 — Cited in support of the rule on circumstantial evidence.
• People vs. Iran, G.R. No. 88915, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 575 — Cited with Pajarit and Ilaoa on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
• People vs. Gonzales, 210 SCRA 44 — Cited in support of treating timely apprehension and flight as indicia of guilt.
• People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 93722, May 28, 1993 — Cited for the credibility of arresting officers with no motive to falsely impute a serious charge.
• People vs. Dolar, et al., G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994 — Cited for the respect due to trial court findings on the credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993 — Cited on nighttime as an aggravating circumstance when deliberately sought.
• People vs. Barlis, G.R. No. 101003, March 24, 1994 — Cited on dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.
• United States vs. Merin, No. 1093, March 31, 1903, 2 Phil 88 — Cited for the inference that the same person who killed the occupants also committed the robbery in the absence of another known motive.
• People vs. Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, January 17, 1994, 229 SCRA 289 — Cited for the necessity of resorting to circumstantial evidence.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with homicide. Appellants were convicted under this provision, and the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua, the highest penalty because the death penalty had been abolished by the 1987 Constitution.
• Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are derived are proven, and the combination produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this rule to affirm the conviction.
• 1987 Constitution — Cited by the RTC as the reason the death penalty could not be imposed, making reclusion perpetua the highest penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.