PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

EMMA DELA CRUZ y DIAZ, ROGER LIAD y PICAYO, RONNIE

LOCUENSIO and DOROTEO MICUL, accused, EMMA DELA CRUZ y DIAZ, appellant.

FACTS:
Appellant Emma dela Cruz appealed her conviction together with three male co-accused for robbery with double
homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt of her participation in the alleged crime.
In upholding her conviction, the Supreme Court held the following pieces of circumstantial evidence constitute an
unbroken chain of events which sufficiently established her guilt as a conspirator in the crime: she was a maid of Malou, whose
daughter and mother were killed when their apartment was ransacked on that fateful day; before Malou left on that day for work,
a certain Roger called asking for Emma but the latter was inside the toilet; neighbor Arguilus testified that at around 1:00 o'clock
in the afternoon of that day, he saw Emma come out of the apartment, followed a while later by the three males, her co-accused;
another witness, Samuel de la Cruz, saw Emma leave the place in the company of these three males, one of whom was Roger
Liad: the door of the maid's quarters was left open, allowing entrance to the apartment without the use of force; Emma's quarters
was bare but her room was not ransacked; the room of the victims and Malou were sacked and looted; appellant Emma fled to
her hometown in Samar for no credible reason. The Supreme Court rejected Emma's alibi because prosecution witnesses
positively identified her and it was highly improbable that Malou would falsely accuse an innocent person of having committed
the horrible crime against her daughter and mother.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the witnesses were paid to testify for the prosecution, their accounts were inconsistent and the
identities of the assailants were supplied to said witness by the police investigators.
Whether or not there is a presence of conspiracy and the stolen items seized from Roger Liad (one of the suspect)
were inadmissible since his arrest was only referring to an invitation and the police failed to obtain a warrant for his arrest.

RULING:
On the first issue, if the witness (Samuel dela Cruz) was paid to testify. The 85 pesos cannot stretch of imagination, be
interpreted as witness fee as appellant wanted to imply. Appellant further claims that dela Cruz erred in saying that the place
where he saw appellant and the three other assailants was "near Apo." She maintains that it "is public knowledge that there is
no Apo Street within the vicinity of 11th Jamboree Street, in Quezon City." That may be so, but there is a restaurant near that
place called "Apo Duwaling." Moreover, we believe that, like the other alleged inconsistencies, it is a minor detail which does not
impinge on the credibility of the witness. We also find unavailing appellant's claim that the police officers supplied the identities of
the assailants. In fact, the policemen, after conducting an investigation, were able to make cartographic sketches which were
subsequently confirmed and identified by Samuel dela Cruz. In that light, there was no more need for the lawmen to ask him for
the physical descriptions of the four assailants.
On the second issue, His warrantless arrest did not fall under the exceptions provided for in the Rules of
Court. Consequently, whatever was seized from him could not be used against him or Appellant Emma dela Cruz. This
conclusion is consonant with the raison d'etre of the exclusionary rule. The trial court's use of the "fruit of a poisonous tree"
against appellant was thus erroneous. But still it cannot free from the contention that conspiracy was not proven.
The following pieces of circumstantial evidence constitute an unbroken chain of events, which sufficiently establish
the guilt of appellant as a conspirator in the crime. And aside from his weak defences they are negated by the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses who positively identified her and affirmed her presence at the locus criminis during that fateful day.
Moreover, it is highly improbable that Malou Lozano, the mother of five-year-old Lorgiza Cristal Velasco and daughter of Norma
Lozano, both victims in this horrible crime, would falsely accuse an innocent person of the crime. Her natural inclination would be
to pinpoint the real culprit.
Wherefore, the court found the appellant GUILTY.