July 27, 2009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHARMEN OLIVO y ALONG, NELSON ANA y SAM!"TO, #$% JOE& 'AFRA y RE&ES, Appellants. FACTS( On November 21, 2000, around 6:30 oclock in the evenin, !aricel "#erme$o% &as tendin the store o' the victim, !ariano (onstantino in )aon *ilanan, +ue,on (it-. *uddenl-, three .3/ armed men entered the store and demanded mone-. 0hen !aricel did not accede to the demand, one o' the armed men later identi'ied as appellant Nelson 1anda kicked her in the le &hile his other companion, appellant 2oe- 3a'ra ot mone- 'rom the cash reister. 0hen the store o&ner, !ariano (onstantino, &ent inside the store and shouted, the third companion, appellant (harmen Olivo poked a un at him. !ariano ran to&ards the back o' the house but appellant Olivo nevertheless chased him. 4herea'ter, !aricel heard successive shots and sa& appellants 1anda and 3a'ra oin out o' the store &hile the bloodied bod- o' !ariano &as l-in at the stair&a- o' the house. 4he victim &as taken to the hospital &here he died upon arrival. 4&o da-s a'ter the incident *#O2 2oseph 1ino received an in'ormation 'rom the )atasan #olice *tation that the- have three .3/ suspects 'or dru violations and illeal possession o' 'irearms. 5e borro&ed the suspects 'or identi'ication b- !aricel. 0hen presented to her, she identi'ied them as the men &ho staed a hold up and shot the deceased. 6 On Auust 27, 2007, the 84( rendered a decision convictin accused9appellants o' the crime o' robber- &ith homicide. 4he dispositive portion o' the decision states: Accused9appellants Olivo and 1anda appealed to the (ourt o' Appeals. :n a 1ecision dated November 30, 2006, the (ourt o' Appeals a''irmed in toto the 84(s decision. ISS"E( 0ON an accused &ho has not per'ected an appeal should be included in a decision o' ac;uittal on appeal b- the other co9accused. .<=*/ HEL( :n vie& o' the 'oreoin, ac;uittal o' the accused9appellants is in order. 5e One 'inal note. 4he other accused, 2oe- 3a'ra, &ho is identicall- circumstanced as the other appellants and &ho &as like&ise convicted on the same evidence, does not appear to have per'ected an appeal 'rom the trial courts $udment. 4he record does not sho& the reason there'or. )e that as it ma-, the present rule is that an appeal taken b- one or more several accused shall not a''ect those &ho did not appeal, e>cept inso'ar as the $udment o' the appellate court is 'avorable and applicable to the latter. 2? Our pronouncements here &ith respect to the insu''icienc- o' the prosecution evidence to convict appellants be-ond reasonable doubt are de'initel- 'avorable and applicable to accused 2oe- 3a'ra. should not there'ore be treated as the odd man out and should bene'it 'rom the ac;uittal o' his co9accused. OTHERS( 0ON lo&er court has committed @A1 in convictin accused. .-es9 insu''icienc- o'' evidence/ A'ter revie&, &e 'ind that the accused9appellants should be ac;uitted. 4he &ell9entrenched rule is that 'indins o' the trial court a''irmed b- the appellate court are accorded hih respect, i' not conclusive e''ect, b- this (ourt, absent clear and convincin evidence that the tribunals inored, misconstrued or misapplied 'acts and circumstances o' substances such that, i' considered, the same &ill &arrant the modi'ication or reversal o' the outcome o' the case. 1? :n this case, the material 'act and circumstance that the lone alleed e-e&itness, !aricel #erme$o, &as not able to identi'- the accused9appellants as the perpetrators o' the crime, varies the outcome o' this case. Apparentl-, the accused9appellants &ere arrested &ithout a &arrant durin a bu-9bust operation on November 27, 2000, 27 trans'erred to (amp Aarinal under dubious circumstances, and made to stand in a police line9up and identi'ied b- an e-e&itness &ho 'ailed to identi'- them three times. 4hese circumstances &ere inored b- the trial court &ho ave too much credence on the positive identi'ication o' the accused9appellants b- the same e-e&itness durin direct e>amination. 0e cannot convict appellants 'or the special comple> crime o' robber- &ith homicide &hen the evidence relied upon b- the trial court is plainl- erroneous and inade;uate to prove appellants uilt be-ond reasonable doubt. (onviction must rest on nothin less than moral certaint-, &hether it proceeds 'rom direct or circumstantial evidence. 26
Gianna Pomata (Editor), Nancy G. Siraisi (Editor) - Historia - Empiricism and Erudition in Early Modern Europe (Transformations - Studies in The History of Science and Technology) (2006)