5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.142532.November18,2003]

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.JOHNNYM.QUIZON,appellant.
DECISION
VITUG,J.:

A decision, dated 27 March 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 29, found appellant Johnny M.
QuizonguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofRobberywithHomicideunderArticle294oftheRevisedPenalCode.He
wassentencedbythetrialcourttosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.TheInformationcharginghimwiththeoffense,to
whichheplednotguilty,read:
Thatonoraboutthe5thdayofSeptember,1997,intheCityofAngeles,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,the
abovenamedaccused,withgraveabuseofconfidence,withintentofgain,andbymeansofviolence,didthenandtherewillfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslytakeandcarryaway,againsttheconsentoftheownersthereof,acashmoneyamountingtoP17,000.00and
assortedjewelry,belongingtotheSuarezTravelAgencyand/orConchitaM.Pasquin,withatotalvalueofnolessthanP17,000.00,tothe
damageandprejudiceoftheownersthereofinthesaidtotalsumthatontheoccasionofthesaidrobberyandforthepurposeofenabling
himtotake,stealandcarryawaythesaidarticlesandmoney,thehereinaccuseddidthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,
withevidentpremeditationandtakingadvantageofhissuperiorstrength,andwithintenttokill,treacherouslyattack,assault,andwiththe
useofpersonalviolenceuponsaidConchitaM.Pasquin,therebyinflictinguponthelattermortalinjuriesafteraccusedstuffedhermouth
[1]
withaclothinganoutcry,andasadirectresultofwhich,saidConchitaPasquindied.
Thecasefortheprosecutionwaspiecedtogetherbythetrialcourtfromthetestimonyofanumberofwitnesses.
Conchita Magpantay Pasquin was associated with Suarez Travel Services in Angeles City. She used the offices of the
travelagencyasalsoherresidence.Althoughshewasseparatedfromherhusband, BonifacioPasquin,herrelationshipwith
him,nevertheless,remainedcordial.On05September1997,aroundnineoclockinthemorning,Conchitawenttotheadjacent
Quitalig Law Office and lent a magazine to a friend, Rowena Abril, a secretary in the law firm. In the afternoon of that day,
betweenoneandtwooclock,RowenaheardloudnoisescomingfromConchitasoffice,butshedidnotpaytoomuchattention
to the incident. Twentyfive minutes later, a man passed by Rowena as she was leaving her office to go to a nearby store.
Rowenahadtheimpressionthattheman,whowaswalkinghurriedly,camefromtheofficeofSuarezTravelServices.Atabout
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

1/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

fourfiftyintheafternoon,RowenawenttoseeConchitatoreturnthemagazine.ShenoticedthatthedoorleadingtoConchitas
officewasopenbutthemaindoorwasclosed.Sincenobodyopenedthedoorforher,Rowenadecidedtoleave.
Atlunchtimeon05September1997,MylaMiclatandherliveinpartnerRoelSicangcowenttoseeConchitatohandover
theamountofP17,000.00inpaymentforMylasroundtripplanefaretoGuam.WhiletheywereinsideConchitasoffice,Johnny
Quizon,whomConchita introduced as her nephew, came in. Conchita asked her nephew if he already had taken his lunch.
Conchita told Myla that her nephew was a former drug addict, and that she was helping him mend his ways. Quizon was
presentwhenMylagavethemoneytoConchita.ConchitatoldMylathatshewasgoingtopurchasetheticketandinstructed
hertoreturnlaterthatdaytopickitup.ItwasapproximatelysevenoclockintheeveningwhenMyla,accompaniedbyafriend,
returnedtoSuarezTravelServices.Sheknockedatthedoorbutnobodyansweredalthoughshecouldseethattherewasstill
light inside the work place. Myla tried calling up Conchita but the telephone just kept on ringing. The following day of 06
September1997,aroundfivethirtyinthemorning,MylareturnedtoConchitasoffice.Again,nobodywasinsight.Mylawentto
theagencysneighbortoinquireiftherewassomeoneinsidetheoffice.Theneighborclimbed,peepedinsideandsawabody
coveredwithablanket.
MariettaSuarez,theownerofSuarezTravelServices,receivedacallatsixthirtyinthemorningof06September1997to
inform her that something bad had happened to Conchita. She did not go to the office the day previous as she had to
accompanyherhusbandtoasocialfunction.Mariettaandherhusbandforthwithproceededtotheagency.Anumberofpolice
officersandsomepeoplewerebythenatthescene.Apparently,thepolicemenforcedopenthedoorandfoundthebodyof
Conchitawrappedwithawhiteblanket.ConchitasjewelryboxandthemoneypaidbyMylaweremissing.
On the evening of 06September1997, Conchitas husband, Bonifacio Pasquin, who was then in Bataan received a call
from his brotherinlaw Jose Servidal informing him of Conchitas death. The following morning, on his way to Angeles City,
Pasquin chanced upon Conchitas eldest brother, Jose Magpantay, who was also bound for the city. Magpantay informed
Pasquinthaton05September1997,hereceivedacallfromConchitawhotoldhimthatshewasgoingtoManilatobringan
undeterminedsumofmoney.Conchitahappenedtomentionthathernephew,JohnnyQuizon,wasinherofficeatthattime.
Later,duringtheinvestigation,PasquinshowedRowenaapictureofQuizonandsheidentifiedhimtobethesamepersonwho
passedbyherinhastethatafternoonof05September1997.
Dr.Proceso Mejia, a City Health Officer of Angeles City, conducted an autopsy on the remains of Conchita at half past
noonon06September1997.Thebodyshoweddiscolorationontheface,neck,backandupperextremities,contusiononthe
right side of the face and abrasions on her right and left side of the neck, right elbow, right forearm and the palm. Dr. Mejia
concludedthatatthetimeofhisexamination,Conchitamusthavebeendeadformorethantwelve,butnotbeyondtwentyfour,
hours.Dr.MejiadidnotfindanyabnormalitiesonthebodyofthevictimanddecidedtosendthevitalorganstotheMedico
LegalOfficeroftheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)fortoxicologicalandhistopathexamination.
Dr.NoelMinay,amedicalspecialistoftheNationalBureauofInvestigation,conductedapathologicalexaminationonthe
vital organs of Conchita, particularly, her brain, heart, lungs and pancreas. He concluded that Conchita could have died of
cardiacarrest,asphyxiationoringestionofaconsiderableamountofpoisonoussubstance.
ThecasewasreferredforinvestigationtoSPO2DaniloCruzoftheAngelesCityDetectiveGroup.Afterreadingtheinitial
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

2/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

report,SPO2Cruz,accompaniedbySPO2AlfredoQuiambaoandabrotherofConchita,wenttoQuizonshouseat174Isarog
St.,LaLoma,QuezonCity.Johnnysrelativeswerenotawareofhiswhereaboutsbutcouldonlysaythatonthemorningof06
September 1997, Johnny and his livein partner Fe Coronel went to Tondo, Manila. The trio decided to go to Fes house in
ParaaqueCity,arrivingthereatat around tenoclock in the evening. Fes mother told them that Fe had left on 05September
1997andhadnotreturnedsince.Inthecourseoftheirinvestigation,SPO2CruzinterviewedoneRodolfoCueva,amailmanat
theAngelesCityPostOffice,whotoldhimthathe(Cueva)wenttoConchitasofficebetweentwoandtwothirtyintheafternoon
of05September1997todeliveranexpressmail.Cuevaleftwhennobodywouldopenthedoor.Returninginthemorning,he
learnedthattheaddresseewasalreadydead.
JohnnyQuizonwasarrestedathishouseinQuezonCitybypoliceoperativesaweekafterConchitasburial.
Thedefensegaveitsversionoftheincident.
NimfaQuizonmarriedthefatherofJohnnyQuizonin1980,threeyearsfollowingthedeathofhisfirstwife,Imelda,asister
ofNimfa.NimfatookcareofJohnnysincehewasbarelyfiveyearsold.Ontheeveningof04September1997,Nimfa asked
JohnnytogoandvisithisauntConchitainAngelesCitywhosetelevisionsetneededrepair.JohnnyleftLaLoma,QuezonCity,
at about ten oclock the following morning of 05 September 1997. He arrived in Angeles City between twelvethirty and one
oclockintheafternoon.AttheofficesofSuarezTravelServices,hefoundhisaunt ConchitatalkingwithRoel Sicangco and
MylaMiclat.Hewaited.AfterRoelandMylahadleft,Conchitatoldhimthathecouldnotworkasyetonthetelevisionsetas
shehadalotofotherthingstoattendtofirstinManila.HeaskedConchitaifshewantedcompanybutshetoldhimtogoahead
asshestillhadtoentertainawomanwhojustcamein.HeleftConchitasofficeandsawRoelandMylawaitingforapassenger
jeepney. Johnny noticed a man on board a parked vehicle who was holding a clutch bag. He saw the man enter his aunts
office.Meanwhile,heboardedapassengerjeepneyandwenttotheterminalofthePhilippineRabbitbusline.Johnnyreached
La Loma at fouroclock in the afternoon. He informed Nimfa that he was unable to repair Conchitas television set. Between
fourthirtyandfiveoclockintheafternoon,NimfareceivedacallfromConchitawhoinformedhimthatshesentJohnnyhome
sinceshehadasyetalotofpaperworktodo.Thefollowingmorning, NimfawasinformedofConchitas death. Johnny was
advisedbyNimfanottogotothewakebecauseConchitasbrotherssuspectedhimofbeingresponsibleforthekillingoftheir
sister.Johnnystayedatthehouseofhisliveinpartnerandcamehomeonlyaftertheburial.
InconvictingQuizonofthecrimewithwhichhewasindicted,thetrialcourtheld:
ThefactofdeathofvictimConchitaPasquinisbeyonddispute.Hercadaverwasfoundinherbedroomwrappedwithawhiteblanket.There
wasalsoacontusionontherightsideofthefaceandabrasionsonthevictimsrightandleftsideoftheneck,rightelbow,rightforearmand
atthepalm.AccusedlikewiseadmittedthathewenttotheofficeofthevictimintheafternoonofSeptember5,1997andsawthereatMyla
MiclatandRoelSicangcowholeftaheadofhim.
xxxxxxxxx
Nobodyactuallysawhowthevictimwaskilledandhowtherobberywascommitted.TheProsecutionisrelyingonlyoncircumstantial
evidencetosecuretheconvictionoftheaccusedJohnnyQuizon.Underourrulesonevidence,anaccusedcanstillbeconvictedevenifno
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

3/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

eyewitnessisavailableprovidedthatenoughcircumstantialevidencehasbeenestablishedbytheprosecutiontoprovebeyondreasonable
doubtthattheaccusedcommittedthecrime(Peoplevs.Lagao,Jr.,271SCRA51.)
xxxxxxxxx
Nodirectevidencewaspresentedbytheprosecutiontoestablishtheguiltoftheaccused.Weareconstrainedtoconsiderthecircumstantial
evidenceintroducedbytheprosecutiontodeterminewhetherthesamewouldbesufficienttoconvicttheaccused:
1.ConchitaPasquinwasavictimoffoulplay.Therewerecontusionsandabrasionsontheupperpartofthebody.Thesteeldoorofthe
officewasleftopenthewholenightoftheSeptember5uptotheearlymorningofSeptember6,whenthevictimsbodywasdiscovered.The
lightoftheofficewasalsoonandherbodywaswrappedinawhiteblanketwhendiscovered.Definitelyshecouldnothavediedanatural
death.
2.TheaccusedwasatthevictimsofficeintheafternoonofSeptember5,1997whenMylaMiclatgavethesumofP17,000.00forthe
purchaseofherplaneticketinManila.
3.ThevictimwasinahurrytoleaveforManilatopurchaseMylaMiclatsplaneticket.Infact,MylaMiclatwastoldbythevictimtoreturn
thateveningtotheofficetogetherticket.
4.WhenMylaMiclatandherboyfriendleftthevictimsoffice,therewerenootherpersoninsidetheofficeexcepttheaccusedandthevictim
ataround2:00oclockintheafternoon.
5.Ataround2:00oclockofthatsameafternoon,RowenaAbril,asecretaryofthelawofficeadjacenttotheSuarezoffice,heardthreevery
loudnoisescomingfromthevictimsoffice.WhenRowenawentoutafteraround25minutestobuysomethingatanearbystore,shesawthe
accusedhurriedlyleavingthesaidoffice.TheaccusedhurriedlyleftforManilathatsameafternoonleavingthevictimbehindwhowasalso
inahurrytogotoManilatopurchasetheplaneticketofMylaMiclat.
6.Ataround2:00oclockofthatsameafternoon,RowenaAbrilheardseveralknockingsatthevictimsofficebutnobodyopenedthedoor.
7.Ataround10minutesbefore5:00p.m.,RowenaAbrilwenttotheofficeofthevictimtoreturnthemagazinethevictimlenttoherearlier,
butnobodyansweredher,soshejustleft.
8.MylaMiclatreturnedthateveningataround7:00p.m.butnobodyopenedthedoorofthevictimsoffice.
9.OnSeptember7,1997,thebodyofthevictimwasbroughttothehouseoftheaccusedbutthelatternevershowedupduringtheentire
wakeforthevictim.
10.Thepolicewerenotabletofindhimathisgirlfriendshouse.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

4/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

11.Theaccusedalsodidnotattendtheburial.
12.Thealibigivenbytheaccusedfornotattendingthewakeandtheburialofhisauntwasthathewastryingtoavoidhisuncleswhowere
madathimbecausehewasbeingsuspectedofkillinghisaunt.Theaccusedwasarrestedbythepoliceattheirhousewherethewakewas
heldoneweekaftertheburialhence,hewasnotreallyafraidofhisuncles.
13.Insteadofhelpingthepoliceinsolvingthecrimeandapprehendingthekillerofhisaunt(asheclaimstobeinnocent)theaccusedwent
intohidingimmediatelyafterthekilling.
14.ThevictimwasnotabletoleaveforManilatobuytheplaneticketforMylaMiclatbutthesaidamountofP17,000.00fortheplane
ticketwasneverrecovered.
Theabovecitedcircumstancesclearlymadeanunbrokenchainwhichleadstoonefairandreasonableconclusionwhichpointstothe
accused,totheexclusionofallothers,astheperpetratorofthecrime.
xxxxxxxxx
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,accusedJohnnyQuizonisherebyfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofRobbery
withHomicideandisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
AccusedJohnnyQuizonisfurtherorderedtopaytheheirsofMrs.MariettaSuarezthesumofP34,133.10asactualdamagesandtopaythe
[2]
heirsofConchitaM.PasquintheamountofP50,000.00asdeathindemnity.
InhisappealtothisCourt,JohnnyM.Quizonraisedtheloneassignmentoferrorthat
THELOWERCOURTERREDINFINDINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTGUILTYOFROBBERYWITHHOMICIDEWITHOUT
[3]

HISGUILTHAVINGBEENPROVEDBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an appellees brief, submitted to the Court a wellratiocinated
manifestationandmotionaverringthattheexistenceofeverybitofcircumstantialevidencewasnotsatisfactorilyestablished.
TheOSGmaintained:
Appellantshouldbeacquittedandreleased.Theprosecutionmiserablyfailedtomeettherequirementsofcircumstantialevidencenecessary
forconviction.
First.ThetrialcourterredinacceptingthetestimonyofMiclatthatappellantwasthelastpersonwhowaswiththevictimbeforeshedied.
ThetrialcourtsimilarlyblunderedindebunkingthetestimonyofbothSicangcoandtheappellantthatafterappellanthadlefttheoffice,
otherpersonsenteredthevictimsoffice[TSN,January7,1999,pp.810,TestimonyofRoelSicangcoTSN,May25,1999,pp.1213,
TestimonyofJohnnyQuizon].However,therewasnothinginMiclatstestimonythatdirectlyrefutedthetestimonyofSicangcothatthere
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

5/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

wereotherpersonswhoenteredtheofficeafterwards.Miclatdeclaredthatshedidnotseewhetherornotthemanwiththecollectorsbag
returnedaftertheylefttheoffice.Miclatstestimonywent:
QImonlyconcern[sic]withthebetteradministrationofjustice.Iknowthatyouwanttocooperatesomuchbyyourtestimony.Now,
youaresupposedtobeastarwitnessforthepresenceoftheaccusedinthatoffice.Myquestionis,youdidnotseetheaccused
doinganythingtothevictim,isthatcorrect?
AYes,sir.
QYoudidnotalsoseewhetherthatmanwithacollectorsbagwentbackornotinthatoffice?
ANosir.
QButyouknowineveryofficeitisusuallyvisitedbyseveralpersonsbecauseoftheirpapersortransaction?
AYes,sir.
QAndinthatofficeitisusuallyvisitedbyseveralpersonsbecauseoftheirpapersortransaction?
AYes,sir.[TSN,September9,1998,pp.1718]

Sicangco,ontheotherhand,testifiedtothecircumstancesaftertheyleftthetravelagency,andwhosedeclarationwasneverrebuttedby
Miclat.Hestated:
QHowdoyouknowthatJohnnyQuizonarrivedat1:30oclockintheafternoonofSeptember5,1997?
ADahilsaestimatengpagdatingnaminsaofficeatsakaiyonginterval.
QWhenyoulefttheofficetogetherwithyourliveinpartner,wherewasJohnnyQuizonthen?
ANoongpapaalisnakamisaagency,taposnakitakosiJohnnysamayfuneralpalabasathabangnaghihintaykamingjeep,nakita
kosiyasumakayngjeeppapuntangDau,Mabalacat.
QWhenyouandyourwifeandJohnnyQuizonleftthepremises,weretherestillotherpersonsinsidetheofficebesidesthatmanand
hisladycompanion?
ANoongpalabasnakamisaagency,napansinkosiJohnnysamaylikuran.At habangnaghihintaykamingjeep,nakita ko iyong
babaeatiyonglalakepumasoksatravelagency.
QDidyouseeJohnnyQuizonrideonajeep?
AYes,sir.
QTowhatdestination?
ADau,Mabalacat.
QBeforethisCourtyourliveinpartnertestifiedthatwhenyoulefttheoffice,shedidnotnoticethatmanandhisladycompanion
enteringtheoffice,whatcanyousayaboutthat?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

6/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

Court:
Didshetestifyaboutamanandawoman?
Atty.Castillon[defensecounsel]:
Yes,YourHonor,duringmycrossexamination.
Pros.Quiambao:
[for the government] What she testified was that when she left, the only persons left in the office were the victim and Johnny
Quizon.
Atty.Castillon:
Thatiswhatshetestified.AndIamtryingtofindoutfromthiswitnessifthatistrue.

xxxxxxxxx
Atty.Castillon:
Becauseaccordingtothewitness,theycamebackandenteredtheoffice.

Clearly,theprosecutioncouldpresentonlyawitnesswhosawappellantinthevicinityofthecrimesceneonthedaythecrimewas
committed.IfthetestimonyofSicangcoissuspectasbeingtaintedwithpityforafellowinmate,itistobenotedthatSicangcolikewise
freelyadmittedofhisloveforMiclat[TSN,January7,1999,p.23].Miclat,ontheotherhand,categoricallydeclaredthatshedidnotknow
whetherotherpersonsenteredtheofficeafterwards.AsagainstMiclat,aformerliveinlover,andappellant,amerefellowinmate,
SicangcossympathyforappellantexceededhisloveforMiclatbecausehedidnotwantaninnocentpersontosufferforacrimehedidnot
commit[AkonagtetestigoakoparamatulungansiJohnny.BastaakogustokongtulungansiJohnnydahilnapakahirapnangmaparusahan
nghindimonamanginawa.[TSN,January7,1999,p.13]
Thatappellantwasthelastpersonseenwiththevictimonthedayshedieddoesnotnecessarilyprovethathekilledher.Itwasnot
establishedthatappellantandthevictimweretogetheruntilthecrimewascommitted.Itwasnotevenshownthatappellantwastheonlyone
whowaswiththevictimbeforeshedied.ThetravelagencywasalreadyopenedwhenMiclat,Sicangcoandappellantcame.Therewere
severalpersonsthereevenbeforeMiclatandcompanyarrived.Theprosecutionhasnotcompletelydiscountedthepossibilitythattherewere
otherpersonswhotransactedbusinesswiththevictimwhenMiclatandappellantleft,consideringthatthetravelagencyisaplaceof
businessthatcaterstoseveralclients.Therewasaneyewitness,Sicangco,whodeclaredthatatleasttwopersonscameafterappellantleft
theoffice[TSN,January7,1999,pp.810].Eventhesecretaryoftheneighboringlawfirm,prosecutionwitnessAbril,testifiedthatthere
wereseveralpersonswhowereknockingatthedoorofthevictimsofficeafterappellantleft(TSN,May6,1998,p.13).
True,apersonmaybeconvictedonthebasisofcircumstantialevidencebuttheprovencircumstancesshouldinexorablyleadtoonefair
andreasonableconclusionpointingtotheaccusedastheguiltyperson,totheexclusionofallothers.Wheretheevidencepresentedadmits
ofotherconclusions,theaccusedmustbeacquitted.Onlyifthejudgebelowcouldarriveataconclusionthatthecrimehadbeencommitted
preciselybythepersonontrialundersuchanexactingtestshouldthesentencebeoneofconviction.Itisthusrequiredthatevery
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

7/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

circumstancefavoringhisinnocencebedulytakenintoaccount.Theproofagainsthimmustsurvivethetestofreasonthestrongest
suspicionmustnotbepermittedtoswayjudgment.Theconsciencemustbesatisfiedthatonthedefendantislaidtheresponsibilityforthe
offensechargedthatnotonlydidheperpetratetheactbutthatitamountedtoacrime.Whatisrequiredthenismoralcertainty.Itiscritical
thatthemoralforceofthecriminallawbenotdilutedbyastandardofproofthatleavespeopleindoubtwhetherinnocentmenarebeing
condemned.Itisimportantinourfreesocietythateveryindividualgoingabouthisordinaryaffairshasconfidencethathisgovernment
cannotadjudgehimguiltyofacriminaloffensewithoutconvincingaproperfactfinderofhisguiltwithutmostcertainty[Peoplev.Garcia,
215SCRA349(1992)Peoplev.Andag,96SCRA861(1980)Peoplev.Benamira,277SCRA232(1997)].
AmuchgraversetofinculpatorycircumstantialevidenceagainsttheaccusedwerepresentinPeoplev.Mijares,[297SCRA520(1998)].
Despitethat,theaccusedwasacquitted.AsevenyearoldplaymatetestifiedseeingaccusedMijaresasthelastpersonwhowaswiththe
victimthenightthevictimwaskilled.Thevictim,agirloftenderage,wasfounddead.Thetwomostdamningcircumstancescrucialtothe
prosecutionscasewerethat1]appellantwasthelastpersonseenwiththevictimand2]hisslipperswerefoundatthecrimescene.This
HonorableCourtruledthatthesecircumstancesaresubjecttotwoantitheticalinterpretations,oneofguiltandtheotherofinnocence.This
caseevencitedtwoanalogouscaseswhichfallsquarelywiththecaseatbar,viz:
InPeoplev.Ragon,thetrialcourtconvictedappellantofmurder,basedonthesecircumstances:heandhiscompanionswerethelastpersons
seenwiththevictim,andthecapwornbyRagonscompanionwasfoundbesidethevictimsdeadbody.xxxHowever,thisCourtfoundthat
thecircumstantialevidencepresenteddidnotconclusivelypointtoRagonastheperpetratorofthemurder.Thepresenceofthecapof
Ragonscompanionbesidethedeadbodyonlyprovedthatsaidperson,notnecessarilyRagonhimself,wasatthelocuscriminis.Thatsuch
capwasfoundinthevicinityofthecrimescenedidnotnecessarilyimplythattheaccusedkilledthevictim.
InPeoplev.Binamira,thetrialcourtconvictedtheaccusedbasedonthefollowingpiecesofcircumstantialevidence:(1)hewasaccostedby
securityguardsnearthecrimescene(2)hewaswalkingsuspiciouslyfast(3)bloodiedclotheswereallegedlyrecoveredfromhim.
Appellantthereinwasacquittedbecausetheevidence,inviewoftheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence,hasnotfulfilledthetestof
moralcertaintyandwasthusinsufficienttosupportaconviction.Indeed,thisCourthasruledthatapersoncannotbeheldliableforthe
killing,unlessalltheprovencircumstancespointtohisguilt.
ThecaseofPeoplev.Boneo[174SCRA612(1989)]recountsafishermanwhowaslastseenalivewiththeBoneobrothers.He
accompaniedthebrothersouttosealateatnighttogetananimalhewassupposedtobuyfromtheothersideoftheshore.Hewasfound
deadandtheP3,000.00hewascarryinggone.TheSupremeCourtwaxedpoeticwhenitdeclaredThisrulemustbeobservedwithmore
rigorwheretheevidenceoftheprosecutionismerelycircumstantial,asinthecaseatbar.Whilethisisnottosaythatthiskindofevidence
willneverbesufficienttoconvict,itdoesmeanthatitmustbeespeciallypersuasiveifitistostill,asitmust,everywhisperofdoubtthatthe
accusedisnotinnocent.Absentconclusiveproofofhisguilt,theprisonermustbereleasedandpurgedofallthestigmaofthechargeupon
hishead.
InPeoplev.Garcia,[215SCRA349(1992)],thisHonorableCourtlaudedtheOSGforutmostobjectivityandfairnessbyacquittingthe
accusedbecausetheonlycircumstancethatcanbeappreciatedagainsthimwasthattheprosecutionwitnesssawhimstandingnearthe
bananaplantsaboutfifteenmetersawayfromthehouseofthevictimminutesbeforethediscoveryofthedeceased.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

8/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

Similarcircumstancesdidnotmeritaconviction,asinPeoplev.Nicolas,[204SCRA191(1991)],wheretheaccusedwaspresentatthe
storewherethevictimwaskilledandwithhimwasfoundpartofthestolenmoneyaswellasbloodiedpants.InPeoplev.Geron[281SCRA
36(1997)],thestringofcircumstanceswhichthetrialcourtrelieduponforconvictionconsistedofthepresenceoftheaccusedatthecrime
scenehehadinhispossessionarticlesbelongingtothevictimsatthetimehewasapprehendedandtheaccusedfledfromthecrimescene.
ThisHonorableCourtheldthattheabovecircumstancespointtonoinferenceexclusivelyconsistentwiththeguiltoftheaccused.It
explainedthat:First,themerepresenceoftheaccusedatthelocuscriminisandhispossessionofcertainitemsbelongingtothevictims,
whileitmayhavepointedthefingerofsuspicionathim,cannotbesolelyinterpretedtomeanthathehascommittedtherobberyandthe
attendantkillings.(atp.47)
Second.Thetrialcourtwasunabletociteanyparticularcircumstanceatalltoshowthatappellantinthecaseatbarhadamotivetocommit
thecrime.
Thereisabsolutelynomotiveforappellanttoroborkillthevictim.Noteworthyisthetestimonyofthesisterofthedeceased,Nimfa
Quizon,whotestifiedinappellantsfavor.Appellantisnotherownson,buthernephew[TSN,February24,1999,p.3].Further,Miclat
herselfheardfromthevictimthatshehadbeentheoneresponsiblefortheappellantsrehabilitation[TSN,September9,1998,p.8].Itgoes
againstthegrainofhumanexperienceforasistertoprevaricateonthetrueidentityofthekillerofherownbloodsisterjusttohidetheguilt
ofanephew.
Lestitbeforgotten,theConstitutionmandatesthattheaccusedmustbepresumedinnocent.Hence,ifthecircumstancesarecapableof
severalinterpretations,oneofwhichisconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandtheothersconsistentwithhisguilt,thenthe
evidencehasnotfulfilledthetestofmoralcertaintyandisthusinsufficienttosupportaconviction[Peoplev.Mijares,297SCRA520
(1998)].
Third.Thetrialcourtconsideredappellantsfailuretoattendthefuneralritesofthevictimasasignofguilt.Thisisnotso[Peoplev.Andag,
supraPeoplev.Mijares,supra].Appellantandthesisterofthevictimtestifiedthatthebrothersofthevictim,unclesoftheappellant,
stronglysuspectedhimasthekiller.Hesimplyfollowedtheorderofhisstepmother,hisauntNimfaQuizon,toavoidattendingthewake
andtheburialtoavoidanymishapthatmightoccurbecauseofthesuppositionthathewasthekiller.
Fourth.Thetrialcourtfaultshimfornotclearinghisnameuponnoticethathewasasuspectandthathewentintohiding,citingthatthe
wickedmanfleesthoughnoonepursues.Unfortunately,nosuchflightcouldbeascribedtotheappellant.Thetrialcourtlostsightofthe
factthatappellantwasnotaresidentofAngelesCity,andthathestayedinthehouseofhisfatherinLaLoma,QuezonCitytodosomeodd
jobsandatthehouseofhisgirlfriendinParaaque[TSN,May25,1999,p.11].Flight,inordertobeconsideredasanindicationofguilt,
presupposesthatapersonescapesfromtheauthoritiestoevadeprosecution.Itdoesnotcontemplateasituationwheretheaccusedreturnsto
hishomewhereatanytime,hemaybepickedupforquestioninginconnectionwithorarrestedforhavingcommittedacrime.Flight,when
adequatelyexplained,cannotbeattributedtoonesconsciousnessofguilt.Appellantpresentedanunrebuttedexplanationthathefled,not
becauseofguiltforhavingperpetratedacrime,butratherforfearofhisownrelativesreprisalastheprimarysuspectinthekillingofhis
ownaunt.[Peoplev.Garcia,215SCRA349(1992)]Peoplev.Geron,281SCRA36(1997)]Peoplev.Mijares,297SCRA520(1998)].
Fifth.TheCourtsacceptanceofvariousdetailsastotheirregularityandstrangenessofappellantsactionsasconstitutiveofhisguiltlike
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

9/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

appellantshurriedleavingofthepremises,hisleavingthevictimbehindwhenbothofthemweregoingtoManila,andhisallegedlackof
cooperationwiththepoliceinsearchingforthetruecriminal,ispremisedonaprecariousfoothold.
Likewise,thereisnotestimonyastothedeathofthevictim,butonlyageneralmedicolegalexplanationthatthestrangulationofthevictim
hastenedthevictimsheartandlungdisease.Thereisnoevidenceoffingerprints,hairandskinsamplesonthedeceasedthatmightleadto
theidentityofthekiller.Theropeorclothorblanketthatwassupposedtohavestrangledthevictimwasnotpresented.Therewasno
testimonythatthebelongingsofthevictimwereindisarraytoshowstruggleduringthecrime.Theprosecutionwasunabletopresent
evidenceastohowthevictimdied.TheallegedP17,000.00paidtovictimandthepiecesofjewelrylostwereneverpresentedincourt,
muchlessweretheyfoundontheappellant.
Asthesayinggoes:Theseaofsuspicionhasnoshore,andthecourtthatembarksuponitiswithoutrudderorcompass.[Peoplev.Geron,
281SCRA36(1997)].Nocourt,whenconfrontedwithissuesthataffectthelifeandlibertyofcitizensinafreesociety,shouldtreat
flippantlythelattersconstitutionalguaranteesandsupplydeficienciesintheevidencefortheprosecutionwithitsownbias,suspicionor
[4]

speculation[Peoplev.Garcia,215SCRA349(1992)].
TheOSGthusprayed:

WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyprayedthattheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtinAngelesCity,datedMarch27,2000,inCriminal
CaseNo.97893beREVERSEDANDSETASIDEandaccusedappellantJOHNNYM.QUIZONbeACQUITTED.

[5]

TheCourtupholdstherecommendationoftheSolicitorGeneral.
Section4,Rule133,oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureprovides:
Section4.Circumstantialevidence,whensufficient.Circumstantialevidenceissufficientforconvictionif:
(a)Thereismorethanonecircumstance
(b)Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand
(c)Thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Theforegoingelementsmustallbeobtaininginordertoaptlywarranttheconvictionofanaccused.Thecircumstancesproved
mustbecongruouswitheachother,consistentwiththehypothesisthattheaccusedisguiltyandinconsistentwithanyother
[6]
hypothesisexceptthatofguilt. Itmustbeshown(a)thatthereismorethanonecircumstanceandthefactsfromwhichthe
inferencesarederivedhavebeenfirmlyestablishedand(b)thatthecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduce
aconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.TheCourthasoncesaid:
xxx.Likeatapestrymadeofstrandswhichcreateapatternwheninterwoven,ajudgmentofconvictionbasedoncircumstantialevidence
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

10/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

canbeupheldonlyifthecircumstancesprovedconstituteanunbrokenchainwhichleadstoonefairandreasonableconclusionpointingto
[7]
theaccused,totheexclusionofallothers,astheguiltyperson.
Evidently,ConchitaMagpantay Pasquin was a victim of foul play. The circumstances recited by the trial court, however,
would be insufficient to create in the mind of the Court a moral certainty that appellant was the one responsible for the
[8]
commission of the crime. Appellants mere presence at the locus criminis would be inadequate to implicate him in the
commissionofthecrime.Noevidencewasadducedthatappellantwasthelastpersontoseeortalktothevictimbeforeshe
waskilled.RoelSicangcotestifiedthatwhenheandMyla arrived at Conchitas office, the latter had just finished talking to a
woman and a man with a collectors bag. After Roel and Myla finished their transaction with Conchita, the same man and
woman,whomtheysawearlier,againenteredConchitasoffice.RoeltestifiedthathesawJohnnycomeoutoftheofficeand
boardapassengerjeepneygoingtoDau,Mabalacat,Pampanga.TheprosecutionfailedtoshowthatSicangcohadanygood
reasontolie.EvenwhilethetrialcourthadobservedthatConchitasjewelryandmoneywereneverfound,noevidencewas
introduced that appellant had them, or that he had them in his possession at anytime after Conchitas death. The trial court
founditstrangethatappellantdidnotwaitforConchitawhenthelattersaidthatshewasalsoleavingforManila.Appellantsaid
thathedidoffertowaitforConchitabutshetoldhimtogoaheadasshestillhadsomeotherworktoattendto.
The fact that appellant did not attend Conchitas wake is not an indication of either flight or guilt. Nimfa Quizon would
appeartohavewarnedappellantagainstgoingtothewakeafterheearnedtheireoftheirrelativeswhohadsuspectedhimto
bethekiller.
Significantly,noillmotivewasascribedonappellanttoeitherkillorrobhisownaunt.
Thecircumstancesrecitedbythetrialcourtmightbeenoughtocreatesomekindofsuspiciononthepartofthetrialcourt
of appellants involvement, but suspicion is not enough to warrant conviction.A finding of guilt based on conjecture, even if
likely,cannotsatisfytheneedforevidencerequiredforapronouncementofguilt,i.e.,proofbeyondreasonabledoubtofthe
[9]

complicityinthecrime. Nomatterhowweakthedefenseis,itisstillimperativefortheprosecutiontoprovetheguiltofthe
accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theevidencefortheprosecution,ithasbeensaid,mustatalltimesstandorfallonitsown
[10]

weight and it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. An accused has the right to be
presumedinnocent,andthispresumptionprevailsuntilandunlessitisoverturnedbycompetentandcredibleevidenceproving
[11]
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In case of any reservation against the guilt of accused, the Court should entertain no
otheralternativebuttoacquithim.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of finding appellant JOHNNY M. QUIZON guilty of robbery with
homicide is REVERSED and SETASIDE, and he isACQUITTED of the crime charged.The Court further orders appellants
immediatereleasefromcustody,unlessheislawfullyheldforanotherlawfulcause.
TheDirectoroftheBureauofCorrectionsisdirectedtoimplementthisDecisionimmediatelyandtoreporttothisCourtthe
actiontakenhereonnotlaterthanfive(5)daysfromreceipthereof.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

11/12

5/13/2016

PeoplevsQuizon:142532:November18,2003:J.Vitug:ThirdDivision

Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
SandovalGutierrez,Corona,andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Rollo,p.18.

Rollo,pp.2835.
Rollo,p.60.
Rollo,pp.102114.
Rollo,pp.114115.
Peoplevs.Corfin,G.R.No.131478,11April2002,380SCRA504.
Peoplevs.Comesario,G.R.No.127811,29April1999,306SCRA400.
Peoplevs.Asis,etal.G.R.No.142531,15October2002.
Arcevs.People,G.R.No.125857,20March2002,379SCRA583.

[10]
[11]

Peoplevs.Caete,G.R.No.138400,11July2002.

Peoplevs.Julian,Jr.,G.R.No.142774`,03July2002.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/142532.htm

12/12