People v.

Mendez 2002
Facts
This is an appeal (automatic review) from the decision of the RTC of
Laoang, Northern Samar, finding accused-appellants Renante
Mendez and Rene Baby Cabagtong guilty of rape with homicide
and sentencing each of them to death and to indemnify the heirs of
victim Candy Dolim in the amount of P100k as damages. Because the
record of the case is replete with numerous instances of procedural
and evidentiary lapses, the Court reversed the judgment of the trail
court and acquitted the accused-appellants on the basis of reasonable
doubt.
The case began with the filing of an information by Prosecutor
Napoleon C. Lagrimas on March 5, 1997, to which appellants
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented 6 witnesses: Rico
Dolim, Aurea Cabagtong, Ronnie Cabagtong, SPO2 Noli Cernio,
Zosimo Mager Mejica and Dr. Santiago M. Engo.
Rico Dolim Rico is the father of Candy. He was estranged from his
wife at the time of the incident, and Candy lived with him.
o He testified that on the morning of December 8, 1996, Candy
(13 years old) left to collect bets on the PBA ending games
from the local residents. When she did not return home that
evening, Rico asked his father Ambrosio and daughter Jinky
to look for Candy, but they did not find her. Information that
Candy was in Manapas with her mother proved wrong.
o On December 12, word reached Rico that a young girl was
found dead in Sitio Tiotogasan. Rico then went to the place
and identified the girl to be Candy, with her panty and
shorts hanging from an ankle and her shirt rolled up to her
throat. She had wounds in different parts of her body.
o Rico sought the help of the police and Barangay Captain
Pedro Gomba. He heard that a certain Ronnie Cabagtong
was involved in the killing of his daughter, so he filed a
complaint against Ronnie, who was then investigated by the
police.
o While Ronnie was under investigation at the police
headquarters, his mother Aurea Cabagtong came to the
station and spoke with Rico, telling him that she knew what
actually happened and offering to be a witness. She pointed

to the accused-appellants Baby Cabagtong and Renante

Mendez as the real perpetrators.
o Ricos statement as well as his father Ambrosios were taken
by the police, as were those of Aurea Cabagtong, Dimas
Pugnit, and Ronnie Cabagtong. Rico said he knew appellant
Renante because he was their neighbor, while he knew
appellant Baby because they are both from Barangay
Burabud. Rico claimed that he suffered an unbearable loss,
and that he incurred burial and incidental expenses
amounting to P7k.
Aurea Cabagtong Aurea is the mother of Ronnie Cabagtong.
o She claimed that on December 8, 1996, appellants Renante
and Baby went to her house. They were soaked from the
rain. Her son Ronnie was about to sleep when he asked her
to let the 2 inside. Ronnie and the appellants talked, but she
did not understand their discussion. She said that she had
seen the appellants washing their clothes to remove
bloodstains on them. They then spent the night in her house
with Ronnie. They had already left when she woke up the
next morning.
o She was only able to talk to Ronnie about their visit when he
was already being investigated. She gave a statement, which
was reduced in writing, before SPO2 Noli Cernio. She stated
that it was Ambrosio Dolim who asked her to testify in the
case, as he went to her house and even paid for her expenses
in attending court sessions.
Ronnie Cabagtong Ronnie claimed to be an eyewitness of the
crime. He was also suspected of being the perpetrator.
o On December 8, 1996, he watched a Betamax show in
Kagawad Tesoros house in Gamay. He said that Candy left
after the first show to solicit bets for the PBA ending games.
Appellants followed her. Ronnie left 5 minutes later and met
Dimas, who told him that he had seen the appellants with a
girl.
o Ronnie said he was 3 meters away when he later saw the
appellants at around 8 PM. Renante was on top of Candy,
having sexual intercourse with her, while Baby was holding
the victims hands. It was raining and there was no

moonlight, but Ronnie said he recognized Renante and Baby

because of a lantern which illuminated the place.
o According to Ronnie, he proceeded home. He did not tell his
mother about the incident, because we went to sleep
immediately after eating dinner. At about 9 PM, he heard
someone calling from the outside. It was appellants Renante
and Baby. Ronnie said he asked his mother to let the two
inside their house, because they were his acquaintances. He
noticed that they had bloodstains on their shirts. He said the
two washed their clothes to remove the stains and later slept
in his room. They warned Ronnie not to tell anyone about
what he saw or else they would kill him and his family.
Ronnie said that he and appellants then went to sleep. The
next morning, he learned that Candy had been killed and
buried on December 12.
o On December 12, Ronnie, together with Renante, was
apprehended by SPO2 Noli Cernio. He testified that he did
not immediately tell the police what he knew because
Renante had a first cousin who was a policeman. SPO2
Cernio did not put his statement in writing. Ronnie was
later released by the police.
o Ronnie then went to Manila in February 1997 to avoid
involvement in the case and to look for a job. He was fetched
from Manila by his mother on April 29, 1997 and was taken
to Catbalogan to be investigated by the NBI. He said he
decided to talk about the case because he was bothered by
his conscience as Candy was his cousin.
Dr. Santiago M. Engo He performed the autopsy on Candy Dolim.
o Dr. Engo found the body of Candy in a state of
decomposition. He found 5 wounds on different parts of her
body. Wounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 were caused by a sharp bladed
instrument, with the victim facing her assailant. Wound 4
was the vaginal laceration, caused by a blunt instrument.
Only Wound 1 (the hack wound in the neck) was serious and
could have caused her instantaneous death. It was possible
that she died either on December 7 or December 8.
Farvesio Bawis He was the owner of a coconut plantation in
Barangay Bato, Gamay, Northern Samar.

On December 8, 1996, while he was on his way home to

Barangay Burabud from Barangay Bato, he met 3 persons,
one of whom was Candy. He knew her to be the
granddaughter of a certain Bokoy. He identified the
appellants in court as the persons in Candys company that
night. He asked her what she was doing, and she said she
was looking for the winner of the PBA ending games.
o The following day, Farvesio left for Manila, but he learned a
week later that a little girl had been found dead in Gamay.
He verified that it was Candy, and then went to Ambrosio
Dolim to tell him he was willing to testify.
o Farvesio was investigated by SPO2 Noli Cernio. He executed
a sworn affidavit before the clerk of court of the Municipal
Court of Gamay. He said that it was possible it was the
appellants who raped Candy, as they were the ones
following her. He stated that he had no grudge against the
appellants, and that he volunteered to be a witness. He said
his affidavit was executed only when the case was already
filed in court because he stayed in Manila for a long time.
SPO2 Noli Cernio He was a member of the PNP of Gamay assigned
as an investigator in the Intelligence Section.
o In the morning of December 8, 1996, he was informed that a
dead body was found in Sitio Tinotogasan. He went to
Barangay Burabud with Chief of Police Peter Longcop and
Dr. Engo to conduct an investigation. They found the lifeless
body of Candy Dolim, which was identified by her
grandfather.
o Cernio found the victim to have been stabbed several times.
She was lying on a grassy area, with her panty pulled down
to her feet and her shirt raised up to her neck.
o Cernio questioned Ronnie Cabagtong and appellant
Renante. Ronnie told him that the appellants went to his
house at around 10 PM on the day of the incident. Cernio
said he did not take the sworn affidavit of Ronnie, because
Ronnie denied involvement in the case and claimed that he
was in their house on the night of the incident.
o Cernio claimed that Ronnie was released from custody after
he had informed the Chief that he was innocent. Renante
o

remained in custody for investigation, while the Chief

ordered appellant Baby to be arrested.
o Cernio investigated appellant Baby, who denied
participation in the incident. The investigation was not put
in writing.
o Cernio also investigated Aurea Cabagtong, Rico Dolim, and
Ambrosio Dolim. He testified that he knew appellant
Renante because there were several cases filed against him,
including a rape charge, which was dismissed after Renante
married the complainant. Appellant Baby also had several
complaints against him, but not all were filed in court. Baby
was known to be a troublemaker. He and Renante were
always seen together.
o Cernio testified that he filed the case against appellants
Renante and Baby because he had been informed that they
had watched a Betamax show together with the victim. He
learned that the victim and the appellants were in Burabud
on the date and time in question. He investigated Ronnie
but did not take down his affidavit because he believed his
claim that he was at home at the time of the incident.
The defense presented its evidence, on the theory that the crime was
committed by one Randy Gomba and not by appellants. The defense
presented 3 witnesses alongside the 2 appellants.
Josefina Bernas She claimed to have witnessed the rape committed
by Randy Gomba.
o She and her husband were in Sitio Tinotogasan making
copra when they heard a woman crying. She went to see
what it was and saw a girl being raped by a man. She
recognized the the assailant to be Randy Gomba. He then
warned her that he would kill her the story came out. She
ran fast until she reached her husband, and they hurriedly
went home.
o Upon reaching home, she wrote the date and time of the
incident and told her husband to watch out as Gomba might
come to their house, which he did. He then threatened to
harm them if they told anybody about the incident. He even
asked for P20 for his fare.
o Josefina and her husband then went to the house of her inlaws, and sought the help of the barangay captain. His son

July Gobatana brought them to the barangay captains house

where they stayed for almost 3 weeks. They left only when
they were informed that Gomba had gone to Manila. Josefina
gave the note she made to Eladio Cabagtong. She also sought
the help of Isabel Lucero, a barangay captain in Laoang and
a godfather of the victim. Lucero wrote a letter to Erma Ada,
Candys mother.
o Josefina said she did not see either of the 2 appellants in the
area where the incident took place. She said she came
forward because she was bothered by her conscience.
Isabelo Lucero He is a barangay captain from Laoag.
o He confirmed that Josefina told him that she had seen a girl
raped and killed, that girl being Candy. He said that Josefina
told him the assailant was a certain Gomba, whose first
name she could not remember.
o Lucero wrote a letter to the Chief of Police of Gamay,
informing him of the incident and recommending that
Gomba be arrested.
Rene Baby Cabagton The accused-appellant testified in his
defense.
o He said that he was arrested on December 13, 1996 in his
farm in Sitio Pinamihagan, Gamay by tanod Mano Mejica.
Appellant Baby was on is way home to take his meal when
he met Mejica, who asked him to go with him. Mejica
pointed a gun at him. He was then taken to the municipal
hall, where he was investigated by SPO2 Cernio. A certain
Peter Longcop was the sole companion of Cernio during the
investigation.
o Cernio asked him about his whereabouts on that particular
Sunday, and he answered that he was at his farm as it was a
working day. SPO2 Cernio only asked him one question.
Peter Longcop, on the other hand, asked him to testify
against appellant Renante because they wanted Baby to
implicate him, but he refused. He was then told to go
downstairs and was then placed in jail, wherein appellant
Renante was also present.
o Appellant Baby stated that everything Ronnie said was a lie,
and that SPO2 Cernio convinced him to testify against them
as a condition for his release. He claimed that at the time of

the incident, he was with his parents and siblings in his

house at the outskirts of Burabud.
o He stated that he was not aware of an order of the MCTC of
Gamay requiring him and Mendez to submit their counteraffidavits. Moreover, Gil Ada, the Clerk of Court o fthe
MCTC, required them to sign a waiver which they did not
sign.
Renante Mendez The accused-appellant testified in his defense.
o He claimed that in December 1996, he was in Gamay helping
his father make copra. He was arrested on December 12,
1996, together with Ronnie, by SPO2 Cernio, Peter Longcop,
Gejada and Barredo, all from the PNP. He was not shown
any warrant.
o Renante and Ronnie were brought to the municipal hall,
where their pictures were taken. They were investigated, and
Renante was locked up in jail and brought downstairs while
Ronnie was taken upstairs. He overheard the police asking
Ronnie to testify against them. He agreed and was released,
and later utilized as a witness.
o He testified that he was unaware that the MCTC had ordered
him to submit counter-affidavits, nor was he furnished with
a copy of the charges. He stated that hed id not leave his
house that evening of December 8 because he was sick.
Gil Ada He was the Clerk of Court of the MCTC of Gamay.
o He issued an order requiring the appellants to appear and to
submit counter-affidavits, together with those of their
witnesses, in connection with the criminal complaint. Je
issued the order on the authority of Judge Espina, now
retired, and upon the order of the present judge, Judge
Lagrimas, who conducted the preliminary investigation.
o He stated that it was usual for the court to issue an order for
the submission of counter-affidavits, but he did not know if
appellants actually submitted theirs. His purpose in issuing
the order was to let them answer the complaint, but he could
not say if it was also for the issuance of the warrants of
arrest.
The prosecution presented SPO2 Cernio as a rebuttal witness. He
denied that he taught Ronnie what to say in court. According to him,
Ronnie was not arrested but only invited to the police

headquarters. Renante could not have overheard him promising

liberty to Ronnie if the latter agreed to testify. The Chief ordered the
arrest of the appellants on the basis of the information given by
Aurea Cabagtong. No pictures were taken of the appellants. The
arrest of Renante without a warrant was based on their knowledge of
his guilt. Magno Mejica arrested Baby, also without a warrant,
because he was a member of the Citizens Crime Watch and an NPA
surrenderee.
Zosima Mejica also testified for the prosecution, declaring that he
knew appellant Baby because his mother was Zosimas second
cousin. He recalled that on December 13, 1996, while he was on his
way to Sitio Pinamihagan, he met appellant Baby. He said he collared
appellant and told him that he was being arrested as one of the
suspects in the rapeslay of Candy Dolim. According to Mejica, Baby
tried to escape but failed. He took Baby to the headquarters and
turned him over to the police. Mejica stated that he did not use a gun
in arresting Baby Cabagtong, but a small bolo belonging to Baby,
which he pretended to borrow from the latter. He turned over the
small bolo (tinogon) to the police.
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution, particularly
the testimonies of Ronnie Cabagtong and his mother, credible, and
rendered judgment for the prosecution.

Issue 1: W/N Ronnie Cabagtongs and Aurea Cabagtongs testimonies are

credible NO
First, it is doubtful whether Ronnie really saw appellant Renante
raping Candy. He admitted that it was raining that night and that it
was dark and there was no moonlight. He claimed, however that he
was able to recognize them because of a light from a lantern (parol),
hanging about 5 meters away from the trail where the crime had
been committed.
His testimony is contrary to the testimony of another prosecution
witness, Zosimo Mejica, who categorically stated that there were no
houses near the area where Candys body was found and that it was
surrounded by trees. He stated that the nearest house from the area
of the incident was more than 100 meters.
If there were no houses near the crime scene, it is cause for wonder
how the parol, where the light allegedly came from, could have been
hanged within a distance of five meters from the place where Ronnie

claimed he witnessed the incident. Even if the crime was committed

near the trail, and not on the exact spot where Candys body was
found, the nearest house would have to be at least 50 meters away.
Ronnie even embellished his story by claiming that the parol was
made of wood with a wick, inside a bottle.
Second, Ronnies behavior after allegedly witnessing the incident
belied his pretension. He was supposed to have witnessed a crime.
Yet he went home, took his supper and went to sleep as if nothing
had happened. When appellants went to his house, Ronnie did not
show any apprehension but matter-of-factly asked his mother to let
them in. This is not the normal reaction of a person who supposedly
has just seen a crime committed. Ronnies claim that the victim was
his cousin all the more makes his story incredible. For if this was
true, why did he show no concern for her at all?
SPO2 Cernio also testified that Ronnie and the appellants were often
seen together. Ronnie and Renante were even picked up and
investigated together by the police.
SPO2 Cernio also did not reduce into writing his investigation of
Ronnie. He took at face value Ronnies word that he was innocent.
This makes it clear that Ronnie and his mother were only too willing
to testify against appellants in exchange for his liberty. While the
Court did not want to speculate on his participation in the crime, it
cannot ignore the ulterior motive he and his mother had in pointing
to the appellants as the culprits.

Issue 2: W/N the circumstantial evidence is enough to convict the accusedappellants NO

Circumstantial evidence must meet the following criteria:
o there is more than one circumstance;
o the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved;
and
o the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
In this case, the prosecution presented Farvesio Banawis, who said
that he met Candy Dolim on his way home and that she was in the
company of the appellants. However, this fact alone does not warrant
the conclusion that they raped and killed Candy.
The defense presented Josefina Bernas, who claimed to have actually
witnessed the crime. It was an alleged eyewitness account

identifying the perpetrator as a certain Randy Gomba. It was even

reported through Isabelo Lucero, a barangay captain and a godfather
to the victim. It would seem, however, that the police were keen on
pinning the blame on appellants, who made for easy targets because
of their reputation in their community.
The prosecution in this case failed to establish the guilt of the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue 3: W/N accused-appellants rights were violated during the period of

their detention YES
SPO2 Cernio did not have personal knowledge of the commission
of the crime so as to justify the warrantless arrest of Renante
Mendez. Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant
under S5(b) of R113 must be based upon probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The
grounds of suspicion are reasonable when it is based on actual facts,
i.e., when it is supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested.
There is also an inconsistency between Ronnies testimony and
Cernios testimony. SPO2 Cernio testified that Ronnie told him the
day he was arrested that appellants Renante and Baby went to
Ronnies house at around 10 PM on the night of the incident. But
Ronnie denied that he told the police what he knew of the incident
when he was investigated because he feared for his life. The police
failed to record the investigation, so it is now impossible to
determine who was actually telling the truth. It is clear, however, that
Renante was arrested together with Ronnie.
On the other hand, the only time the police had evidence against
appellant Renante was when Aurea Cabagtong came forward after
her sons arrest and pointed to him and Baby as the perpetrators. But
that was only on December 12, 1996, four days after the commission
of the crime, and it could not justify the arrest of appellants without
a judicial warrant.
Appellant Baby was arrested by Zosimo Mejica, a member of the
Citizens Crime Watch, on the basis of the citizens arrest law. He was
not a police officer nor a witness to the incident. He was not a
member of the investigating team. He did not have any personal
knowledge of the incident. He admitted during cross examination

that he merely based his arrest on the information supplied by Aurea

Cabagtong to the police. This does not constitute personal
knowledge to warrant a citizens arrest.
The records do not show that appellants were assisted by councel in
the course of the investigation. Only the police were present.
Nowhere in the records was it shown that they were apprised of
their Constitutional rights. They also did not receive a copy of the
order requiring them to submit counter-affidavits.

These procedural lapses clearly indicate that the police had shut its
mind off to the possibility that other parties might have committed
the crime.

HELD: RTC reversed. Accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby

Cabagtong are acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.