5/27/2017 G.R.No.

183830

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHE G.R.No.183830
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee, Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,


LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.


Promulgated:
DELFINCALISO,
AccusedAppellant. October19,2011

xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

Thedecisivequestionthatseeksanansweriswhethertheidentificationoftheperpetrator
ofthecrimebyaneyewitnesswhodidnotgetalookatthefaceoftheperpetratorwasreliable
andpositiveenoughtosupporttheconvictionofappellantDelfinCaliso(Caliso).

Caliso was arraigned and tried for rape with homicide, but the Regional Trial Court
(RTC),Branch21,inKapatagan,LanaodelNortefoundhimguiltyofmurderforthekillingof
[1]
AAA, amentallyretarded16yearoldgirl,andsentencedhimtodeathinitsdecisiondated
[2]
August 19, 2002. The appeal of the conviction was brought automatically to the Court. On
[3]
June28,2005, theCourttransferredtherecordstotheCourtofAppeals(CA)forintermediate
[4] [5]
reviewpursuanttotherulinginPeoplev.Mateo. OnOctober26,2007, the CA, although
affirming the conviction, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua and modified the civil
awards.Now,Calisoisbeforeusinafinalbidtooverturnhisconviction.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 1/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

Antecedents

The information dated August 5, 1997 charged Caliso with rape with homicide
perpetratedinthefollowingmanner:

Thatonoraboutthe5thdayofJune,1997,atKapatagan,LanaodelNorte,Philippinesand
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledgeupononeAAA,whoisaminorof16yearsoldandamentallyretardedgirl,against
herwillandconsentthatontheoccasionofsaidrapeandinfurtheranceoftheaccusedscriminal
designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and taking
advantage of superior strength, attack, assault and use personal violence upon said AAA by
maulingher,pullinghertowardsamuddywaterandsubmergingherunderneath,whichcaused
thedeathofsaidAAAsoonthereafter.

CONTRARYtoandinVIOLATIONofArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCodeinrelationto
[6]
R.A.7659,otherwiseknownastheHeinousCrimesLaw.

[7]
AthisarraignmentonNovember12,1997, Calisopleadednotguiltytothecharge.

TherecordsshowthatAAAdiedonJune5,1997ataround11:00amintheriverlocated
inBarangayTiacongan,Kapatagan,LanaoDelNortethattheimmediatecauseofherdeathwas
asphyxia, secondary to drowning due to smothering that the lone eyewitness, 34year old
SoledadAmegable(Amegable),hadbeenclearingherfarmwhensheheardtheanguishedcries
[8]
ofagirlpleadingformercy:Pleasestopnoy,itispainfulnoy! thatthecriescamefroman
areawithlushbamboogrowththatmadeitdifficultforAmegabletoseewhatwasgoingonthat
Amegable subsequently heard sounds of beating and mauling that soon ended the girls cries
thatAmegablethenproceededtogetabetterglimpseofwhatwashappening,hidingbehinda
clusterofbananatreesinordernottobeseen,andfromthereshesawamanwearinggrayshort
pants bearing the number 11 mark, who dragged a girls limp body into the river, where he
submergedthegirlintothekneehighmuddywaterandstoodoverherbodythathelaterlifted
thelimpbodyandtossedittodeeperwaterthathenextjumpedintotheothersideoftheriver
thatinthatwholetime,Amegablecouldnothavealookathisfacebecausehealwayshadhis
[9]
back turned towards her that she nonetheless insisted that the man was Caliso, whose
physicalfeaturesshewasfamiliarwithduetohavingseenhimpassbytheirbarangayseveral
[10]
timespriortotheincident thatafterthemanfledthecrimescene,Amegablewentstraightto

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 2/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

herhouseandtoldherhusbandwhatshehadwitnessedandthatherhusbandinstantlyreported
theincidenttothebarangaychairman.

[11]
ItappearsthatoneSPO3RomuloR.Pancipancideclaredinanaffidavit thatuponhis
stationreceivingtheincidentreportonAAAsdeathatabout12:45pmofJune5,1997,heand
two other officers proceeded to the crime scene to investigate that he interviewedAmegable
whoidentifiedthekillerbyhisphysicalfeaturesandclothing(shortpants)thatbasedonsuch
information,hetracedCalisoasAAAskillerandthatCalisogaveanextrajudicialadmissionof
thekillingofAAA.However,thedeclarationsintheaffidavitremainedworthlessbecausethe
ProsecutiondidnotpresentSPO3Pancipanciasitswitness.

LeoBering,thebarangaychairmanofSanVicente,Kapatagan,LanaoDelNorte,attested
thatontheoccasionofCalisosarrestandhiscustodialinterrogation,heheardCalisoadmitto
theinvestigatingpoliceofficertheownershipoftheshortpantsrecoveredfromthecrimescene
thattheadmissionwasthereasonwhySPO3PancipanciarrestedCalisofromamongthecurious
onlookers that had gathered in the area that Amegable, who saw SPO3 Pancipancis arrest of
Calisoatthecrimescene,surmisedthatCalisohadgonehomeandreturnedtothecrimescene
[12]
thereafter.

Municipal Health Officer Dr. Joseph G.B. Fuentecilla conducted the postmortem
examinationonthebodyofAAAonJune6,1997,andfoundthefollowinginjuries,towit:

EXTERNALFINDINGS:

1.Thedeadbodywasgenerallypalewearingaheavilysoiledoldsleevelessshirtandgarter
skirts.
2. Thebodywaswetandheavilysoiledwithmudbothnostrilsandmouthwasfilledwith
mud.
3.Theskinofhandsandfeetisbleachedandcorrugatedinappearance.
4.2cm.linearlaceratedwoundontheleftcheek(sic).
5.Multiplesmall(sic)reddishcontusionsonanteriorneckarea.
6.Circularhematomaformation3inchesindiameterepigastricareaofabdomen.
7.Fourerythematuslinearabrasionoftheleftcheek(sic).
8.Presenceofa6x8inchesbulgeonthebackjustbelowtheinferiorangleofbothscapula
extendingdownwards.
9.Thebodywaswearinganimproperlyplacedunderwearwiththegarterverticallyoriented
totherightstainedwithmoderateamountofyellowishfecalmaterial.
10. Minimal amount of pubic hair in the lower pubis with labia majora contracted and
retracted.
11. Theresnoswelling abrasion, laceration, blood hematoma formation in the vulva. There
wereoldhealedhymenallacerationsat5and9oclockposition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 3/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

12.Vaginalcanaladmitsonefingerwithnoforeignbodyrecovered(sic).
13.Ovalshapedcontusion/hematoma6cmatitsgreatestdiameteranteriorsurfacemiddle3rd
leftthigh.
[13]
14.Presenceof2contusionlaceration1x0.5cminsizemedialaspectleftknee.

Dr.FuentecillaalsoconductedaphysicalexaminationonthebodyofCalisoandsummed
uphisfindingsthusly:

P.E.FINDINGS:
1. Presence of a 7x0.1 cm. horizontally averted linear erythematus contusion left side of
neck(Post).
2. 8x0.2cm.reddishlinearabrasion(probablyascratchmark)fromtheleftmidclavicular
lineextendingtotheleftanterioraxillaryline.
3.Presenceof2erythematusabrasion3cmx0.1cminaveragesizedorsalsurface(probably
ascratchmark)middle3rdleftarm.
4.2.5cm.abrasiondorsalsurfacemiddleandrightforearm.
5.Presenceofalinearerythematuscontusion(probablyascratchmark)2x7cm.inaverage
sizelateralboarderofscapulaextendingtoleftposterioraxillaryline.
6. Presenceof2obliqueorientederythematuscontusion(probablyascratchmark)14x022
cm.and5x0.2cm.insizerespectivelyattheupperleftflankofthelowerbackextending
downwardtothemidline.
7. Presenceof5linearreddishpressurecontusionparalleltoeachotherwithanaverage5
[14]
cmleftflankarea.

Inhisdefense,Calisodeniedtheaccusationandinterposedanalibi,insistingthatonthe
dayofthekilling,heplowedthericefieldofAlacYangyangfrom7:00amuntil4:00pm.

YangyangcorroboratedCalisosalibi,recallingthatCalisohadplowedhisricefieldfrom
8amto4pmofJune5,1997.HefurtherrecalledthatCalisowasinhisfarmaround12:00noon
becausehebroughtlunchtoCaliso.Heconceded,however,thathewasnotawarewhereCaliso
wasatthetimeofthekilling.

RulingoftheRTC

Aftertrial,theRTCrendereditsjudgmentonAugust19,2002,viz:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, accused DELFIN CALISO is
herebysentencedtodeathandtoindemnifytheheirsofAAAintheamountofP50,000.00.The
accused is also hereby ordered to pay the said heirs the amount of P50, 000.00 as exemplary
damages.

[15]
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 4/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

TheRTC found that rape could not be complexed with the killing of AAA because the
oldhealed hymenal lacerations of AAA and the fact that the victims underwear had been
irregularlyplacedcouldnotestablishthecommissionofcarnalknowledgethattheexamining
physicianalsofoundnophysicalsignsofrapeonthebodyofAAAandthatastothekillingof
AAA,theidentificationbyAmegablethatthemanshehadseensubmergingAAAinthemurky
riverwasnootherthanCalisohimselfwasreliable.

Nevertheless,theRTCdidnottakeintoconsiderationthetestimonyofBeringonCalisos
extrajudicialadmissionoftheownershipoftheshortpantsbecausethepantswerenotpresented
[16]
asevidenceandbecausethepoliceofficersinvolveddidnottestifyaboutthepantsincourt.
TheRTCcitedthequalifyingcircumstanceofabuseofsuperiorstrengthtoraisethecrimefrom
homicide to murder, regarding the word homicide in the information to be used in its generic
senseastoincludealltypesofkilling.

RulingoftheCA

On intermediate review, the following errors were raised in the brief for the accused
[17]
appellant, namely:

i.Thecourtaquogravelyerredinconvictingtheaccusedappellantofthecrimeofmurder
despitethefailureoftheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt

ii. The court a quo gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the incredible and
inconsistenttestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnesses.

iii.Thecourtaquogravelyerredinappreciatingthequalifyingaggravatingcircumstanceof
taking advantage of superior strength and the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of
sex[and]

iv.Thecourtaquogravelyerredinimposingthedeathpenalty.


As stated, the CA affirmed Calisos conviction for murder based on the same
ratiocinationstheRTChadrendered.TheCAalsoreliedontheidentificationbyAmegableof
Caliso,despitehisbackbeingturnedtowardsherduringthecommissionofthecrime.TheCA
ruledthatshemadeapositiveidentificationofCalisoastheperpetratorofthekilling,observing
thattheincidenthappenedatnoonwhenthesunhadbeenatitsbrightest,coupledwiththefact
that Amegables view had not been obstructed by any object at the time that AAAs body had
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 5/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

been submerged in the water that the RTC expressly found her testimony as clear and
straightforward and worthy of credence that no reason existed why Amegable would falsely
testifyagainstCalisothatCalisodidnotprovethephysicalimpossibilityforhimtobeatthe
crime scene or at its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident, for both Barangay San
Vicente, where AAAs body was found, and Barangay Tiacongan, where the rice field of
Yangyang was located, were contiguous that the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior
strength qualified the killing of AAA to murder that disregard of sex should not have been
appreciatedasanaggravatingcircumstanceduetoitsnotbeingallegedintheinformationand
itsnotbeingprovenduringtrialandthatthedeathpenaltycouldnotbeimposedbecauseofthe
passageofRepublicActNo.9346,prohibitingitsimpositioninthePhilippines.

TheCAdecreedinitsjudgment,viz:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated August 19, 2002, finding
appellant guilty of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant
Delfin Caliso is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and is directed to pay the victims heirs the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, as well as the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages, in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 he had been adjudged to pay by the
trialcourt.

[18]
SOORDERED.




Issue

TheprimordialissueiswhetherAmegablesidentificationofCalisoasthemanwhokilled
AAAatnoonofJuly5,1997waspositiveandreliable.

Ruling

Theappealismeritorious.

Ineverycriminalprosecution,theidentityoftheoffender,likethecrimeitself,mustbe
establishedbyproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.Indeed,thefirstdutyoftheProsecutionisnotto
provethecrimebuttoprovetheidentityofthecriminal,forevenifthecommissionofthecrime

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 6/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

canbeestablished,therecanbenoconvictionwithoutproofofidentityofthecriminalbeyond
[19]
reasonabledoubt.

TheCArejectedthechallengeCalisomountedagainstthereliabilityofhisidentification
[20]
astheculpritbyAmegableinthefollowingmanner:

Astothefirsttwoerrorsraised,appellantcontendsthatthetestimonyofSoledadAmegablewas
repletewithdiscrepancies.Appellantavers,forinstance,thatSoledadfailedtoseetheassailants
face. Moreover, considering the distance between where Soledad was supposedly hiding and
wheretheincidenttranspired,appellantstatesthatitwasinconceivableforhertohaveheardand
seen the incident. According to appellant, witness Soledad could not even remember if at that
time,shehidbehindabananaplant,oracoconuttree.

Atbench,theincidenthappenedatnoon,whenthesunwasatitsbrightest.Soledadcouldvery
well recognize appellant. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that it was his back that was
facingher,sheassertedbeingfamiliarwiththephysicalfeaturesofappellant,consideringthathe
frequented their barangay. Even during her crossexamination by the defense counsel, Soledad
remainedsteadfastincategoricallystatingthatsherecognizedappellant:

Q: Mrs. Amegable, you said during your direct examination that you saw
DelfinCaliso,theaccusedinthiscase,severaltimespassedbyyourbarangay,
amIcorrect?
A:Severaltimes.

Q:Byanychancepriortotheincident,didyoutalktohim?
A:No,sir.

Q:Areyouacquaintedwithhim?
A:Yes,sir.

Q:Evenifheisinhisbackposition?
A:Yes,sir.(EmphasisSupplied)

Giventhecircumstancesasstatedabove,itwasevenprobablethatSoledadcaughtglimpsesof
the profile of the appellant at the time of the incident. She related, in addition, that when the
victimwasbeingsubmergedinthewater,therewasnoobjectobstructingherview.

Theinconsistenciesasallegedbyappellant,betweenSoledadAmegablesdeclarationincourtand
her affidavit, such as the tree or plant from where she was hiding behind at the time of the
incident,areinsignificantandcannotnegateappellantscriminalliability.Herwholeattentionwas
rivetedtotheincidentthatwasunfoldingbeforeher.Besides,anysuchinconsistenciesareminor.
Slight contradictions are indicative of an unrehearsed testimony and could even serve to
strengthen the witness credibility. A witness who is telling the truth is not always expected to
give a perfectly concise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human
memory.

Infact,thetestimonyofasingleeyewitnessissufficienttosupportaconviction,solongassuch
testimony is found to be clear and straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.
Furthermore,overhere,witnessSoledadhadnoreasontotestifyfalselyagainstappellant.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 7/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

Besides,thecredibilityofwitnessesandtheirtestimoniesisamatterbestundertakenbythetrial
court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and
conclusiveontheappellatecourt.

Contrary to the CAs holding that the identification of Caliso based on Amegables
recognitionofhimwasreliable,theCourtconsiderstheidentificationnotreliableandbeyond
doubtastomeettherequirementofmoralcertainty.

When is identification of the perpetrator of a crime positive and reliable enough for
establishinghisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt?

The identification of a malefactor, to be positive and sufficient for conviction, does not
alwaysrequiredirectevidencefromaneyewitnessotherwise,noconvictionwillbepossiblein
crimeswheretherearenoeyewitnesses.Indeed,trustworthycircumstantialevidencecanequally
confirmtheidentificationandovercometheconstitutionallypresumedinnocenceoftheaccused.
[21]
Thus,theCourthasdistinguishedtwotypesofpositiveidentificationinPeoplev.Gallarde,
towit:(a)thatbydirectevidence,throughaneyewitnesstotheverycommissionoftheactand
(b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim
immediatelybeforeorafterthecrime.TheCourtsaid:

xxxPositiveidentificationpertainsessentiallytoproofofidentityandnotpersetothatof
being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of
positive identification. A witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the
perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This
constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a witness may
not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to
positivelyidentifyasuspectoraccusedastheperpetratorofacrimeasforinstancewhen
thelatteristhepersonoroneofthepersonslastseenwiththevictimimmediatelybefore
andrightafterthecommissionofthecrime.Thisisthesecondtypeofpositiveidentification,
which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of
evidenceconstitutinganunbrokenchain,leadstoonlyfairandreasonableconclusion,whichis
thattheaccusedistheauthorofthecrimetotheexclusionofallothers.Iftheactualeyewitnesses
aretheonlyonesallowedtopossiblypositivelyidentifyasuspectoraccusedtotheexclusionof
others,thennobodycaneverbeconvictedunlessthereisaneyewitness,becauseitisbasicand
elementary that there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified.
Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled that direct evidence of the
commissionofacrimeisnottheonlymatrixwherefromatrialcourtmaydrawitsconclusionand
findingofguilt.Ifresorttocircumstantialevidencewouldnotbeallowedtoproveidentityofthe
accusedontheabsenceofdirectevidence,thenfelonswouldgofreeandthecommunitywould
[22]
bedeniedproperprotection.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 8/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

AmegableassertedthatshewasfamiliarwithCalisobecauseshehadseenhimpassbyin
herbarangayseveraltimespriortothekilling.Suchassertionindicatesthatshewasobviously
assumingthatthekillerwasnootherthanCaliso.Asmattersstand,therefore,Calisosconviction
hangsbyasinglethreadofevidence,thedirectevidenceofAmegablesidentificationofhimas
theperpetratorofthekilling.Butthatsinglethreadwasthin,andcannotstandsincerescrutiny.
Ineverycriminalprosecution,nolessthanmoralcertaintyisrequiredinestablishingtheidentity
oftheaccusedastheperpetratorofthecrime.HeridentificationofCalisoastheperpetratordid
not have unassailable reliability, the only means by which it might be said to be positive and
sufficient.Thetesttodeterminethemoralcertaintyofanidentificationisitsimperviousnessto
skepticismonaccountofitsdistinctiveness.Toachievesuchdistinctiveness,theidentification
evidenceshouldencompassuniquephysicalfeaturesorcharacteristics,liketheface,thevoice,
the dentures, the distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any other
physicalfactsthatsettheindividualapartfromtherestofhumanity.

A witness familiarity with the accused, although accepted as basis for a positive
identification,doesnotalwayspassthetestofmoralcertaintyduetothepossibilityofmistake.

NomatterhowhonestAmegablestestimonymighthavebeen,heridentificationofCaliso
by a sheer look at his back for a few minutes could not be regarded as positive enough to
generate that moral certainty about Caliso being the perpetrator of the killing, absent other
reliablecircumstancesshowinghimtobeAAAskiller.Heridentificationofhiminthatmanner
lackedthequalitiesofexclusivityanduniqueness,evenasitdidnotruleoutherbeingmistaken.
Indeed, there could be so many other individuals in the community where the crime was
committed whose backs might have looked like Calisos back. Moreover, many factors could
have influenced her perception, including her lack of keenness of observation, her emotional
stressofthemoment,herpronenesstosuggestionfromothers,herexcitement,andhertendency
toassume.Theextentofsuchfactorsarenotpartoftherecordshence,thetrialcourtandthe
CAcouldnothavetakenthemintoconsideration.Buttheinfluenceofsuchvariedfactorscould
not simply be ignored or taken for granted, for it is even a wellknown phenomenon that the
membersofthesamefamily,whosefamiliaritywithoneanothercouldbeeasilygranted,often
inaccurately identify one another through a sheer view of anothers back. Certainly, an
identificationthatdoesnotprecludeareasonablepossibilityofmistakecannotbeaccordedany
[23]
evidentiaryforce.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 9/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

Amegablesrecollectionoftheperpetratorwearingshortpantsbearingthenumber11did
notenhancethereliabilityofheridentificationofCaliso.Forone,suchpantswerenotoneofa
kind apparel, but generic. Also, they were not offered in evidence. Yet, even if they had been
admittedinevidence,itremaineddoubtfulthattheycouldhavebeenlinkedtoCalisowithout
proofofhisownershiporpossessionoftheminthemomentsbeforethecrimewasperpetrated.

NordidthelackofbadfaithorillmotiveonthepartofAmegabletoimputethekillingto
Caliso guarantee the reliability and accuracy of her identification of him. The dearth of
competentadditionalevidencethateliminatedthepossibilityofanyhumanerrorinAmegables
identificationofCalisorenderedherlackofbadfaithorillmotiveirrelevantandimmaterial,for
even the most sincere person could easily be mistaken about her impressions of persons
involvedinstartlingoccurrencessuchasthecrimecommittedagainstAAA.Itisneitherfairnor
judicious,therefore,tohavethelackofbadfaithorillmotiveonthepartofAmegableraiseher
identificationtothelevelofmoralcertainty.

TheinjuriesfoundonthepersonofCalisobyDr.Fuentecilla,asborneoutbythemedical
[24]
certificatedatedJune9,1997, didnotsupporttheculpabilityofCaliso.Theinjuries,which
[25]
were mostly mere scratch marks, were not even linked by the examining physician to the
crime charged. Inasmuch as the injuries of Caliso might also have been due to other causes,
includingonerelatedtohisdoingmeniallabormostofthetime,theirsignificanceasevidence
ofguiltisnil.

In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the
accuseds constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not
[26] [27]
overcome,andheisentitledtoanacquittal, thoughhisinnocencemaybedoubted. The
constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary
importance,andtheconvictionoftheaccusedmustrestnotontheweaknessofthedefensehe
[28]
putupbutonthestrengthoftheevidencefortheProsecution.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionpromulgatedonOctober26,2007isREVERSEDandSET
ASIDEforinsufficiencyofevidence,andaccusedappellantDelfinCalisoisACQUITTEDof
thecrimeofmurder.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 10/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City is directed to forthwith

release Delfin Caliso from confinement, unless there is another lawful cause warranting his
furtherdetention.

Nopronouncementoncostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice



CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 11/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

[1]
TherealnameofthevictimandherimmediatefamilyarewithheldperR.A.No.7610andR.A.No.9262(AntiViolenceAgainst
WomenandTheirChildrenActof2004)anditsimplementingrules.SeePeoplev.Cabalquinto,G.R.No.167693,September19,
2006,502SCRA419.
[2]
Records,pp,174191.
[3]
CArollo,p.122.
[4]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[5]
CArollo,pp.125133pennedbyAssociateJusticeMichaelP.Elbinias,withAssociateJusticeTeresitaDyLiaccoFlores(retired)
andAssociateJusticeRodrigoF.Limconcurring.
[6]
Records,p.1.
[7]
Id.,p.25.
[8]
TSN,July8,1998,p.4.
[9]
TSN,September2,1998,p.11.
[10]
Id,p.3.
[11]
Records,p.3.
[12]
TSN,September2,1998,p.12.
[13]
Records,p.73.
[14]
Id.,p.74.
[15]
Id.,p.191.
[16]
Id.,p.186.
[17]
CArollo,pp.5468.
[18]
Id.,p.133.
[19]
Peoplev.Pineda,G.R.No.141644,May27,2004,429SCRA478Peoplev.Esmale,G.R.Nos.10298182,April21,1995,243
SCRA578Tuasonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.11377980,February23,1995,241SCRA695.
[20]
CArollo,pp.129130.
[21]
G.R.No.133025,February17,2000,325SCRA835.
[22]
Id.,atpp.849850boldemphasissupplied.
[23]
Peoplev.Fronda,G.R.No.130602,March15,2000328SCRA185Natividadv.CourtofAppeals,98SCRA335,346[1980]
Peoplev.Beltran,L31860,November29,1974,61SCRA246,250Peoplev.Manambit,G.R.No.1274445,April18,1997,271
SCRA344,377Peoplev.Maongco,G.R.No.10896365,March1,1994,230SCRA562,575.
[24]
Records,p.74.
[25]
TSN,June16,1999,pp.11.
[26]
SeeNatividadv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L40233,June25,1980,98SCRA335,346.
[27]
Pechov.People,G.R.No.111399,September27,1996,262SCRA518,533,Perezv.Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 7620304,
December6,1989,180SCRA9Peoplev.Sadie,No.L66907,April14,1987,149SCRA240U.S.v.Gutierrez,No.1877,4Phil.
493April29,[1905].
[28]
Peoplev.Pidia,G.R.No.112264,November10,1995,249SCRA687,702.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 12/13
5/27/2017 G.R.No.183830

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/183830.htm 13/13