Case Digest: Celestino Marturillas vs.
People of the Philippines ISSUE:
G.R. No. 163217 18 April 2006
FACTS:
On 04 November 1998, after Lito Santos had served his wife Cecilia and
Artemio Pantinople with lunch, Artemio returned to his store which was five
(5) meters away from Santos house. At about 7:30 in the evening, Santos was
eating lunch in his house when he heard a gunshot. Artemio had been shot on
the chest. He shouted at Santos Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan. (Help
me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.) Lito saw a man running away from the
direction of Artemios store, but he wasnt able to see his face. Artemios wife,
Ernita, came running from her house to her husbands side upon seeing him
sprawled on the ground and bloodied. She had left her infant lying on the
kitchen floor in surprise. Ernita shouted several times, Kapitan, ngano nimo
gipatay ang akong bana. (Captain, why did you shoot my husband?)
Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas was invited by a couple of police
officers to the police station upon informing that he was the principal suspect
in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. He also took with him his government-
issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition, and turned over
the same to the Bunawan PNP. To his defense, he claimed that he was asleep
in his home which was 250 meters away from Artemios store. Further, he is
said to have just risen from bed when two Barangay Kagawads wanted to see
him because of the shooting incident. He even tried to approach Artemios
family, but he could not do so because they had turned belligerent at his
presence.
During the trial of the case, Ernita positively identified Marturillas as her
husbands assailant. This positive identification is corroborated by Santos
testimony and expert witness Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer for
Davao City, that the gunshot wound in Artemios body had been caused by a
bullet that is of the same size as that fired from an M-14 Rifle. However, the
same expert witness testified that Marturillas hands do not contain
gunpowder nitrates.
Whether the prosecutions evidence is credible and enough to convict
Marturillas of homicide.
RULING:
Ernita positively identified Marturillas as the one running away immediately
after the sound of a gunshot. Certain that she had seen him, she even
described what he was wearing, the firearm he was carrying, and the direction
towards which he was running. She also clarified that she had heard the
statement, help me pre, I was shot by the captain. The Supreme Court
upheld the findings of the RTC and the CA that Ernitas testimony is credible
because the spot where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her
house. The identification of a person can be established through familiarity
with ones physical features. Once a person has gained familiarity with one
another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable
distance. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural
communities generally know each other both by face and name, and can be
expected to know each others distinct and particular features and
characteristics. Settled is the rule that on questions of credibility of witnesses
and veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the
highest degree of respect.
It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner was the one who
had actually shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this witness is valuable,
because it validates the statements made by Ernita. He confirms that after
hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim and heard the latter cry out those same
words.
Moreover, the statement of the victim is considered by the Court as both a
dying declaration and res gestae. Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of
res gestae. Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants of the
victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its
commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance
inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the
declarant to fabricate a false statement. All the requisites of res gestae are
present in this case:

1.) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;

2.) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and

3.) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.

Both the statements of the victim and Ernita can be considered res gestae.
AMANQUITON vs. PEOPLE
FACTS: Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok leader. As a purok leader and
barangay tanod, he was responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness, peace
and order of the community. At 10:45 p.m. on Oct. 30, 2001, petitioner heard
an explosion. He, together with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante and a
certain Cabisudo, proceeded to Sambong Street where the explosion took
place. Thereafter, they saw complainant Baaga being chased by Gepulane.
Upon learning that Baaga was the one who threw the pillbox that caused the
explosion, petitioner and his companions also went after him. On reaching
Baagas house, petitioner, Cabisudo and Amante knocked on the door. When
no one answered, they decided to hide some distance away. After five
minutes, Baaga came out of the house. At this juncture, petitioner and his
companions immediately apprehended him.Baaga was later brought to the
police station. On the way to the police station, Gepulane suddenly appeared
from nowhere and boxed Baaga in the face. This caused petitioner to order
Gepulanes apprehension along with Baaga. During the investigation,
petitioner learned Baaga had been previously mauled by a group made up of
a certainRaul, Boyet and Cris but failed to identify two others. The mauling was
the result of gang trouble in a certain residential compound in Taguig City.
Thereafter, an Information for the crime of child abuse was filed against
petitioner, Amante and Gepulane. RTC found petitioner and Amante guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. An accused is
entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. It is
the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion, with moral certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the
fact that in a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it
enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited
means of command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are
regarded as public officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with
an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant
engaged in a perturbed and distractingstruggle for liberty if not for life. These
inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by the rule that there is to be
noconviction where there is reasonable doubt of guilt. However, proof beyond
reasonable doubt requires only moral certaintyor that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.The RTC and CA hinged their
finding of petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of child
abusesolely on the supposed positive identification by the complainant and his
witness Alimpuyo of petitioner and his co-accused as the perpetrators of the
crime.We note Baagas statement that, when he was apprehended by
petitioner, there were many people around. Yet,the prosecution presented
only Baaga and Alimpuyo, as witnesses to the mauling incident. Furthermore,
Baaga failedto controvert the validity of the barangay blotter he signed
regarding the mauling incident which happened prior to hisapprehension by
petitioner. Neither did he ever deny the allegation that he figured in a prior
battery by gang members. All this raises serious doubt on whether Baagas
injuries were really inflicted by petitioner to the exclusion ofother people. In
fact, petitioner testified clearly that Gepulane came out of nowhere and
punched Baaga while the latterwas being brought to the police station.
Gepulane, not petitioner, could very well have caused Baaga's injuries.
Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who actually caused the bloodied
condition of Baagas face because shehad to first put down the baby she was
then carrying when the melee started. More importantly, Alimpuyo stated that
shewas told by Baaga that, while he was allegedly being held by the neck by
petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyowas obviously testifying not on
what she personally saw but on what Baaga told her.We apply the pro reo
principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of
fact is inquestion or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the
doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. Ifinculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with
the innocence of theaccused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will notjustify a
conviction.We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure
is not to send people to jail but to do justice.The prosecutions job is to prove
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based
on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense.
Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not enough to sustain a
conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once

People vs Wagas
FACTS:
1. April 30, 1997: Mystery man (allegedly Wagas) to Ligaray over the
phone said he wants to buy 200 bags of rice and he will just issue a postdated
check.
2. Ligaray was hesitant but mystery man said he had the means to pay
because he had a lending business and money in the bank,
3. Check (payable to cash-> doesnt need to be indorsed) was given to
Ligaray
4. April 30, 1997: Person who gave the BPI check (payable to cash and
P200,000) and received the stocks was Canada (Wagas brother-in-law)
5. Ligaray deposited the check to Solid Bank but it bounced due to
insufficiency of funds.
6. Demand was also made over the phone. Guy says hell pay after he
returns from Cebu. More demands-> still didnt pay
7. DEFENSE: Admitted that he signed the check but he issued it to
Canada and not to Ligaray. The purpose was to pay for a portion of Caadas
property that he wanted to buy, but when the sale did not push through, he
did not anymore fund the check.
8. CROSS-EXAMINATION: Wagas admitted that he signed a letter
addressed to the counsel of Ligaray admitting that he owed him P200,000. He
says that he signed the letter only because his sister and her husband had
pleaded with him to assume the obligation and to avoid jeopardizing Caadas
application for overseas employment (he was a seafarer).
9. RTC: Wagas-> Guilty .The RTC held that the Prosecution had proved
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the crime of estafa,
namely: (a) that Wagas issued the postdated check as payment for an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (b) that he failed to
deposit an amount sufficient to cover the check despite having been informed
that the check had been dishonored; and (c) that Ligaray released the goods
upon receipt of the postdated check and upon Wagas assurance that the
check would be funded on its date.
1. To suffer an indeterminate penalty of from twelve (12) years of pris[i]on
mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum;
2. To indemnify the complainant, Albert[o] Ligaray in the sum of P200,000.00;
3. To pay said complainant the sum of P30,000.00 by way of attorneys fees;
and
4. the costs of suit.
MR: arguing that the Prosecution did not establish that it was he who had
transacted with Ligaray and who had negotiated the check to the latter; that
the records showed that Ligaray did not meet him at any time; and that
Ligarays testimony on their alleged telephone conversation was not reliable
because it was not shown that Ligaray had been familiar with his voice. Wagas
also
sought the reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence,
specifically: (a) the testimony of Caada who could not testify during the trial
because he was then out of the country, and (b) Ligarays testimony given
against Wagas in another criminal case for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.-> DENIED.
Appeal directly to SC
ISSUES:
1. WON it was really him who contracted with Ligaray and not Caada?
2. WON deceit has been established because it hasnt been proved that
it was him who transacted with Ligaray over the telephone?
HELD: NOT ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED-> ACQUITTED. because of preponderance of evidence. Here, he must pay the amount of the
dishonoured check plus legal interest.)
Provision used: 315 2(d)-> estafa by postdating a check/ issuing check which
has no funds in the bank

Here, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must

be the efficient cause of the defraudation. ->This means that the offender must
be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the
issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the
Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered
would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance
of the check by the offender.

It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable,

not the non-payment of a debt.-> Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa
simply because he had issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of
guilt must still clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had
defrauded Ligaray by means of the check.

Prosecution established: Ligaray released the goods to Caada because of the

postdated check the latter had given to him; and that the check was
dishonored when presented for payment because of the insufficiency of funds.

Prosecution didnt establish: the identity of the offender (which must also be
identified BRD) nor was it established that Caada was acting on behalf of
Wagas.

Note: Telephone conversation may be admissible evidence if proven by direct

or circumstantial evidence. Mere statement of identity-> not enough in the
absence of corroborating evidence.

Events following the conversation may serve to sufficiently identify the caller.-
> up to the court to decide if its enough.

DISPOSITION: ACQUITS Gilbert R. Wagas of the crime of estafa on the ground

of reasonable doubt, but ORDERS him to pay Alberto Ligaray the amount of
P200,000.00 as actual damages, plus interest of 6% per annum from the
finality of this decision. (You may be acquitted but you can still be civilly liable