ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 93117 August 1, 1995 - LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-836 August 2, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JESUS V. MATAS

  • OCA I.P.I. No. 95-12-P August 3, 1995 - MARILES I. VILLANUEVA v. RODOLFO B. POLLENTES

  • G.R. No. 88326 August 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM A. FULINARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102422 August 3, 1995 - ANTONIO CATATISTA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113290-91 August 3, 1995 - PEDRO O. PALMERIA, SR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113521-31 August 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO D. ESPINOZA

  • G.R. No. 93628 August 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA S. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 97535 August 4, 1995 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-983 August 7, 1995 - GUILLERMA DE LOS SANTOS-REYES v. JUDGE CAMILO O. MONTESA

  • G.R. No. 106784 August 7, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLITO SALODAGA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. P-93-800 & P-93-800-A August 9, 1995 - RTC MAKATI MOVEMENT AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION v. INOCENCIO E. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 115132-34 August 9, 1995 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-880 August 11, 1995 - CENTRUM AGRI-BUSINESS REALTY CORPORATION v. BETHEL KATALBAS-MOSCARDON

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1243 August 11, 1995 - ANTONIO P. CHIN v. TITO G. GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76801 August 11, 1995 - LOPEZ REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. FLORENTINA FONTECHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94979 August 11, 1995 - ALFONSO GABALDON CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97484 August 11, 1995 - SANTIAGO B. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111289 August 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113793 August 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN M. GANZAGAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-931 August 14, 1995 - VICENTE G. RUDAS v. LEONILA R. ACEDO

  • G.R. No. 99840 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. FEDERICO

  • G.R. No. 107994 August 14, 1995 - PHIL. AGRICULTURAL COMM’L. AND IND’L. WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 108084 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SABAL

  • G.R. No. 109696 August 14, 1995 - THELMA P. OLEA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113219 August 14, 1995 - ANICETO G. MATEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113652 August 14, 1995 - VICTORIANO A. CORMERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113782-84 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. ALIVIADO

  • G.R. No. 114051 August 14, 1995 - DAVID INES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114692 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER MALUNES

  • G.R. No. 115022 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO D. REYES

  • G.R. No. 117014 August 14, 1995 - HONORIO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118118 August 14, 1995 - ALFREDO GUIEB v. LUIS M. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 119617 August 14, 1995 - B. STA RITA AND CO., INC., ET. AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91852 August 15, 1995 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY-SILAY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 100686 August 15, 1995 - PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 111359 August 15, 1995 - CALTEX REGULAR EMPLOYEES v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 110034 August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO GAZMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113995 August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMALIEL T. PAYAWAL

  • G.R. No. 93728 August 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107534 August 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL I. CABINTOY

  • G.R. No. 111091 August 21, 1995 - CLARO J. PRECLARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995 - BENIGNO MANUEL, ET AL. v. NICODEMO T. FERRER

  • G.R. No. 119891 August 21, 1995 - BEN STA. RITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1108 August 23, 1995 - MARIANETTE VILLAREAL v. ROLANDO T. RARAMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-87-104 August 23, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE M. ESTACION, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1270 August 23, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-3-89-RTC August 23, 1995 - IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC BRANCH 16

  • G.R. No. 79968 August 23, 1995 - PETER RODRIGUEZ v. PROJECT 6 MARKET SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88278 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONALD BALLAGAN

  • G.R. No. 101690 August 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105455 August 23, 1995 - EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110401 August 23, 1995 - EDGARDO GUEVARA, ET AL. v. HERMINIO I. BENITO

  • G.R. Nos. 113513-14 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY CONTE

  • G.R. Nos. 114061 & 113842 August 23, 1995 - KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 August 23, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114920 August 23, 1995 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 115987 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO REOVEROS

  • G.R. No. 116132-33 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO U. DELOVINO

  • G.R. No. 121234 August 23, 1995 - HUBERT J. P. WEBB v. RAUL E. DE LEON

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-768 August 28, 1995 - CASIANO WENCESLAO v. RESTITUTO MADRAZO

  • G.R. No. 104664 August 28, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELYBOY O. SO

  • G.R. No. 111386 August 28, 1995 - METAL FORMING CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

  • G.R. No. 115407 August 28, 1995 - MIGUEL P. PANDERANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118531 August 28, 1995 - JULIANA D. DEL ROSARIO v. JOB MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 107762 August 29, 1995 - ALBERTO S. ACENAS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOMA O. GOCE

  • G.R. No. 96125 August 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 111017 August 31, 1995 - BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 113995   August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMALIEL T. PAYAWAL

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 113995. August 16, 1995.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GAMALIEL PAYAWAL y DE LA TORRE, Accused-Appellant.

    Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    Augusto S. Jimenez for Accused-Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONVICTION. — The second circumstance relied on by the trial court, i.e., that Gerry Centenera had last been seen alive with accused-appellant, was a mere hearsay account of PO3 Geronimo (allegedly related to him by Corazon T. Payawal). Corazon herself, however, was not called to the witness stand. Parenthetically, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated 17 August 1993, she belied the statement of PO3 Geronimo. The result is that only the remaining two circumstances could be of real consequence in ascertaining the guilt of Accused-Appellant. The Rules of Court, on circumstantial evidence, provides: "Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if : (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." The circumstances to warrant conviction must constitute an unbroken chain of events that can lead reasonably to the conclusion so pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. Logically, it is here, where the evidence is purely circumstantial, that there should be an even greater need than usual to apply with vigor the rule that the prosecution cannot depend on the weakness of the defense and that any conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt of the accused.

    2. ID.; ID.; CORPUS DELICTI; NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — With practically nothing of probative value that could be taken from the testimony of Rolando Villena, it behooved the prosecution to get either or both Eva Belisario and Corazon Payawal, whether as willing or even as hostile witnesses, to testify and to shed some light on the case; unfortunately, for unexplainable reason, their testimony was not sought. Most importantly, there was no sufficient proof of the corpus delicti. The Medico-Legal Report merely disclosed the post mortem medical findings as to what caused the death of the victim. One can only surmise how possibly the "victim" did meet his death, for there is absolutely nothing on record that can provide us with anything better than what has heretofore been said.


    D E C I S I O N


    VITUG, J.:


    This case is illustrative of the long settled rule that the prosecution must stand on the strength of its own evidence and not merely rely on the weakness of the defense.

    Accused-appellant stood trial and was convicted by the court a quo for the crime of murder, in an information, dated 13 April 1992, which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That sometime during the period comprised between April 2, 1992 to April 8, 1992, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one GERRY CENTENERA Y BARKE by mauling the latter and locking him inside a steel cabinet and thereafter cemented the said cabinet, thereby inflicting upon the said Gerry Centenera y Barke mortal injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

    "Contrary to law." 1

    When arraigned, the accused pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. On 25 June 1993, the Regional Trial Court 2 found Payawal guilty of the offense and thusly concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder as charged in the information, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the cost. He is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of the victim.

    "In the service of this sentence the accused is entitled to the provisions of Article 29, as amended.

    "SO ORDERED." 3

    On 11 February 1994. accused-appellant filed his notice of appeal. 4 Still vehemently insisting on his innocence, he averred —

    "That the trial court erred in arriving at its conclusion of guilt of the accused for the charge of murder based upon questionable alleged circumstantial evidence.

    "That the trial court erred in not giving due course to the accused-appellant’s motion for new trial and/or not allowing admission of the newly discovered evidence/s projected therein (both in the basic and supplement to the motion for new trial).

    "That the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant for murder despite lack and/or gross insufficiency of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." 5

    The prosecution evidence basically would tend to establish the following circumstantial incidents leading to the indictment of Accused-Appellant.

    On 08 April 1992, the Philippine National Police Headquarters, Western Police District Command, received from an anonymous caller a telephone report that foul odor was emanating from a two-story residential house at 1706 Velasquez Street, Tondo, Manila. P03 Julian Bustamante and P03 Fidel Geronimo were immediately dispatched to the area. The police officers were met by Corazon Payawal and Eva Belisario, sisters of Gamaliel Payawal y de la Torre who led the police investigators to Gamaliel’s bedroom located at the second floor of the house. The room was in full disarray. Inside the room was a "cemented steel cabinet." Moisture was seen to be coming out from the cabinet’s upper door. There was a can of air freshener on top of the cabinet. The police officers sought the assistance of Sol Funeral Parlor. The cabinet was brought down from the house, and on the authority issued by Dra. Zunuego of the Manila Health Department’s Preventive Diseases, the cabinet was taken to the Manila South Cemetery, where it was forcibly opened in the presence of the police officers, the two sisters (Eva and Corazon), and Mrs. Veronica Prudente (the officer-in-charge of the cemetery). Inside the cabinet was a bundled bedsheet which, when untied, revealed the body of a five-year old boy, in a fetal position and dressed with a pair of shorts. The boy’s intestines were protruding, and the body was in a state of decomposition. Eva and Corazon immediately identified the body to be that of their missing nephew, Gerry Centenera, said to be the son of Gamaliel by a common-law wife. The body was taken to the Sol Funeral Homes.

    The police headquarters later received another telephone call, this time saying that Gamaliel was seen at the Velasquez house. A "follow-up unit" proceeded to the place, where the accused, who then seemed to be under the influence of drugs, was arrested. 6

    Testifying in his defense, Payawal claimed to be the General Bishop of a religious sect called the "Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus" since August of 1989. His offices were located at 1991 Old Torres Subdivision, Juan Luna, and 1706 Velasquez St., both in Tondo, Manila. Although he resided in Malolos, Bulacan, he regularly went to his office in Velasquez, together with Minister Abel Raymundo, and his secretary Hermenigildo Cabal. Payawal disclaimed the allegation that Gerry was his child.

    Also presented by the defense were Abel Raymundo, who testified that he resided with Payawal in the latter’s residence in Bulacan, and Rolando Villena, who denied the contents of an affidavit 7 in which he was said to have stated before police investigators that Gamaliel had requested for half a kilo of cement and for some cans of air fresheners.

    Convinced of Gamaliel’s guilt, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused. The latter moved for a new trial. He argued that his rights were not properly protected by his former counsel The motion was denied by the presiding judge.

    Hence, this appeal.

    Accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court on the strength, it said, of the following circumstantial evidence; viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The accused ordered the purchase of the air fresheners one of which was on top of the steel cabinet and the other was inside the steel cabinet;

    "2. The last time when Gerry Centenera was seen alive was when he was fetched by the accused from the house of his sister Corazon;

    "3. The room where the body of Gerry Centenera was found stuffed inside the steel cabinet is the bedroom of the accused, and

    "4. From April 2 to 8, 1992, comprising the period (approximated to be) when Gerry Centenera was murdered until his body was found on April 8, the bishop had been holding office everyday from morning till evening at his office at 1706 Velasquez St., Tondo, Manila. On said April 8; he stayed in his office for only one and a half hour." 8

    Prosecution witness Rolando Villena, however, refused to acknowledge the statement attributed to him — the first of the four circumstances — to the effect that he had been requested by accused-appellant to get half a kilo of cement and some air fresheners. Villena testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Now, you mention here awhile ago that all the questions ask to you by the investigator were up to the question no. 6 which states: (Tanong) ‘Ano ba iyong totoong nakita mo at nalalaman mo?’

    (Sagot) ‘Nasabi sa akin ng mga kapitbahay ni Gamaliel na may naamoy na nanggagaling sa bahay ni Gamaliel na mabaho.’ Was that your answer?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    So when you said awhile ago that the only thing that you know is up to question no. 6 and answer is not correct anymore, is that what you mean?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    So, will you please go over this Exhibit A and tell the Court what are those statements questions and answers that you have given to the police investigator?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I have given my statements up to question no. 4 only, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Are you very sure now?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Now, let’s go to question no. 4 which states: ‘Kung ganun ay marunong kang bumasa, sumulat at umunawa ng salitang Tagalog na gaya ng pag-uusap natin ngayon?’ Sagot — Opo’. Is that your answer?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Was the question profounded to you by the police?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    And the answer is ‘Opo’?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    So, you know how to read Tagalog?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    You understand it?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Before you affix your signature, did you read your statement?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No, Sir.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Why did you affix your signature without reading it?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    They just told me to sign it, Sir. And they told me that after I sign it, it is already through without reading it.

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    You mean to say that questions and answers here were practically prepared by police investigator?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Sir

    "FISCAL ARANZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    What induced you to affix you signature here?

    "WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    They just told me to sign it and I will not be involved, Sir" 9

    The second circumstance relied on by the trial court. i.e., that Gerry Centenera had last been seen alive with accused-appellant, was a mere hearsay account of PO3 Geronimo (allegedly related to him by Corazon T. Payawal) Corazon herself, however, was not called to the witness stand. 10 Parenthetically, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, 11 dated 17 August 1993, she belied the statement of PO3 Geronimo.

    The result is that only the remaining two circumstances could be of real consequence in ascertaining the guilt of Accused-Appellant. The Rules of Court, on circumstantial evidence, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) There is more than one circumstance;

    "(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

    "(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." 12

    The circumstances to warrant conviction must constitute an unbroken chain of events that can lead reasonably to the conclusion so pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. 13 Logically, it is here, where the evidence is purely circumstantial, that there should be an even greater need than usual to apply with vigor the rule that the prosecution cannot depend on the weakness of the defense and that any conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt of the accused. 14

    With practically nothing of probative value that could be taken from the testimony of Rolando Villena, it behooved the prosecution to get either or both Eva Belisario and Corazon Payawal, whether as willing or even as hostile witnesses, to testify and to shed some light on the case; unfortunately, for unexplainable reason, their testimony was not sought. Most importantly, there was no sufficient proof of the corpus delicti. The Medico-Legal Report merely disclosed the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    To determine the cause of death.

    "FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Fairly developed, fairly nourished male child cadaver in advanced stage of decomposition. No external injuries noted.

    "MICROSCOPIC FINDINGS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "TRACHEA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Fibromuscular tissue with congestion and focal hemorrhages.

    "LUNGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Congestion, edema with inflamatory cells infiltrate within alveolar spaces.

    "x       x       x

    "CONCLUSION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Cause of death is cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock compatible with asphyxia." 15

    One can only surmise how possibly the "victim" did meet his death, for there is absolutely nothing on record that can provide us with anything better than what has heretofore been said. We cannot end this ponencia without renewing our appeal for the exercise of utmost diligence, extreme care and professionalism by law enforcement agencies in their investigatory work, by the prosecution in its preparation, presentation and submission of the evidence, and by the trial court in its evaluation of the case before it. The lukewarm stance and little circumspection exhibited in this case hardly can speak well of the manner in which this case has been handled starting from the initial ,phase of the investigation up to even the court proceedings stage. It appears that the prosecution has, at the main trial, merely adopted the testimonies taken during the hearing of appellant’s petition for bail. It is fair to assume that the evidence to support such a petition can in no way come close to or approximate that which is normally given during the trial proper.

    WHEREFORE, the Court is constrained to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the questioned decision. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and his immediate release from detention is hereby ordered unless there are other legal grounds to warrant his continued incarceration, Costs de oficio.

    SO ORDERED.

    Feliciano, Romero and Vitug, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 3.

    2. Hon. Inocencio D. Maliaman, Presiding Judge.

    3. Rollo, p. 17.

    4. Through counsel Augusto S. Jimenez.

    5. Rollo, pp. 41-42.

    6. SPO Fidel Geronimo, TSN, 15 May 1992, p. 61.

    7. Exhibit 1, supra.

    8. Rollo, pp. 15-16.

    9. TSN, 06 May 1992, pp. 15-18.

    10. See Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.

    11. Records, pp. 219-220.

    12. Rule, 133, Revised Rules of Court.

    13. People v. Ocampo, 218 SCRA 609; People v. Adriano, 226 SCRA 131.

    14. People v. Argawanon, 231 SCRA 614.

    15. Records, p. 168.

    G.R. No. 113995   August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMALIEL T. PAYAWAL


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED