April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 189302 : April 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ADOLFO DALIGDIG :
[G.R. No. 189302 : April 14, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ADOLFO DALIGDIG
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 April 2010:
G.R. No. 189302 (People of the Philippines v. Adolfo Daligdig) -
This case refers to the level of sufficiency of circumstantial evidence needed to support the conviction of an accused of the crime of murder.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City charged the accused-appellant Adolfo "Jimboy" Daligdig (Daligdig) with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Criminal Case CBU-55813.
The prosecution presented Lynette Ocampo who testified that she knew accused Daligdig because he was her mother Estela's boyfriend for six years. When Estela learned that Daligdig was already married, she ended their relationship. He did not, however, take this well.
After severing ties with accused Daligdig, Estela had another boyfriend, Roel Dayondon (Dayondon). On October 8, 2000, at about 6:45 p.m., Estela, Lynette, and Dayondon sat at dinner at Estela's house in Mancao Subdivision, Carcar, Cebu. Suddenly, they heard a gunshot ring from the window, which was about three meters from where they were eating. Estela and Lynette then saw blood ooze from Dayondon's nose. They brought him to the hospital but he was dead on arrival.
At about 9:00 a.m. of the following day, October 9, someone called Lynette on her cell phone, asking for her mother. He then asked, "How is your good boy?" (Kumusta naman ang inyong maayong lalaki?) Lynette knew it was accused Daligdig for she had talked to him on the phone before.
On October 10, 2000 someone called Estela through their neighbor's telephone. She recognized the voice as that of accused Dahgdig's since they used to talk over the phone. When Daligdig asked Estela about Dayondon, she replied by asking him why he killed Dayondon when the latter had done nothing wrong. Daligdig told Estela that he was pained with what she did to him. From then on, Daligdig ceased to call. He: however, sent Estela a letter which he signed as Jimboy Daligdig.
Maria Eugenia Dayondon (Maria Eugenia) testified that, while she was washing laundry in their yard on October 3, 2000, a man, whom she later identified as accused Daligdig, came by looking for Dayondon, her brother-in-law. She told Daligdig that Dayondon's house was just at the back of hers.
Elmie Bermejo also testified that she knew Dayondon because he was her husband's cousin and they had adjoining houses. On October 5, 2000 she saw a man, whom he later identified as accused Daligdig, pass by their house.
A field reporter of Sunstar Daily, a local newspaper in Cebu, interviewed accused Daligdig and made a report that Daligdig admitted shooting Estela's lover in Carcar, Cebu, but said that he did not know the man had died.
On December 3, 2000 the police arrested accused Daligdig and seized from him several contraband items, including paltik guns and ammunitions.
On June 20, 2003, the RTC found accused Daligdig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of redusion perpetua. The RTC ordered him to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Dayondon.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00028, the latter rendered judgment on July 25, 2008, affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and additionally awarding exemplary damages of P25,000.00. Thus, accused Daligdig appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction of accused Daligdig based on mere circumstantial evidence.
The Rulings of the Court
The rule is that the accused may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence provided (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[1] These circumstances, taken together, must constitute an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused committed the crime and not someone else.[2]
The chain of events invoked in this case to prove that it was accused Daligdig who shot and killed Dayondon are as follows:
1. Estela and her daughter testified that, previous to the shooting incident, Daligdig had been openly threatening to kill Dayondon;
2. On October 3, 2000 Daligdig asked Maria Eugenia, Dayondon's sister-in-law and neighbor, where Dayondon's house was and she pointed to another house at the back of her residence; Daligdig then went in the direction of Dayondon's house;
3. On October 4, 2000 Daligdig hit Estela with a walky-talky when he saw her in Mandaue City;
4. On October 5, 2000 Elmie Bermejo saw Daligdig pass by their house in Lagang, Carcar;
5. On October 8, 2000 somebody shot Dayondon while having dinner at Estela's house in Mancao Subdivision, Carcar;
6. On the day Dayondon was killed, SPO1 Antonio Sabala was able to talk to a multicab driver who said that Daligdig showed him a handgun and a hand grenade and he was looking for Dayondon;
7. On October 9, 2000 a man who sounded like Daligdig called Lynette on her cellphone and said, "Kumusta naman ang inyong maayong lalaki?;
8. On October 10, 2000 a man, who sounded like Daligdig, called Estela through their neighbor's telephone and told her that he was pained with what she did to him;
9. On December 3, 2000 Daligdig was arrested and among those confiscated from him was a paltik caliber .38 revolver with five live ammunitions;
10. On December 5, 2000 a write-up appeared in a local newspaper in Cebu saying that Daligdig admitted shooting his mistress's lover in Carcar, Cebu;
11. On May 10, 2001 Daligdig sent a letter to Estela through the latter's sister asking for her forgiveness; and
12. In 2002 a ballistic examination was made finding that the bullet taken from Dayondon's body was fired from the firearm confiscated from Daligdig when he was arrested.
The circumstances, taken together, clearly show that it was indeed Daligdig who shot and killed Dayondon. Of these, the most telling are, first, Daligdig had been openly threatening to kill Dayondon; second, he had been looking for him for several days before the shooting; third, Daligdig implicitly admitted to Estela that he killed Dayondon out of jealousy; and, fourth, the gun seized from him was the gun that killed Dayondon.
The evidence that Daligdig had a motive to kill Dayondon assumes importance in this case considering the absence of any direct evidence that Daligdig fired the fatal shot.[3] Here, Daligdig's reason for killing Dayondon was strong. Estela had junked him for Dayondon when he was not ready to give her up. This motive became pronounced when Daligdig began making open threats to kill Dayondon, as Estela and Lynette testified.
But what seals Daligdig's fate is the result of the ballistic examination[4] made of the bullet retrieved from Dayondon's body and the bullet fired from the gun found in Daligdig's possession when he was arrested, namely, a caliber .38 Smith & Wesson homemade revolver. Daligdig's possession of the gun gives rise to the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,[5] that he was its owner. Daligdig's bare denial could not overcome this presumption.
The Court cannot sustain Daligdig's defenses of denial and alibi. For one, alibi is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove. It is a settled rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place (or distance) must be strictly met.[6] It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission.[7] Here, Daligdig unfortunately failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where Dayondon was killed on the night of October 8, 2000.
Accused Daligdig points out that treachery could not be appreciated against him since no one witnessed the killing or the mode of attack that the assailant adopted, citing People v. Icalla.[8]
For treachery to take place, two conditions must concur: (1) the accused employed means that did not give the person attacked any opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate: and (2) he deliberately or consciously adopted the means used for executing the offense.[9] Here, Estela and Lynette testified that the then unknown assailant shot Dayondon from outside the house through the window. Dayondon was oblivious to any possible attack since he was focused on eating dinner. He had no chance to defend himself or retaliate.
With respect to Daligdig's civil liability, he should be held liable to Daligdig's heirs for P75,000.00 as death indemnity[10] and another P75,OOO.OO as moral damages given the physical suffering and mental anguish that the crime brought about.[11] Lastly, Daligdig should be held liable for P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages[12] considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery that qualified the killing to murder.
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATIONS the appealed Decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City, in Criminal Case CBU-55813 dated June 20, 2003 and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00028 dated July 25, 2008, finding accused-appellant Adolfo Daligdig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As modified, accused-appellant Daligdig is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Roel Dayondon, in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as temperate damages, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
G.R. No. 189302 (People of the Philippines v. Adolfo Daligdig) -
This case refers to the level of sufficiency of circumstantial evidence needed to support the conviction of an accused of the crime of murder.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City charged the accused-appellant Adolfo "Jimboy" Daligdig (Daligdig) with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Criminal Case CBU-55813.
The prosecution presented Lynette Ocampo who testified that she knew accused Daligdig because he was her mother Estela's boyfriend for six years. When Estela learned that Daligdig was already married, she ended their relationship. He did not, however, take this well.
After severing ties with accused Daligdig, Estela had another boyfriend, Roel Dayondon (Dayondon). On October 8, 2000, at about 6:45 p.m., Estela, Lynette, and Dayondon sat at dinner at Estela's house in Mancao Subdivision, Carcar, Cebu. Suddenly, they heard a gunshot ring from the window, which was about three meters from where they were eating. Estela and Lynette then saw blood ooze from Dayondon's nose. They brought him to the hospital but he was dead on arrival.
At about 9:00 a.m. of the following day, October 9, someone called Lynette on her cell phone, asking for her mother. He then asked, "How is your good boy?" (Kumusta naman ang inyong maayong lalaki?) Lynette knew it was accused Daligdig for she had talked to him on the phone before.
On October 10, 2000 someone called Estela through their neighbor's telephone. She recognized the voice as that of accused Dahgdig's since they used to talk over the phone. When Daligdig asked Estela about Dayondon, she replied by asking him why he killed Dayondon when the latter had done nothing wrong. Daligdig told Estela that he was pained with what she did to him. From then on, Daligdig ceased to call. He: however, sent Estela a letter which he signed as Jimboy Daligdig.
Maria Eugenia Dayondon (Maria Eugenia) testified that, while she was washing laundry in their yard on October 3, 2000, a man, whom she later identified as accused Daligdig, came by looking for Dayondon, her brother-in-law. She told Daligdig that Dayondon's house was just at the back of hers.
Elmie Bermejo also testified that she knew Dayondon because he was her husband's cousin and they had adjoining houses. On October 5, 2000 she saw a man, whom he later identified as accused Daligdig, pass by their house.
A field reporter of Sunstar Daily, a local newspaper in Cebu, interviewed accused Daligdig and made a report that Daligdig admitted shooting Estela's lover in Carcar, Cebu, but said that he did not know the man had died.
On December 3, 2000 the police arrested accused Daligdig and seized from him several contraband items, including paltik guns and ammunitions.
On June 20, 2003, the RTC found accused Daligdig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of redusion perpetua. The RTC ordered him to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Dayondon.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00028, the latter rendered judgment on July 25, 2008, affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and additionally awarding exemplary damages of P25,000.00. Thus, accused Daligdig appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction of accused Daligdig based on mere circumstantial evidence.
The Rulings of the Court
The rule is that the accused may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence provided (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[1] These circumstances, taken together, must constitute an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused committed the crime and not someone else.[2]
The chain of events invoked in this case to prove that it was accused Daligdig who shot and killed Dayondon are as follows:
1. Estela and her daughter testified that, previous to the shooting incident, Daligdig had been openly threatening to kill Dayondon;
2. On October 3, 2000 Daligdig asked Maria Eugenia, Dayondon's sister-in-law and neighbor, where Dayondon's house was and she pointed to another house at the back of her residence; Daligdig then went in the direction of Dayondon's house;
3. On October 4, 2000 Daligdig hit Estela with a walky-talky when he saw her in Mandaue City;
4. On October 5, 2000 Elmie Bermejo saw Daligdig pass by their house in Lagang, Carcar;
5. On October 8, 2000 somebody shot Dayondon while having dinner at Estela's house in Mancao Subdivision, Carcar;
6. On the day Dayondon was killed, SPO1 Antonio Sabala was able to talk to a multicab driver who said that Daligdig showed him a handgun and a hand grenade and he was looking for Dayondon;
7. On October 9, 2000 a man who sounded like Daligdig called Lynette on her cellphone and said, "Kumusta naman ang inyong maayong lalaki?;
8. On October 10, 2000 a man, who sounded like Daligdig, called Estela through their neighbor's telephone and told her that he was pained with what she did to him;
9. On December 3, 2000 Daligdig was arrested and among those confiscated from him was a paltik caliber .38 revolver with five live ammunitions;
10. On December 5, 2000 a write-up appeared in a local newspaper in Cebu saying that Daligdig admitted shooting his mistress's lover in Carcar, Cebu;
11. On May 10, 2001 Daligdig sent a letter to Estela through the latter's sister asking for her forgiveness; and
12. In 2002 a ballistic examination was made finding that the bullet taken from Dayondon's body was fired from the firearm confiscated from Daligdig when he was arrested.
The circumstances, taken together, clearly show that it was indeed Daligdig who shot and killed Dayondon. Of these, the most telling are, first, Daligdig had been openly threatening to kill Dayondon; second, he had been looking for him for several days before the shooting; third, Daligdig implicitly admitted to Estela that he killed Dayondon out of jealousy; and, fourth, the gun seized from him was the gun that killed Dayondon.
The evidence that Daligdig had a motive to kill Dayondon assumes importance in this case considering the absence of any direct evidence that Daligdig fired the fatal shot.[3] Here, Daligdig's reason for killing Dayondon was strong. Estela had junked him for Dayondon when he was not ready to give her up. This motive became pronounced when Daligdig began making open threats to kill Dayondon, as Estela and Lynette testified.
But what seals Daligdig's fate is the result of the ballistic examination[4] made of the bullet retrieved from Dayondon's body and the bullet fired from the gun found in Daligdig's possession when he was arrested, namely, a caliber .38 Smith & Wesson homemade revolver. Daligdig's possession of the gun gives rise to the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,[5] that he was its owner. Daligdig's bare denial could not overcome this presumption.
The Court cannot sustain Daligdig's defenses of denial and alibi. For one, alibi is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove. It is a settled rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place (or distance) must be strictly met.[6] It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission.[7] Here, Daligdig unfortunately failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where Dayondon was killed on the night of October 8, 2000.
Accused Daligdig points out that treachery could not be appreciated against him since no one witnessed the killing or the mode of attack that the assailant adopted, citing People v. Icalla.[8]
For treachery to take place, two conditions must concur: (1) the accused employed means that did not give the person attacked any opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate: and (2) he deliberately or consciously adopted the means used for executing the offense.[9] Here, Estela and Lynette testified that the then unknown assailant shot Dayondon from outside the house through the window. Dayondon was oblivious to any possible attack since he was focused on eating dinner. He had no chance to defend himself or retaliate.
With respect to Daligdig's civil liability, he should be held liable to Daligdig's heirs for P75,000.00 as death indemnity[10] and another P75,OOO.OO as moral damages given the physical suffering and mental anguish that the crime brought about.[11] Lastly, Daligdig should be held liable for P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages[12] considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery that qualified the killing to murder.
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATIONS the appealed Decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City, in Criminal Case CBU-55813 dated June 20, 2003 and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00028 dated July 25, 2008, finding accused-appellant Adolfo Daligdig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As modified, accused-appellant Daligdig is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Roel Dayondon, in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as temperate damages, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 4.
[2] People v. Bernal, 437 fhil. 11,21 (2002).
[3] People v. Bautista, 368 Phil. 100, 112 (1999).
[4] Ballistics Report No. FIB-061-2G02, records, p. 144.
[5] Section 3. Disputable Presumptions. -The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
xxxx
(j) xxx, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
[6] People v. De Guzman, 461 Phil. 865, 880 (2003).
[7] People v. Toledo, 333 Phil. 261, 272 (1996).
[8] 406 Phil. 380, 394 (2001).
[9] People v. Molina, 371 Phil. 59, 65 (1999).
[10] People v. Arbalate, G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009
[11] People v. Albao, 383 Phil. 873, 886 (2000).
[12] People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 121 (2001).
