ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Search for www.chanrobles.comPLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
A litany of circumstantial evidence impels me to disagree with the majority opinion. I find the two most damning pieces of evidence presented against accused-appellant Isidro Mijares really damning and more than sufficient to incriminate him and establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The victim, 6-year old Marissa Agujar, was playing marbles with 7-year old Arzen Lloyd Laurente when the latter's mother told him to buy cooking oil from a nearby store. Marissa Accompanied Arzen. At the store they met accused-appellant Isidro Mijares, a friend of Marissa's mother, Marilyn, and her live-in partner Adlai Mides. Arzen recounts the casual meeting at the store thus1 -
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: Now, Lloyd, on June 19, 1995 at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon where were you?
A: We were there, in the old truck x x x
x x x
Q: While you were there in that old truck, was there anybody who went with you?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is (sic) this person?
A: It was Isidro who approached us.
Q: Before this Isidro approached you, what were you doing, Lloyd?
A: We were playing (with) Maris because Tonton went home.
x x x
Q: Now, while you were playing, what happened Lloyd?
A: I was told by my mother to buy cooking oil and Maris also told me that, "we will get out from this place because there are plenty of ants", then I proceeded to a store, I went to the store of auntie Mila to buy cooking oil and in that place, that was the time I saw Isidro.
Q: Were you able to reach the store of auntie Mila?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you able to buy cooking oil?
A: Yes.
Q: Now this Marissa, did she go with you in (sic) the store?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know this Isidro?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, will you please look around and tell us if this Isidro is in Court?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you please point to him?
COURT: Go to him and touch him.
A: (Witness pointed to a person going down from the witness stand and touched the accused, when accused was asked his name, he identified himself as Isidro Mijares).
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: Now, after buying the cooking oil, what happened to Maris?
A: She went with Isidro, and we also went home.
Q: You went home alone?
A: No, I was together with my father.
x x x
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: Did this accused talk to Maris while you were in the store?
A: Yes.
Q: What did the accused tell Maris
A: Isidro gave money to Maris.
Q: And did the accused buy in that store?
A: No.
Q: Did you see the accused and Maris going away from the store?
A: No, I was in the house.
COURT: But you said Isidro gave money to Maris?
A: Yes.
COURT: How much?
A:
P1.00.
COURT: What for?
A: To buy candy.
COURT: After Isidro gave Maris money, what happened?
A: After that I was called in the house and we were there together with Tonton watching television.
COURT: When you left, where was Maris?
A: She was in the store.
COURT: With whom?
A: Isidro.
COURT: You said Maris went with Isidro?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: Where?
A: Leading outside.
COURT: Leading to where?
A: I do not know Your Honor.
COURT: But you said you already went home?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: So, when you went home, where was (sic) Maris and Isidro?
A: They are (sic) still in the store but they are (sic) about already to walk or get(ting) away in (sic) the store.
COURT: Towards what direction?
A: I do not know Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
x x x
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: When they were walking, (were they walking) towards your house or away from your house?
A: They were walking away from the house.
COURT: Did Isidro talk to Maris?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: Did you hear what they were talking about?
A: I did not, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: What about Marissa, did she talk to Isidro?
A: Yes.
Q: What did Maris tell Isidro?
A: I do not know.
x x x
COURT: How long have you known Maris?
A: I knew her for quite (a) long time.
COURT: How old is she?
A: Six years old.
COURT: Younger than you?
A: Yes.
COURT: Is she going to school?
A: Yes.
COURT: Where?
A: Central School.
COURT: Is her house near your house?
A: Yes.
COURT: Proceed.
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: How far is their house to your house?
A: It is just near.
COURT: You said you have not seen Maris anymore?
A: Yes.
COURT: Where was she, the last time you saw her?
A: In the store.
COURT: With whom?
A: With Isidro.
COURT: Was (sic) she and Isidro the only persons in that store?
A: Yes.
COURT: What time was that, more or less?
A: It is (sic) already night time.
COURT; It was already dark?
A: Yes.
COURT: Proceed.
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: Now, you said before they were about to leave the store, did you see Isidro holding the hands of Maris when they were about to leave the store?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you actually see them leaving the store?
A: Yes, because I turned my face.
Q: And while they were walking, Isidro was holding the hand of Maris, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was the last time you saw Maris alive?
A: Yes.
COURT: At that time, according to you, it was already dark?
A: Yes.
COURT: Proceed.
FISCAL NUVAL CONTINUING -
Q: Was it dark already or not yet?
A: It is (sic) not so dark yet.
Q: So, it must be around 6:00 o'clock in the evening?
A: Yes.
COURT: Do you know where is Maris now?
A: She is in heaven.
Although it is
almost dark, Marissa did not go home with her playmate Lloyd; instead, she
tarried with accused-appellant whom she addressed as "Uncle," who
gave her P1.00 to buy candy, held her hand and led her to a direction
away from her home.
Considering that it
was accused-appellant who was last seen walking with Marissa, even holding her
hand, he must have been the one who brought her to the place where she was
eventually found lifeless, as they were earlier seen heading towards that
direction.
Although this is denied by accused-appellant,
I would believe 7-year old Arzen who clearly narrated his last few moments with
Marissa who was later found dead after seven (7) days.
This is consistent with the autopsy report
that Marissa had been dead for five (5) to seven (7) days when her decomposed
body was discovered.
Why should accused-appellant now deny even his presence at the store that late afternoon of 19 June 1995, and his meeting Marissa and Arzen? Why should he deny that he held the hand of Marissa while walking towards the direction where she was later found dead?
Another very incriminating evidence against accused-appellant was the pair of slippers found near the body of the victim at the locus criminis. According to prosecution witness Elizabeth Oglos, this pair of slippers was the very pair that accused-appellant took from her on 17 June 1995 when he arrived from Cagayan de Tawi-tawi. When he left her house the day he got the slippers, he also left behind his worn-out yellow slippers. He was even wearing it the following day or for two (2) days prior to the killing.
Again, accused-appellant denied having worn this pair of slippers, claiming that he had his own. But, as witness Oglos explained, while he had a pair of yellow slippers, they were already worn-out and thin at the soles, so he took her slippers. Oglos even produced in court the pair of yellow slippers she referred to as that belonging to accused-appellant, now marked Exh. "K" and "K-1." Of course, the accused-appellant denied this fact and claimed that he had a pair of fairly new spartan slippers with green straps. He did not however produce this pair in court nor account for its whereabouts, to prove his allegation.
It is argued in the majority opinion that even if accused-appellant was actually at the crime scene and accidentally left his slippers there, it cannot be firmly inferred that he committed the murder as it was possible that that pair of slippers could have been taken by someone else and placed near the cadaver to implicate him.
Oglos' pair of slippers which accused-appellant took from her and later found near the lifeless body of the victim was described by Oglos as follows -
PROSECUTOR NUVAL -
x x x
Q: Will you please describe to us your slippers which he wore that day, on June 17, 1995?
A: It's a RAMBO slippers unlike these slippers, it is thicker. The upper portion of the slippers are black. "Itum ang tumbanan."
Q: And then?
A: The color of the strap is violet.
Q: Not blue?
A: No, it's violet.
Q: Okey. What else?
A: At the side, there is a "bangag" (hole) at the side.
COURT:
Q: Which side? Right or left?
A: Left slipper.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Q: Will you be able to identify that if shown to you Madam witness?
A: Yes.
x x x
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Q: What is the trade mark of that slippers?
A: RAMBO. On the strap, there is the name "RAMBO".
COURT:
Q: Straps of both slippers?
A: Yes.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Q: Now, I show you Madam Witness, two (2) slippers. Tell us if these are the slippers that were taken, whether or not, that is (sic) your slippers which were taken by the accused?
A: Yes.
Q: Why do you say that this is the one?
A: I was the one who bought the slippers.
Q: Where is the hole you are telling us?
INTERPRETER: Witness indicating the right portion of the left slipper.
COURT: There is the word "RAMBO" on the straps of both slippers.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: And the strap is colored.
COURT: More of violet but it looks dark blue.
x x x
COURT: Can you try wearing your slippers?
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Can we just manifest .....
COURT: It's very important. This is a very important case. Can you just let her try wearing it. This is a very important case.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: We will ask her to fit.
x x x
COURT: It fits?
INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor, it fits the feet of the witness, both feet of the witness.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: So, we request that these be marked as Exhibits "L" and "L-1".
COURT:
Q: So, you used that for one (1) month before June 17?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Accused-appellant denied ownership of the worn-out yellow slippers and that he used Oglos' slippers. He claimed that he wore a pair of spartan slippers with green strap and white top when he arrived in Zamboanga City on 17 June 1995. These green slippers were allegedly bought for him by his brother Cesario.2cräläwvirtualibräry
In an attempt to discredit the account of Oglos regarding the two (2) pairs of slippers he used, accused-appellant testified3 -
ATTY. LIM:
Q: Now, Elizabeth Oglos, claims that on June 17, 1995, on the day of your arrival, you borrowed from her a pair of slippers colored blue, marked by the Prosecution as Exhibit "L" and "L-1"
x x x
Q: Elizabeth Oglos claims that you got a pair of slippers colored blue on June 17, 1995. What can you say about this?
A: Well, I did not get it. I should not get it because I have my own, why will I get it because I have my own slippers?
Q: Now, she also identified another pair of slippers colored yellow, marked as Exhibit "K" and "K-1", which she claims that it was yours. What can you say about that?
A: Well, that is not my slippers. If that is (sic) my slippers, I should have brought it to Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi.
COURT: So, if that is not yours, will you try to wear it. Where is (sic) the slippers? You get it. Offered already?
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Yes, offered already, Your Honor.
COURT: Will you go down.
(WITNESS WENT DOWN FROM THE WITNESS STAND AND TRIED TO WEAR THE SLIPPERS)
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Exactly, I would like to manifest for the record Your Honor, that this yellow slippers fit.
ATTY. LIM: Although... Manifestation. There is a different of about one half (1/2) inch Your Honor.
COURT: From the tip?
ATTY. LIM: From the heels Your Honor, 1/2 inch.
COURT: Will you measure it Mr. Alber. Although when we buy slippers we usually have a little allowance. Because if it really fits on the edge you are liable to get dirt on the heel.
INTERPRETER: (Measuring) one half (1/2) inch.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: And, the sole Your Honor, fits the thin portion of the slippers.
COURT: Now, I cannot say if the blue slippers will fit you. We are not violating the constitutional rights of the accused if the accused can be asked to fit slippers on, is it not Fiscal?
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Yes, Your Honor.
(AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE WITNESS WAS ASKED TO FIT THE BLUE SLIPPERS)
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Yes, it fits Your Honor.
ATTY. LIM: Although, Your Honor, the fingers of the toes when asked to fit the slippers, a little bit extended the edge of the slippers (sic).
COURT: The toes goes (sic) beyond it.
ATTY. LIM: Beyond the edge, full edge of the slippers.
COURT: Well, that is not really his. Now, will you try comparing the length and the sizes of the yellow slippers and the blue slippers whether that is really that of Oglos.
(PROSECUTOR NUVAL COMPARING)
The yellow slippers is longer.
COURT: Will you measure the edge length?
(INTERPRETER MEASURING)
One (1/2) (sic) inch.
COURT:
Q: Where is now that green slippers, your slippers with green straps and the upper portion white? Where is that?
A: Well, when I arrived here Your Honor, when I was in the wharf, I was mauled and I was being thrown from one another (sic) and then, my slippers, I was able to leave my slippers in the wharf.
In this case, although accused-appellant insisted that he did not use either the yellow slippers or the Rambo slippers referred to by Oglos, the physical evidence serves as a mute but eloquent manifestation of the truth which rates high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.4 When accused-appellant was made to fit the worn-out yellow slippers in court, they fitted his feet to a "T". His soles exactly suited the thinning portions of the slippers. But when he put on the Rambo slippers, his toes went beyond the edges of the footwear. Notably when Oglos was asked to wear the Rambo slippers, the trial court observed that they fitted her feet perfectly.
Quite telling is the fact that when the trial court questioned accused-appellant about the whereabouts of the green slippers, which he claimed to be the only pair he wore since March 1995, accused-appellant simply answered that he had left them in the wharf after he was mauled there.5 Similarly, when Oglos asked him why he was no longer wearing her Rambo slippers, he told her that the slippers had gotten lost when he quarrelled with the victim's stepfather, Adlai Mides.6Such evasive answers only serve to weaken accused-appellant's protestations of innocence.
Arguably, the two circumstances pointed out when taken in isolation may be susceptible of several propositions that are both compatible and incompatible with accused-appellant's guilt. However, when we carefully link these two with the other facts as proved by the prosecution and considered as badges of truth by the trial court, a solid case for murder is established against him.
As correctly ruled by the court a quo, the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He was known to the victim Marissa and her family. He was told by Marissa's mother, Marilyn Agujar, and stepfather, Adlai Mides, to leave their house after staying with them for one (1) week. Accused-appellant took the hammer of Adlai Mides and brought it with him to Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi without Adlai's permission. In the evening of 19 June 1995, accused-appellant and Adlai quarelled because of the hammer the former took, with Adlai hitting him on the chest with a glass which angered him. The victim was last seen alive with accused-appellant on the night she disappeared.
Accused-appellant did not sleep in the house of Elizabeth Oglos where he was expected to stay in the evening of 19, 20, 21 and 22 June 1995. When Marilyn saw accused-appellant walking in Sta. Catalina in the morning of 21 June 1995 he started to run but stopped when he saw that her companions was only another woman. He left for Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi in the morning of 24 June 1995 when he learned that he was a suspect in connection with the disappearance of Marissa Agujar. The Rambo slippers of Oglos which accused-appellant wore on 17 June 1995 were found near the dead body of the victim in an abandoned house near the Dominican Convent with which he was familiar as he and Adlai worked together for one (1) month at the Baliwasan Commercial Complex (BCC) within the vicinity of the Dominican Convent.7cräläwvirtualibräry
Moreover, the two (2) prosecution witnesses, namely, 7-year old Arzen Lloyd Laurente and Elizabeth Oglos, who provided the two most damning pieces of circumstantial evidence for the prosecution's case, to borrow the phrase from the majority opinion, cannot be imputed with any ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. Hence, in the absence of any evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.8cräläwvirtualibräry
Finally, accused-appellant would convince us of his innocence because he agreed to go with the victim's mother to the police station to answer certain questions regarding Marissa's disappearance. It only bears repeating that there is no law, rule or dictum which holds that the non-flight of an accused is conclusive proof of his innocence.9cräläwvirtualibräry
WHEREFORE, with due respect to the majority, I vote for the AFFIRMANCE of the 8 April 1996 Decision of the RTC-Br. 16, Zamboanga City, finding accused-appellant ISIDRO MIJARES guilty of MURDER.
Endnotes:
1 TSN, 30 August 1995, pp. 9-11, 13-19.
2 TSN, 12 September 1995, pp. 6-7.
3 TSN, id., pp. 27-32.
4 People v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102366, 3 October 1997, 280 SCRA 160, 175, citing People v. Uycoque, 246 SCRA 769, 779 (1995).
5 See Note 8 at p. 31.
6 See Note 4 at p. 45.
7 RTC Decision, p. 22; Rollo, p. 34.
8 People v. Agunias, G.R. No. 121993, 12 September 1997, 279 SCRA 52, 65, citing People v. Malazarte, 261 SCRA 482, 491, 6 September 1996.
9 People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 88043, 9 December 1996, 265 SCRA 429, 441, citing People v. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35, 4 January 1994.9
