People v. Credo

 

People v. Credo

G.R. No. 230778

July 22, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Daniel Credo y De Vergara for the crime of murder and frustrated murder as co-conspirators. For murder - That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with four (4) other persons, whose true names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained, and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation[,] treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of ANTONIO ASISTIN y PALCO@ TONY, by then and there stabbing him several times with a bladed weapon, hitting him on the back and other parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim. On the other hand, That on or about the 16th day of March, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with four (4) other persons, whose true names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of EVANGELINE CIELOS-ASISTIN@ Vangie, by then and there stabbing her several times with a bladed weapon, hitting her on the different parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her serious and grave wounds, thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce the felony of MURDER as consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some causes or accident independent of the medical attendance rendered to the will of the said accused, that is, the timely and ablesaid victim, to the damage and prejudice of the victim.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Juan and Daniel are guilty of murder

HELD:

                No. The Court cites Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court in stating that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubts. Here, careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals flaws and inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of their allegations and would merit the acquittal of Juan and Daniel. Evangeline admitted that neither Daniel nor Juan stabbed her and that she did not see Juan during the incident.60 Their complicity was merely based on circumstantial evidence, having been allegedly seen near the residence of Spouses Asistin, talking to strangers, before the incident took place. The prosecution witnesses admitted to not knowing nor hearing what Daniel, Juan, and the other men were discussing. They also admitted not seeing who killed Antonio. 

                The evidence for the defense is not strong because Daniel and Juan merely denied participating in the brutal stabbing of Spouses Asistin. Their testimonies were uncorroborated by any other evidence. Admittedly, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor. Nevertheless, the apparent weakness of Juan and Daniel's defense does not add any strength nor can it help the prosecution's cause. If the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, Juan and Daniel's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf in fact never arises. However weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.