People v. Floresta
G.R. No. 239032
June 17, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Gilbert for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. Jay
Lourd Bones y Zurbito (Jay Lourd) was having a drinking session with his friend
Allan Andaya (Allan) and a certain Benjie at the kitchen of his house. After
drinking two (2) shots of gin, Jay Lourd suddenly stood up and said to Allan,
"Pare, I was hit, may tama aka." As Allan was about to hug Jay Lourd,
he heard a cracking sound behind him, causing him to run away. Meanwhile, Jay
Lourd's wife, Jennifer Bones (Jennifer), was breastfeeding their youngest child
when she heard the gunshot coming from the kitchen. She hurriedly went to the
kitchen and saw Jay Lourd bloodied on the floor, prompting her to cover his
wound with a piece of cloth. At that moment, he told her, "Panggay, you
see if Gilbert is still there?" Subsequently, she hid in a room with her
elder child until her uncle and sister-in-law arrived to bring Jay Lourd to the
hospital. She then decided to stay behind and wait for the police officers to
arrive. However, when they informed her that they would continue the
investigation the following day, she proceeded to the hospital where she was
informed that Jay Lourd was already dead. Thereafter, she went to the Masbate
City Police Station to tell the authorities that it was Gilbert who shot Jay
Lourd. Consequently, Gilbert was apprehended by the police.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC
HELD:
Yes. Be
that as it may, the Court is aware that in certain instances, the prosecution
may still sustain a conviction despite the absence of direct evidence, provided
that it is able to present circumstantial evidence that would establish an
accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence consists of
proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue
may be inferred based on reason and common experience. It 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. To uphold a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the
guilty person. Stated differently, the test to determine whether or not the
circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that
the series of circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and
that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused's guilt
and inconsistent with his innocence.
Applying
these principles to the evidence that appear on record, the Court finds that
the prosecution had likewise failed to present sufficient circumstantial
evidence to establish Gilbert's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Records show
that aside from Jay Lourd's utterance, there is only one (1) other circumstance
that could possibly point to Gilbert as the assailant, and that is their
previous quarrel with one another. 26 However, the totality of these
circumstances is insufficient to produce a moral certainty that it was indeed
Gilbert who shot and killed Jay Lourd. Wherefore, appeal is granted. Gilbert
Selencio is acquitted of the crime of Murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment