MARIE HAZEL C.

NALA
Criminal Law 1


Case:

[G.R. No. 138402. August 18, 2000]

Plaintiff-Appellee : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Accused-appellant : ARNOLD GONZALES alias ANOD,


Facts: that on August 17, 1996 the victim Leolito attended a benefit dance held at the
Barangay hall at Meohao, Kidapawan and the party ended at 12:30am

That on August 18, 1996 at around 1:00 am Leolita was found dead on the bench
with multiple stab wound that cause his death.

That there was no eye witness on the actual stabbing incident and by knitting the
pieces of evidence had led to found Arnol Gonzales who was the last person seen
with Leolito before the incident.

Issues: Whether or not a circumstantial evidence like the testimony of the witness that
has not personally witness the crime could be used as substantial evidence to
convict?

Whether or not the elements of the crime of murder/treachery were present?



Ruling: Yes. According to Sec. 4 Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following are present (1)
There is more than one circumstances, (2) The facts from which the inference are
derived proven, (3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

No. according to Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse."


* A degree of proof excluding all possibility of error is not required to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Absolute certainty is not required. Only moral certainty
is. In this case, the evidence meets a degree of proof sufficient to produce
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.