Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Northwestern University
College of Law
ELECTIVE - PRACTICUM
A CRITIQUE
By: JENALYN B. DACQUEL
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE No. 15640-14
versus for
EDGAR TANGONAN, JOHN DOE MURDER
AND PETER DOE
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE No. 15641-14
versus for
EDGAR TANGONAN, JOHN DOE FRUSTRATED MURDER
AND PETER DOE
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
That on June 18, 2013, around 8:00 pm., three men on a motorcycle
shot Carla Machado and her husband Aaron Machado who were inside
their Honda City Sedan driven by her. Carla died on from gunshot wounds,
Aaron was wounded too and their 11 year old son was unscathed. The
prosecution presented no witness to the actual shooting, but it pinpointed
herein accused Tangonan as one of the motorcycle riding assailants.
The prosecution anchored its case against accused Tangonan on the
testimony of SPO4 Ramelito Piedad who according to him he was about to
go out from their house when he heard a noise but presumed it to be
frecrackers only. Around three minutes after that noise, he left their house.
Later on while traversing from his house SPO4 Piedad noticed a
vehicle along the road. He averred that it was not properly been parked.
But he did not stop to examine the vehicle and he drove on.
When he passed the intersection he saw three men aboard a
motorcycle ahead of him. When he was just two or three meters away from
the said motorcycle, the two back riders turned towards him and fred a
gun against him but he was not hit because he slowed down.
According to SPO4 Piedad he reported the incident which was
confrmed by SPO1 Erum, one of the policemen who proceeded that night
to the place where the Machado spouses were shot.
SPO4 Piedad also averred that he recognized the backmost rider
when he saw a photograph at the police station. That man was herein
Edgar Tangonan.
The prosecution also pointed out that the said accused had a motive
to attack the victims because of a disputed parcel of land. An extract copy
was showed that Carla Machado reported to the police station the alleged
threats made by acussed Edgar Tangonan. Likewise, Marina Ricardo
testifed regarding an email sent by her sister Carla informing that if
something would happen to her (Carla) Edgar Tangonan sholud be the
suspect.
However, the defense sought to prove that acussed Edgar Tangonan
was attending an indoctrination class at the Iglesia ni Cristo church in Brgy.
Buttong, Laoag City, when the victims allegedly shot at Brgy. Mangato,
Laoag City at around 8:00 p.m. on June 18, 2013.
Acussed claimed that he arrived at the church around 7:00 p.m.
wherein he was fetch by his friend Eddie Cabael who recruited him at
around 6:30 p.m. and that the indocrination started at around 7:30 p.m.,
and ended after 9:00 p.m..
THE FLAWS OF THE CASE
The prosecution presented no direct evidence that acuused Tangonan
and his co-accused shot the victims. Nonetheless, direct evidence is not the
only basis for a fnding that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
In the absence of direct evidence, proof of a persons guilt may be
established beyond reasoble doubt by circumstantial evidence.
The circumstances establish the partition of accused Tangonan in the
shooting of the victims. Nonetheless, a closer scrutiny reveals that a
number of these circumstances has no evidentiary support. The
prosecution proved that there was a property dispute involving accused
Tangonan and the Machados, but it failed to prove other circumstances
crucial to its case. It presented no clear and credible factual basis for its
claim that the said accused threatened the Machados or that three
motorcycle-riding assailants shot the Machados, or that SPO4 Piedad saw
three motorcycle-riding men that same night.
As noted earlier it was unquestionably that the Machados and
Tangonan had property dispute over a parcel of land. But the other
circumstances necessary for the case of the prosecution have none.
The threaths against the Machados cannot be accepted, for one,
jurisprudence is clear that entries in the police blotter are not evidence of
the truth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded.
Hence the extract copy of the police blotter proves only the fact that Carla
made such a report, but it cannot prove the truth of her report. More
specifcally the alleged threath from the accused was made thru Ronnie
Miguel who never testifed in court in which the Carla has no personal
knowledge of the threath in which Tangonan made. Therefore the
honorable court said that it was not only a hearsay but a double hearsay
that cannot be given any probative weight.
Also the email sent by Carla to her sister was also a hearsay because it
is an out-of-court statement of a person who did not testify during the trial.
And the three motorcycle-riding men as alleged assailants of the
Machados has no evidence that they shot the victims and that there is no
credibility to the claim of SPO4 Piedad that he saw three men riding on a
motorcycle that night. Thus there is no basis for the prosecution theory that
the motorcycle-riding men seen by SPO4 Piedad were the same persons
who attacked the Machados.
The prosecution did not only fail to prove the that three men shot the
Machados; it also failed to to present credible evidence that three
motorcycle-riding men were seen by SPO4 Piedad shortly after the shooting
of the Machados. SPO4 Piedad failed to fle any charge against the three
motorcycle-riding men who shot him and failed to discover the identity of
one of them it was then and only then he identifed one when he saw a
photograph in the police station. Shortly, a policeman was expected to fle
the necessary charges against the malefactors, for it is their responsibility
and obligation as law enforcers to hold violators accountable for breaking
the law. But he never did, and that from his statement that he saw a car
improperly parked at the road when he went outside from their house was
questionable. He being a police ofcer should have stopped and checked
what happened why is that car was imoproperly parked. That if he really
passed by the place where the Machados has been shot he should have seen
the holes in the drivers seat caused by gunshot.
The theory of the prosecution linking the the shooting of SPO4
Piedad to the shooting of the Machados is further weakened by the absence
of empty shells and other pieces of physical evidence recovered at the
vicinity of the place where the policeman was allegedly shot. Police
investigators supposedly looked for empty shells and other pieces of
physical evidence, but they did not fnd any.
JOINT JUDGMENT
In this case, the circumstancial evidence of the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of accused Tangonan beyond reasonable doubt. For this
reason, the Court cannot hold accused Tangonan criminally and civilly
liable.
But the Court is not herein ruling that the accused Tangonan is
innocent. It is merely saying that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. To sum it up, the prosecution failed to present proof
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Tangonan participated in shooting
the victims.
Wherefore, accused Edgar Tangonan is found NOT GUILTY and
hereby ACQUITTED.
OBSERVATION
As an observation, the property dispute established by the
prosecutions pieces of evidence may support the view that accused
Tangonan had a motive to kill the Machados. But motive alone is not
sufcient to support a conviction in the absence of a credible evidence that
the accused was the the one who shot the victims. It failed to draw a line
connecting the alleged three motorcycle-riding men who supposedly shot
the Machados and the alleged three motorcycle-riding men who
supposedly shot SPO4 Piedad.

Potrebbero piacerti anche