1. NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR y DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 164266, July 23, 2008
NACHURA, J.:
Facts:
Mary Ann and her husband, Nover (petitioner) were living in Valenzuela City together with her parents (spouses
Ernesto and Margarita Zuñiga) and her two sisters Marianne and Arlene (victim). Their residence had three bedrooms -
one for the Zuñiga spouses; the other for Marianne and Arlene; and the last for Mary Ann and the petitioner.
On September 21, 1997 at 4:30 in the morning, the Zuñiga spouses and Marianne arrived home from the wake of
Ernesto's mother in Bulacan. They opened the main door which was then locked. After preparing for sleep, Marianne
proceeded to the room which she was sharing with Arlene where she saw Arlene’s dead body. After seeing Arlene's body,
the Zuñiga spouses rushed to the room of Mary Ann and the petitioner. While Mary Ann proceeded to Arlene's room,
petitioner stayed at the sala and cried. He was later seen embracing Mary Ann and telling her that he was innocent.
The police investigators arrived and found no forcible entry into the house; no valuables were missing; and no
bloodstains in other parts of the house except Arlene's room. They likewise discovered, on top of the kitchen table,
petitioner's underwear (briefs), gray t-shirt and short pants. They further found hair strands on Arlene's bed. These pieces
of evidence were brought to the laboratory for examination.
Dr. Minay, a medico-legal of the NBI conducted an autopsy of the deceased. He found that Arlene suffered 21
stab wounds produced by a pointed instrument, one side of which was sharp like a balisong or a kitchen knife. He further
declared the possibility that Arlene struggled with the assailant before she died.
The NBI Forensic Biologist also examined petitioner's briefs, t-shirt and short pants, and found that the briefs and
shirt were positive of type "O" human blood, Arlene's blood type. The NBI Forensic Chemist conducted DNA Analysis on
the evidences discovered from the crime scene and buccal swabs taken from spouses Zuñiga and the petitioner.
The brief yielded a negative result for the presence of human DNA, while the t-shirt, several hair strand recovered
in the room of the victim and the buccal swabs yielded positive results.
Petitioner was thus charged with Homicide on April 8, 1998.
The facts were established during the prosecution's presentation of evidence. It was further testified to by the
witnesses that - petitioner owned a knife (balisong), which he usually brought every time he went out. Ill motive was
shown by petitioner's previous act of peeping through the bathroom and Arlene's room on two occasions - while she was
taking a bath and while she was inside the room with Marianne.
The petitioner denied of the accusations against him.
On October 26, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision finding the petitioner guilty of homicide.
The RTC considered the circumstantial evidence as sufficient to establish petitioner's guilt.
The CA affirmed petitioner's conviction. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not by means of circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable
doubt for the death of Arlene. (Yes)
Ruling:
The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would,
in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the
following requisites are complied with:
(1) There is more than one circumstance;
(2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
All the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be upheld, provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
In the present case, both the trial and appellate courts considered these pieces of evidence in finding petitioner's
guilt: 1) the non-employment of force in entering the scene of the crime; 2) no missing personal belongings; 3) the
absence of bloodstains in other parts of the house except Arlene's room; 4) petitioner's ownership of a balisong, the same
weapon used in stabbing the victim; 5) the presence of type "O" human blood on petitioner's T-shirt and briefs; 6) the
positive result of the DNA analysis using the bloodstains found in petitioner's shirt and briefs; and 7) petitioner's unusual
behavior after the discovery of the victim's lifeless body.
The individual pieces of evidence may not be sufficient to point to the accused as the author of the crime.
However, when taken together, they are more than enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
committed the crime of homicide. The Court emphasize that the peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of
the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which,
when put together, reveals a remarkable picture pointing towards the conclusion that the accused is the author of the
crime.
The prosecution's evidence, especially the testimonies of the witnesses who happen to be the victim's relatives,
was not weakened by the fact of such relationship. Where there is nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated by
improper motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and
credence.
The credibility given by the trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important aspect of evidence which
appellate courts can rely on because of the trial courts' unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by counsels.
In view of the foregoing, petitioner was correctly convicted of homicide punishable by reclusion temporal.
The petition was DENIED.
