PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v MARK JASON CHAVEZ
G.R. N. 207940 September 22, 2014
RULE:
DOCTRINE:
The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of an accused:
FACTS:
An information against Mark Chavez (Chavez) for robbery with homicide was
filed on November 8, 2006. It was alleged that Angelo Penamante, the
prosecution witness, arrived home from his job in Quezon City. When he was
about to enter his house in Sampaloc, Manila, he saw a man holding something
leaving the parlor of Elmer Duque (deceased-victim) which he recognized as
Chavez. The following morning, the SOCO team arrived in the aforementioned
place, finding Duque’s dead body with the whole place in disarray. An autopsy
of the cadaver revealed that the deceased received 21 stab wounds, 4 of which
were considered fatal. It was also alleged that two (2) units of mobile phones
were taken with some pieces of jewelry.
Penamante was invited to the Manila Police Station to give a statement. He
attested that he saw Chavez coming out of the parlor. Eventually, Chavez
voluntarily surrendered to the police. Chavez explained that he was at home on
the said night, exchanging messages with Duque on whether they could talk
regarding their misunderstanding. When Duque did not reply to his text
message, Chavez decided to go to his house, where he was allowed to enter.
Afterwhich, he went home. Chavez’ mother gave a statement and surrendered
two cellular phones owned by the deceased.
The CA affirmed the decision. Chavez filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule
124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure, elevating the case to the SC.
Chavez argues that he cannot be convicted of the said crime as the prosecution
merely relied on circumstantial evidence.
According to him, even if Penamante saw him leaving the crime scene, he did
not specific whether Chavez was acting suspiciously at that time. Moreover, the
findings of the autopsy revealed that the wounds were caused by two sharp
bladed instruments, thus, it is possible that there were two assailants. It was also
possible that the crime was committed after he left the house of the deceased.
Given that there are many explanations which fit the fact that Chavez is
innocent, he should be acquitted.
On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee argued that direct evidence is not
indispensible when the prosecution is establishing the guilt of Chavez. The
circumstantial evidence presented before the trial court laid down an unbroken
chain of events leading to no other conclusion than Chavez’s acts of killing and
robbing Barbie.46
ISSUE: Can Chavez be convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence presented in the trial court?
HELD:
Yes. However, the court found Chavez guilty of homicide only and not of
robbery.
The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be
sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of an
accused:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence 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.51
The lower courts found that the circumstantial evidence laid down by the
prosecution led to no other conclusion than the commission by Chavez of the
crime charged:
In the instant case, while there is no direct evidence showing that the accused
robbed and fatally stabbed the victim to death, nonetheless, the Court believes
that the following circumstances form a solid and unbroken chain of events that
leads to the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that accused committed the
crime charged, vi[z]: first, it has been duly established, as the accused himself
admits, that he went to the parlor of the victim at around 1:00 o’clock in the
morning of 28 October 2006 and the accused was allowed by the victim to get
inside his parlor as it serves as his residence too; second, the victim’s two (2)
units of cellular phones (one red Nokia with model 3310 and the other one is a
black Motorola) without sim cards and batteries, which were declared as part of
the missing personal belongings of the victim, were surrendered by the mother
of the accused when the accused voluntarily surrendered, accompanied by his
mother, at the police station: third, on 28 October 2006 at about 2:45 o’clock in the
morning, witness Angelo Peñamante, who arrived from his work, saw a person
holding and/or carrying something and about to get out of the door of the house
of the victim located at 1325 G. Tuazon Street, Sampaloc, Manila, and trying to
close the door but the said person was not able to successfully do so. He later
positively identified the said person at the police station as MARK JASON
CHAVEZ y BITANCOR @ NOY, the accused herein; and finally, the time when
the accused decided on 27 October 2006 to patch up things with the victim and
the circumstances (Dr. Salen’s testimony that the body of the victim was dead for
more or less twelve (12) hours) when the latter was discovered fatally killed on
28 October 2006 is not a co-incidence.
The prosecution has equally established, based on the same circumstantial
evidence, that the accused had indeed killed the victim.52
Nevertheless, this court has held that "[w]hat is imperative and essential for a
conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to
establish the offender’s intent to take personal property before the killing,
regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out."54 In cases when
the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the
purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted of robbery with
homicide.55
The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts, as quoted previously,
do not satisfactorily establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit
robbery. While the mother of the accused gave a statement before the police that
his son confessed to her in killing Duque and in sppropriating the stolen
belongings thereafter, the said statement is not admissible. This statement is
considered as hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since Chavez’s mother was
never presented as a witness during trial to testify on her statement.
The court resolved to modify the conviction finding Chavez guilty of the crime of
homicide.
