People vs.

Gonzales
G.R.No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309

FACTS:
At around 9:00 p.m. of February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja, barangay captain of Brgy. Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was
awakened by two of the accused (Augusto and Fausta). Paja learns that Fausta killed their landlord, Lloyd
Penacerrada, and would like to surrender to authorities. Knife used in killing was seen, and blood was found smeared
on Fausta’s dress. Paja immediately ordered a nephew to take spouses to the police at the Municipal Hall in
Poblacon, Ajay, where the couple informed the police on duty of the incident. Several patrolmen, along with
Paja and Augusto proceeded to the residence at Sitio Nabitasan where the killing incident allegedly occurred,
and found the body of the deceased, clad in underwear, sprawled face down inside the bedroom. Group
stayed for an hour in which the scene was inspected, and a rough sketch of the area was made.

The next day, a patrolman, accompanied by a photographer, went back to the scene forfurther investigations.
Fausta was brought back to the police station.The autopsy of the deceased was performed at 11:20 a.m.
Report shows the following: Sixteen wounds: five fatal as they penetrated the internal organs; Multiple
puncture, stab, incision, and lacerated wounds.

The day after the autopsy, Augusto appeared before the sub-station and voluntarily surrendered to Police
Corporal Sazon for detention and protective custody for having been involved in the killing of the deceased.
Augusto requests to be taken to where Fausta was already detained.

Based on the investigations conducted, an information for murder dated August 26, 1981, was filed by the
Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against the spouses. However, they pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Before the trial, however, a certain Jose
Huntoria presented himself to the wife of the deceased. Huntoria claims to be a witness of the killing, and on
October 6, 1981, volunteers as a witness for the prosecution. Are investigation of the case was called, in which
several more were filed as accused, including the appellant. All the accused except for Lenida pleaded not
guilty.

At the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. jesus rojas, he physician who conducted the autopsy on the body,
paja, the patrolmen and constabulary members who joined in the investigation, the widow, and huntoria.

Dr. Rojas testified that be performed the autopsy at around 11:20 am on Feb. 1981 after the deceased was
taken to the municipal hall. He found 4 puncture wounds, 7 stab wounds, 4 incisions, and 1 laceration five of
these were fatal wounds. Rojas admitted one of two possibilities: Only one weapon might have caused all the
wounds Multiple instruments were used due to the number and different characteristics
The brunt of the prosecution's case rested on Hurton's alleged eyewitness account of the Incident, which was
as follows: Testified on July 27, 1982, at 5 pm on Feb 21, 1981, he left his work at Brgy. Central, and walked
home, taking a short cut. While passing at the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses’ home at around 8:00 pm, he
heard cries for help, Curiosity prompted him to approach the place where the shouts were from 15-20 m away
from the scene, he hid half behind a clump of banana trees, and see all the accused ganging upon the
deceased near a threshing platform. He said he clearly recognized all the accused as the place was awash in
moonlight after stabbing and hacking the victim, the accused lifted his body and carried it to the house.
Huntoria then left home upon reaching his house, he related what he saw to his wife and mother before going
to sleep. Eight months after the incident, bothered by his conscience and the fact that his father was tenant of
the deceased, he thought of helping the widow Out of his own violation, he travelled to the widow's house, and
related to her what he saw.
The trial court disregarded the version of the defense; it believed the prosecution's version. On appeal to the
Court of Appeals, the appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of the
testimony of the lone witness, and in not appreciating his defense of alibi. The Court found no merit in the
errors, and rejected defense of alibi. Worsening this is that the appellate court found the sentence erroneous,
and upgraded the penalty to that of murder-reclusion temporal/death The case is now brought upon
certification by the Court of Appeals, hence the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the client, under the evidence presented, has committed the felony of murder.

RULING:
No, he has not.
Court’s analysis of the evidence:
- Investigation conducted left much to be desired. Centeno gave the date of commission as March 21,
1981. The sketch made was troubling, as it did not effectively indicate the extent of the blood stains in
the scenes of crime. This would have added a lot of weight to any one of the versions of the incident.
- Sazon, who claimed that Gonzales surrendered to him, failed to state clearly the reason for the
surrender. It may even be possible that Augusto surrendered just so he could be safe from the victim
skin. Sazon also admitted that Augusto never mentioned to him the participation of other persoins in the
killing.
- Roja’s statement showed two possibilities for the killing. Fausta’s admission that she was the only killer
is plausible. Furthermore, there were only five fatal wounds, which will be discussed later.
- Huntorias testimony, of which the prosecution argument solely rests, needs to be examined further.
Huntoria’s claims in his testimony did not exactly match with those from his cross- examination. He first
claimed that he recognized the people involved. However, in the cross-examination, he “only saw
flashes.” This implies that he may not have recognized anyone at all. As such, Huntoria’s testimony
could not place a definite act committed or contributed by the appellant in the killing of the deceased.
On the criminal liability of the appellant:
- There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that establishes the criminal liability of the appellant as
a principal for direct participation under Art.3 , paragraph 1 of the RPC that the elements of felonies
include: An act or omission, an act or omission must be punishable, Act is performed or omission
incurred by deceit or fault.
- The lone witness could not properly establish any acts or omissions done by the appellant. He stated
that he does not know who hacked or stabbed the victim, thus implying that he does not know what the
appellant did. With this, the essential elements of felonies may not even be present.
Final ruling that the decision of the courts of appeal is reversed and set aside. Appellant is acquitted.