TOPIC: TITLE 8 – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

(10) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN CREDO and DANIEL CREDO

G.R. No. 230778; July 22, 2019

FACTS:

1. Juan and Daniel were charged with murder and frustrated murder.
2. Juan was additionally charged with violation of Section 32, in relation to Section 36 of Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 7166 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 881, and Commission on
Election Resolution No. 6446 (violation of gun ban for carrying one (1) homemade shotgun
(sumpak) without written authority from the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.
and violation of P.D. 1866 (for having in his possession one (1) homemade shotgun (sumpak),
without first having secured the necessary license/ permit issued by the proper authorities).
3. Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against them. 
4. According to the prosecution witnesses, Spouses Antonio and Evangeline Asistin operated a
computer shop and a store at their residence in Quezon City. Daniel and Juan are nephews of
Evangeline. At around lunch time, Daniel, an assistant at the computer shop, entertained male
customers who wanted to rent tapes. Evangeline got up and asked the men where they are
from. One of the men replied, "ano nga bang lugar iyon?." Evangeline then told them that if
they are not from the area, they could just buy the tapes. Evangeline went back to the table and
continued eating her lunch. 
5. When Evangeline stood up to get water from the refrigerator, Daniel and the two unidentified
men suddenly appeared. One of the unidentified men strangled her. Without saying anything,
he pressed the lanseta and started stabbing her. Evangeline struggled and resisted until she fell
to the floor while that person continued to stab her. Thereafter, the men who assaulted her left.
Evangeline recalled that she sustained eight stab wounds. 
6. Once the two unidentified men left, Evangeline stood up and saw Antonio standing at the gate
with several stab wounds. Upon seeing Antonio, Evangeline told Daniel to chase the two men
who had just left. According to Evangeline, Daniel did not help her and even watched while she
was being stabbed. He did not go out to chase the two men. 
7. After being stabbed, Antonio was able to walk to the door of the computer shop. Evangeline and
Rufo Baguio, a neighbor, allegedly saw Daniel carry Antonio about two feet from the ground and
then drop him, causing his head to hit the ground. A few minutes later, Antonio was carried to
the vehicle of a neighbor while Evangeline took a tricycle with neighbor Roy Bischotso to the
hospital. Antonio was declared dead on arrival.
8. Medico-Legal Report revealed that the cause of Antonio's death is "multiple stab wounds on the
back, chest, and neck." On the other hand, Evangeline's Medico-Legal Certificate showed that
she suffered multiple stab wounds
9. Incidentally, Baguio testified that he saw Juan and another person carrying a heavy bag.
Thereafter, two other men arrived.  Baguio noticed that Juan pointed to the direction of the
residence of Spouses Asistin. The two men proceeded to the house of Spouses Asistin, and, later
on, Juan and the other man followed. 
10. Meanwhile, prosecution witness Reynante Ganal testified that he was outside Spouses Asistin's
residence when he saw Juan and Daniel talking to each other in a vacant room together with
 three other male companions. Although he was merely four arms-length away, he did not hear
the conversation of the group. A few minutes later, while he was preparing to take a bath, he
saw Juan walking with an unidentified person. Juan asked permission to urinate at the back of
the house. Thereafter, someone shouted "nasaksak sila tatay at nanay." Then, his sister-in-law
told him that two persons climbed the fence.
11. In a sworn statement of Felipe Roque (Roque), Bantay Bay an Chairman, he stated that he
responded at the crime scene and assisted in rushing the victims to Bernardino Hospital. He
went back to the crime scene where he found Daniel cleaning broken plates. He then turned
Daniel over to the responding barangay officials who later brought him to the police station for
investigation. 
12. A follow-up operation was conducted by the police led by PO2 Guererro after Daniel allegedly
implicated his brother Juan to the crime. The operation resulted to the arrest of Juan at his
rented room. In his sworn statement, PO2 Guerrero alleged that Juan was nabbed while
stashing in his bag a homemade shot gun (sumpak). The bag also contained clothing, two live
ammunitions for shotgun and a fan knife measuring approximately seven inches long. He was
allegedly in the process of absconding when he was apprehended. 
13. Juan and Daniel denied the allegations against them.
14. On March 16, 2004, at around 1:30 pm, Juan watched television at his rented place. Thereafter,
from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, he watched a basketball game about 14 meters away from the room
he was renting. Then, at around 6:30 pm to 6:45 pm, he again watched television at his place. It
was at this time that he heard a noise coming from outside. Suddenly, someone kicked the door
of his room. An armed policeman appeared with his brother Daniel who was in handcuffs. He
was asked to go with them to the police station where he was allegedly tortured into admitting
committing the crimes he is charged with. He also denied that a shotgun or sumpak was
confiscated from him.
15. On the other hand, Daniel testified that at around 11:00 am on March 16, 2004, he was painting
the roof of the house of Spouses Asistin when he suddenly heard Evangeline shouting for help.
Daniel immediately went down from the roof and saw Antonio lying covered with blood on the
ground near the garage. He was shocked upon seeing Antonio's state. Daniel testified that he
raised Antonio when he saw him wounded but the latter stood up, went out, and kept cursing.
When he went inside, he fell to the ground so Daniel carried him to a taxi.
16. RULING OF THE RTC

MURDER CASE:

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

FRUSTRATED MURDER CASE:

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder.

VIOLATION OF GUN BAN CASE:

Acquitted for lack of evidence.

VIOLATION OF P.D. NO. 1866 CASE:

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions.
 17. RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

CA denied Juan and Daniel's appeal and affirmed their respective convictions.

18. DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED:

Juan and Daniel argued that their presence, without executing any overt act, does not prove
conspiracy in inflicting of fatal injuries to Spouses Asistin. The defense emphasized that Daniel's
alleged failure to help the victims does not constitute positive act of assent or cooperation in the
commission of the crimes charged. The defense pointed out that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses even confirmed that Daniel actually helped in carrying Antonio. Also, Juan and Daniel did
not flee. Daniel remained at the house of Spouses Asistin and cleaned the place while Juan was
found watching television at his rented place. Moreover, the defense insists that no motive can be
attributed to Daniel or Juan to conspire with strangers to commit the crimes. For the defense,
Antonio's refusal to accommodate Juan in their house is a shallow reason to provoke them to kill
Spouses Asistin. The defense also maintained that the admission of his arrest does not suffice to
warrant a conviction under P.D. 1866. The defense merely admitted the fact of Juan's arrest effected
by PO2 Guerrero and nothing more. There was no admission with regard to the confiscation of a
shotgun or sumpak, ammunitions, or fan knife from his possession. Hence, his conviction based on
his supposed admission constitutes a reversible error.

ISSUES:

1) Whether Juan and Daniel are guilty of murder;

2) Whether Juan and Daniel are guilty of frustrated murder; and

3) Whether Juan should be held criminally liable for violation of P.D. 1866.

RULING:

Murder Case & Frustrated Murder Case

The Court cites Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court in stating that "[c]ircumstantial evidence is
sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the
inference is derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubts. Here, careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses reveals flaws and inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of
their allegations and would merit the acquittal of Juan and Daniel.

Evangeline admitted that neither Daniel nor Juan stabbed her and that she did not see Juan during the
incident. Their complicity was merely based on circumstantial evidence, having been allegedly seen near
the residence of Spouses Asistin, talking to strangers, before the incident took place. The prosecution
witnesses admitted to not knowing nor hearing what Daniel, Juan, and the other men were discussing.
They also admitted not seeing who killed Antonio.

As We have held in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, to wit:

xxxx
To be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of the accused must be shown to have performed at
least an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being shown to do so
none of them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may only be held responsible for the results
of his own acts. 

In this case, the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof of concerted action before, during, and
after the commission of the crime which would demonstrate accused-appellants' unity of design and
objective. There is no direct proof nor reliable circumstantial evidence establishing that Juan and Daniel
conspired with the unidentified men who stabbed Spouses Asistin.

The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution - testimonies of Baguio and Ganal claiming
that they saw Juan and Daniel talking to each other moments before the crimes were committed do not
prove conspiracy. Baguio and Ganal insisted seeing three (3) unidentified men and Juan enter the house
of Spouses Asistin. However, neither of the witnesses could confirm to the Court that these men were
the same men who stabbed Spouses Asistin nor could they confirm that they heared their conversation.
Furthermore, the claim of Baguio and Ganal that three (3) unidentified men entered the house of
Spouses Asistin contradicts the statement of Evangeline that only two (2) unidentified men were
allowed by Daniel to enter their house, and that she did not see Juan.

Anent the strange behavior of Daniel, We find the degree of interference or participation of Daniel by
allegedly standing still while Evangeline was being stabbed and failing to come to her and Antonio's aid,
insufficient to warrant the conclusion that he is a co-conspirator.

Neither Evangeline nor any of the other prosecution witnesses saw who stabbed Antonio.

Moreover, considering that Antonio was at the gate outside of the house and Daniel was inside the
house while Evangeline was being stabbed, Evangeline could not have known who stabbed Antonio.
Thus, Evangeline's statement that Daniel watched her being stabbed inside the house negates her own
claim that Daniel helped out in stabbing Antonio who was at the gate of the house.

Interestingly, the claim of Evangeline and Baguio that Daniel carried Antonio and suddenly dropped him,
causing the latter to sustain a head injury, is belied by the Medico-legal Report.

It is also contrary to ordinary human experience to remain at the crime scene after the victims were
brought to the hospital. One who is guilty would have immediately fled the scene of the crime to avoid
being arrested by the authorities.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, when taken as a whole, failed to present a coherent and
consistent narration of the facts. Absent any proof sufficient to connect/relate Daniel and Juan to the
criminal design of killing Spouses Asistin, it cannot be concluded that Daniel and Juan were in conspiracy
with the unidentified aggressors in committing murder and frustrated murder.

Violation of P.D. No. 1866

Juan's conviction of violation of P.D. 1866, based solely on the testimony of arresting officer PO2
Guerrero, is erroneous. We cannot ignore the possibility that the shotgun, ammunitions, and knife
confiscated from Juan were merely planted. It is too coincidental that at the very moment the police
conducted a follow-up operation and made a protective search at the room where Juan was staying, he
was caught packing a bag filled with the seized items.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-Appellants Juan Credo y De Vergara and Daniel Credo y De
Vergara are ACQUITTED for failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.