G.R. No. 29832 - People vs. Asinas

On the night of October 4, 1927, the crime occurred involving the brutal killing of Aniceto Asinas, the father of the accused.
Leon Ogacho, a key witness and alleged accomplice, made a detailed confession on October 17, 1927. His statement described how Felipe Credo and he were summoned by Canuto Asinas to commit the crime.
According to Ogacho, upon arriving at the houses of Canuto and then Aniceto Asinas, he witnessed Canuto Asinas gripping Aniceto by the neck while Eugenio Asinas held his foot.
Ogacho testified that the accused, following these acts and after ensuring Aniceto was dead, disposed of the body by placing it on a bonfire; he further stated that Canuto Asinas secured money from a bamboo trunk (baris) and warned the witnesses against revealing details under threat of shooting.

A similar confession was made by the defendant Felipe Credo, although his statement was not admitted in trial due to procedural reasons.
The body of Aniceto Asinas was discovered early on October 5, 1927, in a camarin located in the sitio of Maglolo. The victim’s body was partially burnt, found face downward, and minimally clothed.
Eugenio Asinas, the son who lived nearby, was notified of the scene and his reaction was noted as tearful and contrite, as he attempted to cover the body.
A rural policeman and other local residents were also present or notified at the scene, adding contextual detail to the chain of events.

Dr. Juan Rivera conducted the sole autopsy on October 10, 1927, at the request of the local justice of the peace.

The autopsy report noted death by asphyxia due to occlusion of the nasal and buccal orifices.
Minimal burns (first degree) were found on parts of the body, and although contusions were present on the face and forehead, no definitive signs of lethal violence were noted on the neck.
The doctor observed that the presence of a protruding tongue and congested lungs, along with interstitial emphysema, pointed to asphyxiation likely by strangulation.

Despite these findings, the autopsy did not reveal the typical external marks of violence on the neck that one might expect with homicidal strangulation.

Possession of shotguns by the accused, which in itself did not link to the murder as the death was not caused by a shotgun.
Prior admissions by Canuto Asinas regarding other criminal activities (like threshing abaca and evidence of enmity with family members) were introduced to suggest a motive and predisposition.
Testimonies from other witnesses such as Marcelo Relampagos, Visitacion Golondrina, Nazario Opinion, and Cirilo Mercader, who related past violence, alleged attempts on the father’s life, and existing enmity.

However, significant discrepancies and gaps emerged — including vague dates, potential bias due to business rivalry, and inconsistencies with respect to physical evidence and the alleged mode of the crime.

The crime was said to have occurred on a rainy, stormy night with the moon only in its first quarter.
Ogacho’s detailed narrative of actions (such as extinguishing the lamp immediately upon arrival) raises questions about the veracity and feasibility of events in near darkness, thus challenging the reliability of his account.

Whether the testimony of Leon Ogacho, the principal witness for the prosecution, could be sufficiently corroborated by other evidence to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The lack of any corroborative physical evidence or other reliable testimonies that confirm the specific details of the alleged crime (e.g., signs of strangulation on the neck).

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented—the possession of shotguns, previous acts of violence, and statements by other witnesses—was legally proper and whether it tended to demonstrate the accused’s guilt.
The issue of whether evidence of other alleged crimes or misconduct could be admitted to prove the defendants’ propensity to commit the crime charged.

Whether the evidence gathered, when considered in its entirety, was legally and logically sufficient to remove all reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the defendants.
The problem of drawing an inference of murder when certain crucial elements (such as confirmatory marks of strangulation) were missing or inconsistent.