Title
People vs. Enojas y Hingpit
Case
G.R. No. 204894
Decision Date
Mar 10, 2014
Four individuals were convicted of murder for the killing of a police officer, with the Supreme Court upholding the conviction due to sufficient circumstantial evidence and admissible text messages.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 204894)

Facts:

  • On September 4, 2006, murder charges were filed against Noel Enojas y Hingpit, Arnold Gomez y Fabregas, Fernando Santos y Delantar, and Roger Jalandoni y Ari in the Las Piñas RTC (Criminal Case No. 06-0854).
  • The incident occurred on August 29, 2006, when police officers PO2 Eduardo Gregorio, Jr. and PO2 Francisco Pangilinan noticed a suspicious taxi driven by Enojas.
  • Upon questioning, Enojas fled during a shootout with suspected robbers, resulting in the death of PO2 Pangilinan.
  • Enojas abandoned his taxi, leaving behind a mobile phone, which led to the arrest of Santos and Jalandoni through monitored messages.
  • The prosecution presented evidence, including text messages linking the accused to the crime.
  • The father of the deceased officer testified about the financial impact of his son's death.
  • The accused did not present evidence but claimed illegal arrest and inadmissibility of text messages.
  • On June 2, 2008, the RTC convicted all accused of murder, citing evident premeditation and armed men, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering damages to the victim's heirs.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but found no evident premeditation, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The Court ruled that the admission of the text messages was proper under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
  • The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals regarding aggravating circumstances, ruling that the accused were liable for homicide aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearms....(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction if it meets specific criteria: multiple circumstances, proven facts leading to inferences, and a combination of circumstances supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
  • In this case, the circumstantial evidence, including Enojas's identification as the taxi driver, his flight, and incriminating text messages, e...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.