Title
Espineli vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 179535
Decision Date
Jun 9, 2014
Alberto Berbon was shot in 1996; circumstantial evidence linked Jose Espineli to the crime. Convicted of homicide, not murder, due to insufficient proof of qualifying circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179535)

Charge, arrest, plea and procedural posture

An Information for murder was filed against petitioner on June 24, 1997. Petitioner was arrested on July 1, 1997, arraigned on July 7, 1997, and pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded on the prosecution’s evidence; petitioner did not present a defense case but filed a demurrer to evidence which was not acted upon by the trial court.

Evidence presented by the prosecution

Key prosecution evidence included: (1) the notarized sworn statement of Romeo Reyes, as recounted in-court by NBI Agent Segunial; (2) testimony of Rodolfo Dayao identifying the red Ford Escort as the same car he sold to Sotero Paredes; (3) testimony of the victim’s widow, Sabina Berbon, regarding her assistance to Reyes and his subsequent disappearance; and (4) the autopsy report by Dr. Ludivino J. Lagat establishing multiple gunshot wounds and indicating high-powered firearms were used. Documentary proof of medical and funeral expenses was also introduced.

Defense posture and weaknesses

Petitioner did not testify nor present witnesses; he filed a demurrer to evidence that the trial court did not resolve. He challenged the admission and probative value of Reyes’s Sinumpaang Salaysay on hearsay and confrontation grounds, arguing that Reyes was not presented to confirm the content and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly since no eyewitness saw the killing.

RTC trial court ruling

The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, awarding civil indemnity and actual and compensatory damages supported by receipts. The RTC credited the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently to find that qualifying circumstances attended the killing.

Court of Appeals modification and ruling

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide, holding that the prosecution failed to prove attendant circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime as aggravating circumstances. The CA imposed an indeterminate sentence with minimum prision mayor and maximum reclusion temporal and sustained the damage awards then already assessed by the RTC.

Issues before the Supreme Court

The principal issues addressed were (1) whether Reyes’s sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay), as recounted by an NBI agent, was inadmissible hearsay depriving petitioner of confrontation and cross-examination; and (2) whether the circumstantial evidence presented, taken as a whole, constituted an unbroken chain sufficient to convict petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal standards on circumstantial evidence applied

The Court applied Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court: circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when (i) there is more than one circumstance, (ii) the facts from which the inference is drawn are proven, and (iii) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that all circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence, such that they form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused to the exclusion of others.

Analysis of Reyes’s sworn statement and hearsay doctrine

The Court reasoned that NBI Agent Segunial’s testimony recounting that Reyes executed a sworn statement was admissible not to prove the truth of the facts asserted in that statement but to prove that Reyes in fact made that statement—i.e., the testimony was an independently relevant statement. Under Section 36, Rule 130 and established doctrine, proof that a statement was made may be admissible when the fact of the making is itself relevant, and the hearsay rule does not apply to such use. Moreover, Reyes’s written sworn statement was a notarized document, presumptively authentic under Section 30, Rule 132, with that presumption not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court therefore concluded the trial courts did not err in receiving and giving probative value to the statement as recounted.

The unbroken chain of circumstances and sufficiency to convict

The Supreme Court identified the concordant circumstances that produced an unbroken chain: (1) Reyes’s sworn account that petitioner was heard threatening the victim and was seen armed with a .45 pistol while Sotero had an armalite and both boarded a red car; (2) identification of the red Ford Escort by its prior owner as the same car sold to Sotero months earlier; (3) proof that the victim was fatally shot on the same date and that the assailants fled in a red car; and (4) forensic findings of multiple gunshot wounds caused by high-powered firearms consistent with the weapons described. The Court added petitioner’s escape from detention during the pendency of the case as an additional incriminating circumstance. Considering these facts cumulatively and respecting the trial court’s credibility findings affirmed by the CA, the Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On downgrade from murder to homicide and sentencing

Although the initial Information charged murder with alleged attendant circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the qualifying aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength or nighttime. Because those circumstances were unprov

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.