Case Summary (G.R. No. 207950)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor alias “Noya”
Key Dates
• October 28, 2006 – Date of killing and alleged robbery
• November 8, 2006 – Filing of information
• December 4, 2006 – Accused’s arraignment (plea of not guilty)
• August 19, 2011 – Trial court conviction
• February 27, 2013 – Court of Appeals affirmation
• September 22, 2014 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Revised Penal Code, art. 294 (robbery with homicide), art. 29 (credit for preventive imprisonment)
• Rules of Court, Rule 133 Sec. 4 (circumstantial evidence)
• Rules of Evidence, Rule 131 Sec. 2(j) (presumption from possession)
• Republic Act No. 7438 (custodial investigation and right to counsel)
Factual Background
On October 28, 2006 at around 2:45 a.m., Angelo Peñamante saw a man in black—later identified as Chavez—leaving the victim’s house/parlor, carrying an unidentified object. Chavez dropped the object, slipped, then walked away. Peñamante entered his home and retired for the night.
Investigation and Forensics
By 10:00 a.m., the SOCO team led by PCI Cayrel documented a disordered scene and found Barbie’s body. They recovered 155 hair strands from the victim’s hand, took fingerprints and photographs, and forwarded evidence to the chemistry division. Dr. Salen’s autopsy at 1:00 p.m. established death approximately 12 hours earlier and identified 22 wounds—21 stab wounds and one incised wound, four of which were fatal.
Identification and Voluntary Surrender
Peñamante identified Chavez in a police line‐up the next day. On November 5, 2006, Chavez voluntarily surrendered to SPO3 Casimiro, accompanied by his mother, who executed a handwritten statement and turned over two cellphones and a baseball cap.
Trial and Lower Court Decision
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 41, Manila) on August 19, 2011 found Chavez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, plus ₱75,000 death indemnity and ₱75,000 moral damages to the victim’s heirs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On February 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals Eighth Division affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
Standard for Robbery with Homicide
Robbery with homicide requires proof of an original criminal design to take personal property by force or intimidation and that the killing was committed in relation to that design. Proof may rest on circumstantial evidence only if it forms an unbroken chain of events producing moral certainty.
Analysis of Criminal Design to Rob
The Court found no conclusive proof that Chavez intended to rob before killing. The only evidence of intent—his mother’s hearsay statement—lacked evidentiary value. The infliction of 21 stab wounds strongly indicated intent to ensure death, inconsistent with a primary design to steal.
Evidence of Homicide
Chavez’s admitted presence at the victim’s parlor around 1:00 a.m., the close “brother‐like” relationship, the timing of death (approximately 1:00 a.m.), the discovery of a kitchen knife in a nearby manhole, and Peñamante’s positive identification established Chavez’s culpability for homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Presumption on Possession of Stolen Property
Although a disputable presumption arises when one possesses recently stolen items, Chavez offered no satisfactory explanation for the cellphones turned over by his mother. However, the possibility that the victim had lent them and the compromised chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to theft.
Voluntary Surrender and Miranda Rights
Chavez’s voluntary surrender and his mother’s affidavit were obtained without formal compliance with Miranda warnings as required by the Constitution and RA 7438. The Court held that custodial investigation rights
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 207950)
Facts of the Case
- On October 28, 2006 at around 2:45 a.m., Angelo Peñamante arrived at his home on Tuazon Street, Sampaloc, Manila, and saw a man in a black long-sleeved shirt and black pants leaving the parlor of Elmer “Barbie” Duque at 1325 G. Tuazon Street.
- The man attempted but failed to close the parlor door, dropped an object, fell, then walked away; Peñamante could not identify the object.
- At about 9:00 a.m., Barbie was found dead inside his parlor; the Scene of the Crime Office (SOCO) team documented the scene and collected 155 hair strands from the victim’s left hand, photographs, fingerprints, and other evidence.
- Dr. Romeo T. Salen conducted an autopsy at 1:00 p.m. and estimated the victim’s death occurred approximately 12 hours earlier; he recorded 22 wounds (21 stab wounds, one incised wound), four of which were fatal.
- Shortly after, Peñamante informed his landlady of what he had seen; the investigating officer, SPO3 Steve Casimiro, later recorded Peñamante’s description and, in a lineup, Peñamante positively identified Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor alias Noya as the person he saw leaving the parlor.
- On November 5, 2006, Chavez (22 years old) surrendered voluntarily with his mother; she executed a written statement (later deemed hearsay) and turned over to police two cellular phones and Chavez’s baseball cap.
- A kitchen knife was subsequently recovered from a manhole near Chavez’s residence, and hairs consistent in location were found on it.
Procedural History
- Information filed November 8, 2006 charging Chavez with robbery with homicide under Revised Penal Code Art. 294.
- Chavez pleaded not guilty at his December 4, 2006 arraignment; trial proceeded with five prosecution witnesses and Chavez as sole defense witness.
- On August 19, 2011, the Regional Trial Court Branch 41, Manila convicted Chavez of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering P75,000.00 each for death indemnity and moral damages.
- On February 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
- Chavez appealed to the Supreme Court under Rule 124, Sec. 13(c), raising issues on presumption of innocence, hearsay, possibility of multiple assailants, and pure reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Issue on Appeal
- Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable dou