Title
People vs. Evardo y Juan
Case
G.R. No. 100724
Decision Date
Dec 1, 1992
Accused Narciso Evardo convicted of two counts of Homicide after victims' bodies were found in his vinta; robbery charge dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
circumstantial evidence
conviction
multiple circumstances

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100724)

Charges and Material Allegations in the Information

The information alleged that on or about September 18, 1987, appellant and his co-accused, armed with a scythe and a paddle, conspired and confederated together to take and carry away from Ricardo Mendoza a Garand rifle with serial number 2489371, valued at P9,000.00, taken against the will of the owner, with intent to gain. It further alleged that, for the purpose of enabling the taking, and with intent to kill, the accused assaulted Ricardo Mendoza and Robert Mendoza with the weapons, inflicting mortal wounds that caused their deaths, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victims.

Factual Background from the Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution established that the deceased victims, Ricardo Mendoza and Robert Mendoza, were father and son, respectively, and both were farmers. Ricardo Mendoza was also a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) and had been issued the Garand rifle with serial number 2489371, valued at P9,000.00. The Mendoza family resided in Limaong Island, Vitali District, Zamboanga City. On September 18, 1987, at around six in the afternoon, appellant Narciso Evardo and his brother Efipanio arrived at the Mendoza residence. Appellant invited Ricardo and Robert to accompany them to Kabog Island, a nearby isle, purportedly to see a hidden pumpboat engine allegedly found there, and requested Ricardo as an escort. The invitation was made in the presence of Marcelina Mendoza and Vilma Mendoza. Ricardo brought his government-issued Garand rifle and wore a green fatigue shirt, while Robert went along in a green long-sleeve shirt and maong pants. The group then left the house together.

On September 19, 1987, at about seven in the morning, appellant appeared at the Mendoza house and asked whether Ricardo and Robert were already home. He informed Vilma that Ricardo and Robert returned to the seashore after appellant had been taken home, purportedly to look for fish because the family had no viand. After that, appellant went to the house of Vilma’s aunt (Ricardo’s sister), located about one hundred meters from the Mendoza residence, and stayed there for some time.

At about noontime (around eleven in the morning) on September 19, 1987, Marcelina and Vilma were informed by some CHDF members that dead persons had been found at sea, one wearing a uniform fatigue shirt and the other in civilian clothing. Suspecting that the dead persons were Ricardo and Robert, they reported that the last persons seen with the missing Mendoza men were the Evardo brothers. Acting on this report, Vicente Toribio, CHDF team leader and barrio councilman, ordered members Alberto Mendoza, Francisco Toribio, and Eduardo Mendoza to search for appellant. They later found appellant near a ricefield armed with a scythe, identified as Exhibit I. Appellant was brought to Vicente Toribio, who turned him over to the Vitali Police at the Logpond at Vitali, where the dead Ricardo and Robert were brought, still inside a vinta owned by appellant.

While the CHDF team and the police handled appellant and the investigation, Marcelina and Vilma went to the logpond to verify the identity of the dead persons. Police Investigator Cresencio Guevarra investigated and directed the taking of photographs of the deceased victims lying dead in the vinta, marked as Exhibits A to F. On board the vinta, containing the bodies, was a wooden paddle, marked as Exhibit J, which was owned by appellant. However, Ricardo’s Garand rifle was not found. Guevarra also testified that Marcelina told him that Efipanio and appellant went to pick up the victims at their house under the pretext of obtaining a pumpboat engine at Kabog Island and that Ricardo and Robert never returned home.

Guevarra further testified that he prepared the Initial Investigation Report (Exhibit G) and the Final Report (Exhibit H). He stated that he included in his report appellant’s admission of participation in the killings and the implication of Tambi Ladja. He also testified that he was present one meter away during appellant’s admission before the investigating fiscal at the office of the fiscal, where appellant allegedly stated that he and Efipanio were the ones who killed the victims.

Appellant’s Version and Evidence of Alleged Maltreatment

Appellant testified that he worked as a janitor for eight years for Dr. Ahmad in Basilan. On September 11, 1987, he received a letter from his mother informing him that his father was sick and that he was needed to help harvest palay in their farm on Limaong Island. While there, he stayed with his co-accused Efipanio. He denied knowing the circumstances of the death of his uncle and cousin and claimed that he and his companions, Jalil Darusalem and Tambi Ladja, were tortured by CHDF members.

To corroborate maltreatment, appellant presented PFC Rodolfo Rodriguez, a policeman assigned to the Zamboanga City Jail, who testified that, according to the station logbook, when appellant and his companions were admitted to the jail, they had lacerated and cut wounds and contusions on different parts of their bodies. He also presented Purificacion Nualla, a records clerk of the Zamboanga Regional Training Hospital, who testified regarding Medico-Legal Certificates of appellant and of the other arrested persons, marked as Exhibits 1 to 3. Additionally, appellant presented the Certificate of Death of Tambi Ladja (Exhibit 4), showing that Tambi died at the hospital due to injuries he sustained, allegedly at the hands of some CHDF members in Vitali, Zamboanga City.

Trial Court Ruling and Penalty

After trial, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of Robbery with Double Homicide and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It ordered appellant to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the total amount of P60,000.00 and to pay the costs. As appellant was a detention prisoner, the court stated that he would receive full credit for the period of detention during the pendency of the case, subject to written voluntary agreement to abide by the disciplinary rules for convicted prisoners. It also ordered that the records concerning the unidentified accused be sent to the files without prejudice to reinstatement upon identification and arrest.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, appellant assigned as error the trial court’s finding of guilt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically challenging: (a) the inference that he and Efipanio invited the victims to accompany them to Kabog Island; (b) the inference of his ownership of the vinta; (c) the trial court’s view of his purported effort to establish an alibi; and (d) the trial court’s use of his being a Muslim convert as supposed motive. Appellant argued that the records lacked evidence showing he directly or indirectly participated in the commission of the charged offense.

The appeal thus squarely presented the sufficiency of the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence, the treatment of alleged alibi, the evidentiary relevance of appellant’s religious conversion as “motive,” and whether the evidence proved the robbery-homicide complex crime with the requisite certainty.

Legal Standards Applied to Circumstantial Evidence

The Court treated the governing standard for conviction by circumstantial evidence: such evidence must consist of more than one circumstance; the facts from which inferences are derived must be proven; and the combination of all circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also stressed that, in assessing circumstantial evidence, courts must consider all facts and circumstances together as a whole.

Appellate Evaluation of the Enumerated Circumstances

The Court reviewed the four circumstances the trial court relied upon. First, it noted the trial court’s finding that appellant and Efipanio invited the victims to accompany them to Kabog Island to see a pumpboat engine and sought Ricardo as an escort. Second, it considered the trial court’s finding that appellant owned the vinta where the victims were found dead, despite appellant’s denial. The prosecution witnesses Vicente Toribio, Alberto Mendoza, and Francisco Toribio testified that appellant was the owner of the vinta; Vicente claimed he had once borrowed that same banca from appellant; Alberto identified the vinta in photographs; and Francisco testified that he knew the vinta as appellant’s because he knew appellant since childhood. The Court held that appellant’s denial did not sufficiently overcome this testimony, and it deferred to the trial court’s assessment of credibility absent showing of improper motive.

Third, the Court addressed the trial court’s finding that appellant attempted to put up an excuse resembling an alibi by telling Vilma that the victims had already returned to Limaong Island and then had gone back to the sea to look for fish. The Court described this act as occurring when appellant returned to the Mendoza home at about seven in the morning on September 19, 1987. The Court viewed this behavior as a calculated explanation intended to mislead the Mendoza women about what happened after appellant and the victims parted.

Fourth, the Court examined the trial court’s reliance on appellant’s admission that he was a Muslim convert as providing motive for the crime, and the speculative conclusion that he was sympathetic to the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and therefore would have coveted the victims’ Garand rifle. The Court held that being a Muslim convert, per se, does not necessarily make one a member of the MNLF, and similarly a Christian convert cannot automatically be treated as a member of the NPA. It further characterized the trial court’s motive conclusion as conjectural and unjustly prejudicial, rather than proof of robbery.

Modification of the Crime: From Robbery with Double Homicide to Two Counts of Homicide

The Court held that, while the circumstantial evidence established appell

...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.

About Privacy Terms