Title
People vs. Jalon
Case
G.R. No. 93729
Decision Date
Nov 13, 1992
Deogracias Jalon acquitted of murder as Supreme Court found prosecution's evidence weak, inconsistent, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146875)

Charges and Arrest

On August 8, 1986, Jalon and Magsalos were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 6902 in the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 21. Jalon was arrested on October 27, 1986, and was arraigned on November 26, 1986, entering a plea of not guilty. Magsalos was arrested later and never formally arraigned due to health issues; charges against Magsalos were eventually dismissed on December 5, 1988.

Events of the Crime

The murder occurred around 10 PM on May 28, 1986, when Pelarito Abujan was on his way to a dance hall. He was shot multiple times, resulting in fatal injuries to his head and neck. Witnesses reported hearing gunfire and testified that Jalon was seen fleeing the scene after the shots were fired. Both Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus provided varying accounts of the events leading to the shooting and the identities of those involved.

Defense Strategy

Jalon maintained his innocence through an alibi, asserting he was at his employer's house in Carmen, about twelve kilometers from Baikingon, at the time of the murder. His employer corroborated his alibi, stating Jalon had been working as a watchman that night. Jalon indicated that it would have been physically impossible to travel the distance back to the crime scene within the time frame of the murder.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court, on May 31, 1989, found Jalon guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with accessory penalties and ordered him to pay damages to the victim's heirs. The court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent, despite the lack of direct eyewitness accounts.

Appellate Review

On appeal, Jalon raised two key errors: (1) the court's identification of him as the perpetrator despite the defense testimony, and (2) the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence leading to his conviction. The appellate court emphasized that the findings of the trial court typically hold significant weight unless there is a lack of evidentiary support or if material facts were overlooked.

Examination of Prosecution Evidence

The appellate court analyzed the testimonies of Gamlot and Apus and found substantial inconsistencies. For example, Gamlot's testimony regarding the timeline of events conflicted with established facts and suggested a delay that enabled the alleged perpetrators to flee without being pursued. Apus' testimony also exhibited contradictions, particularly regarding the circumstances under which he witnessed the defendants flee.

Circumstantial Evidence Standards

The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must cons

...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.