Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Malimit
Case
G.R. No. 109775
Decision Date
Nov 14, 1996
On April 15, 1991, Jose Encarnacion Malimit was convicted of robbery with homicide after witnesses saw him flee with a blood-stained bolo; Malaki's wallet was later recovered, affirming guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109775)

First Assignment – Identification and Alleged Delay

Appellant argued that witnesses only identified him five months later, when they executed affidavits on September 17, 1991. The Court held those affidavits merely formalized identifications made immediately after the crime. Testimonies of early reports to Beloy, CAFGU, and the police negate any fatal delay. Failure to present the police blotter did not undermine the core testimonial evidence.

Weight and Credibility of Witness Testimony

The trial court’s evaluation of witness demeanor, consistency, and conduct is entitled to the highest respect on appeal. No material inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions were found. Judicial notice was taken of the natural hesitance of witnesses to report crimes against neighbors.

Second Assignment – Admission of Wallet and Contents

Appellant contended that pointing out Malaki’s hidden wallet during custodial investigation violated his rights against self-incrimination. The Court distinguished testimonial compulsion from seizure of physical evidence: the right against self-incrimination protects only compelled communications, not the collection of objects. Thus, the wallet and its contents (residence certificate, ID, keys) are admissible physical evidence.

Applicability of Miranda-Type Rights

Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution mandates advisement and written waiver for custodial interrogations; Section 12(3) excludes only extrajudicial confessions or admissions obtained in violation. Non-testimonial physical evidence obtained during custodial investigation remains admissible if relevant and not otherwise excluded by law.

Third Assignment – Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

Conviction by circumstantial evidence requires multiple proved facts forming an unbroken chain leading exclusively to the accused. Five such circumstances were established:

  1. Positive identification by Rondon and Batin of appellant with a blood-stained bolo at the scene.
  2. Fatal stab wounds described in the medico-legal report.
  3. Witness Ladica saw appellant retrieve the wallet from under a stone at the seashore.
  4. Appellant’s own admission that on August 6, 1991 he led policemen to where he hid the wallet.
  5. Appellant’s flight and d

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.