PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185212
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J.,*
- versus - PERALTA, Acting
Chairperson,
ABAD,
PEREZ,** and
MENDOZA, JJ.
MARITESS
ALOLOD, EFREN
DEOCAMPO,
ELMER DEOCAMPO
and
EDWIN DEOCAMPO,
Accused,
Promulgated:
EFREN
DEOCAMPO,
Appellant. February 15, 2012
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This
case is about when circumstantial evidence may be considered sufficient to
support a finding of guilt in a murder case.
The Facts and the Case
The Provincial Prosecutor
of Sultan Kudarat charged the accused Maritess Alolod, Efren Deocampo, Edwin
Deocampo, and Elmer Deocampo with double murder before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, Branch 19, in Criminal Cases 2531 and 2532.
The prosecution evidence shows that Melanio and Lucena Alolod adopted
accused Maritess and took her into their home in Barangay Poblacion,
Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. Maritess had two children with her lover, Efren Deocampo, who was never allowed to set foot on her parents house since they
loathed him. In May 1998, the old couple, Melanio and Lucena, suddenly
went missing.
Neighbors and relatives testified last seeing the old couple on May 27,
1998. A neighbor, Magdalena Ato, recalled that the two were in good
health. In fact, Melanio even went to market early in the day. At
around 8:30 that evening, as he was making his rounds, a security guard at
Salaman Institute, Demetrio Nebit, saw two men standing near the fence that
separated the school from the Alolod house. On seeing Nebit, the two
hurried into a nearby toilet but the security guard followed and told them to
come out. Nebit identified one of the two to be Efren Deocampo, a former classmate, and his brother Edwin.
At about 2:00 a.m. on the following day, May 28, Victor Ato, Magdalenas
husband, awakened to strange sounds coming from the Alolod house just five to
six meters away. Victor heard a woman sobbing and what sounded like a pig
being butchered. He looked out through the window but, seeing no one, he
just went back to bed. When Victor woke up at 5:30 a.m., he saw Efren at
the kitchen of the Alolod house.
Later that day, Magdalena
had the chance to ask Maritess about the sounds coming from their house during
the night. Maritess explained that Melanio was ill and she was having a
difficult time giving him medicine. Maritess added that her parents had
left for Cotabato City early that morning.
Meantime, on inspection that morning, the school security guard noticed
that the cyclone wire of the fence where he saw Efren and Edwin standing the
night before had been cut. He reported the incident to the school
principal.
Annaliza Relles, the
grandniece of the Alolods, noticed the absence of the old couple when she came
over that morning to cook for them. Only Maritess and her two children
were there. Maritess told Annaliza that her parents had left for a
vacation. Annaliza tried to use one of the toilets in the house but it
was padlocked. Maritess told her to just use the other toilet.
On May 29 Generita Caspillo, Maritess relative and close friend, stayed
at the Alolod residence to keep them company because according to Maritess, her
father suffered a stroke and had to be brought to Cotabato for medical
treatment. While Generita was there, she noticed a pile of red soil near
the well at the garden.
On May 30 Annaliza and Generita saw Efrens younger brothers Edwin and
Elmer at the Alolod residence. The next day, during their town fiesta,
friends and relatives came by to visit the old couple but Maritess told them
that they had gone to Davao City and would not return until August 16 or
17. By June the couples grandchildren who would stay at their house for
school began arriving. They observed the frequent presence of the Deocampo brothers in the house. Sometime in August, Generita and her
mother, Lucenas sister, came to pay a visit.
They saw Efren wearing Melanios wristwatch. Maritess insisted
that her parents were still in Davao for medical check-up.
In August, Maritess and her children, together with the Deocampo brothers, left the Alolod house to live at Sitio Gila-gila, Barangay Kuya,
South Upi, Maguindanao. When the Alolod spouses did not return to their home,
their relatives started looking for them. They found out that the missing
couple did not go to either Davao or Cotabato or to their relatives in
Iloilo. Their clothes and other personal effects were still in the
house. The last entry on the recovered diary of Melanio was on May
27. Suspecting that something was amiss, the couples relatives,
Francisco Estaris and Joel Relles, searched the house for clues. They
even dug up elevated and depressed soil formation around the place but for naught.
Finally, on October 9, 1998 Francisco noticed a portion of the land
planted with camote. Francisco found the place unlikely for camote since it was shaded from the
sun. Those who boarded at the house said
that it was Maritess and Efren who planted them. With the help of others,
Francisco dug up the suspected spot. There they found the decomposing
bodies of Melanio and Lucena. Based on the post-mortem report,
Melanio was strangled with a wire; Lucena was stabbed.
On May 10, 2001 the RTC found the four accused guilty of murder of
Lucena, with Efren and Edwin as principals and Maritess and Elmer as
accessories, in Criminal Case 2531 and of the murder of Melanio in Criminal
Case 2532. In each case, the RTC sentenced Efren and Edwin to suffer the
penalty of death, while Maritess and Elmer were sentenced to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment for 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional,
as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The RTC
also ordered the accused to pay P50,000.00 to the heirs of Lucena and
another P50,000.00 to the heirs of Melanio, and to pay the costs.
While the case was on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the
request of Maritess and Elmer to withdraw their appeals, leaving only those of
Efren and Edwin for its consideration.
On August 30, 2007 the CA rendered judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00419,
affirming with modification the RTC decision. The CA reduced the penalty
imposed on Efren to reclusion perpetua and on Edwin who was a
minor to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum to 15
years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In
addition to the P50,000.00 granted by the RTC as civil indemnity in each
of the cases, the CA further ordered the additional payment of P25,000.00
as exemplary damages and another P25,000.00 as temperate damages for a
total of P100,000.00 in each case, with the principals severally liable
for P60,000.00 and the accessories for P40,000.00 of this
amount. Efren and Edwin appealed to this Court. Edwin, however, on a letter to the Office of
the Solicitor General dated December 7, 2008, manifested his intention to
withdraw his appeal. On August 26, 2009
the Court granted Edwins withdrawal, leaving Efren as the sole
accused-appellant in this case.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in
affirming the RTCs finding that accused Efren was responsible for the murder
of the Alolod couple based on circumstantial evidence.
The Ruling of the Court
The rule of evidence that
applies when no witness saw the commission of the crime[1] provides:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial
evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
(a) There
is more than one circumstance;
(b) The
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
The circumstances must
constitute an unbroken chain that inexorably leads to one fair conclusion: the
accused committed the crime to the exclusion of all others.[2]
Here, those circumstances
abound.
1. Efren had always been
banned from the old couples house because they strongly disapproved his
relationship with Maritess, their adopted daughter so he had no business being
around that house.
2. The old couple were
enjoying good health before the evening of May 27, 1998.
3. On May 28 they were suddenly gone from
the house, meaning that they were killed on the night of May 27 or early morning
of May 28.
4. On the night of May 27 the security guard
at Salaman Institute saw Efren and Edwin standing on the school side of the
fence next to the old couples house. They even tried to conceal
themselves in the school toilet. The
next day, the guard discovered that the fence wire had been cut.
5. At about 2:00 a.m. of May 28 a neighbor
heard the sound of a woman sobbing and what seemed like the butchering of a
pig.
6. At break of dawn, a witness saw Efren in
the Alolod kitchen.
7. From then on Efren and his brothers
frequented the old couples house, with Efren wearing the old mans
watch.
8. Maritess definitely lied about her
adoptive parents going to Cotabato City and subsequently to Davao City for
medical treatment when people started looking for them. They were of course buried in the
garden.
9. A witness heard Efren instructing
Maritess to plant more camote on a pile of red soil beside the
house.
10. The bodies of the old couple were found
underneath those plants.
The alibi of Efren that he was in Maguindanao at about the time the old
couple was killed does not encourage belief.
The security guard saw him with his brother at 8:30 p.m. of May 27 near
the couples house where they had no business being there. A neighbor saw Efren at the kitchen of that
house on the morning following the slaying of the couple. And it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene when
it happened.[3] Sitio Gila-gila, South Upi,
Maguindao was merely 15 kilometers from Lebak, Sultan Kudarat.
The CA, however, correctly reduced the imposable penalty from death
to reclusion perpetua, not only because the information failed to
allege the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and the victims age but
likewise, because of Republic Act 9346[4] that
now prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
Consistent with recent jurisprudence the Court is awarding P75,000.00
as civil indemnity,[5] P25,000.00
as temperate damages,[6] another
P75,000.00 as moral damages,[7]
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,[8] for
a total of P205,000.00 in each case. But these amounts should only
apply to Efren and not to the rest of the accused who withdrew their appeals.[9]
Here, the RTC ordered Maritess, Edwin and Elmer to pay only P50,000.00
as civil indemnity in each case or a total of P100,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00419 dated August 30,
2007 with MODIFICATION ordering
accused Efren Deocampo to indemnify the heirs of Melanio and
Lucena Alolod in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00
as temperate damages, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00
as exemplary damages, or a total of P205,000.00 in each case, and to pay
the costs.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order 1185 dated
February 10, 2012.
** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Special Order 1192 dated February 10, 2012.
[1] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 4.
[2] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009, 580
SCRA 212, 221.
[3] People v. Tamolon, G.R. No. 180169,
February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 384, 395.
[4] Entitled an act prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the
philippines, June 24, 2006.
[5] People v Arbalate, G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 239, 255.
[6] People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 496, 508.
[7] Supra note 5.
[8] People v. Satonero, G.R. No. 186233, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 769, 783.
[9] Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Rule 122, Sec. 11.