Criminal Law I-E Prof.
Arreza
People vs Gonzales At the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Jesus Rojas, the physician who conducted
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appelle, vs. Fausta Gonzales, Augusto Gonzales, the autopsy on the body, Paja, the patrolmen and constabulary members who joined in the
Custodio Gonzales Sr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida, accused; Custodio Gonzales investigation, the widow, and Huntoria.
Sr., accused-appellant Dr. Rojas testified that he performed the autopsy at around 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 1981
after the deceased was taken to the municipal hall. He found 4 puncture wounds, 7 stab
Doctrine: The commission of a felony under Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code requires that an wounds, 4 incisions, and 1 laceration; five of these were fatal wounds. Rojas admitted one of two
act a punishable act or omission must be committed, and that it must be committed with deceit possibilities:
and/or fault. - Only one weapon might have caused all the wounds
Keywords: murder, felony, criminal intent, credibility of witness - Multiple instruments were used due to the number and different characteristics
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals
Date: March 19, 1990 The brunt of the prosecution’s case rested on Huntoria’s alleged eyewitness account
Ponente: Justice Sarmiento of the incident, which was as follows:
- Testified on July 27, 1982; at 5 pm on Feb. 21, 1981, he left his work at Brgy.
Facts: Central, and walked home, taking a short-cut.
- While passing at the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses’ home at around 8:00 pm,
The appellant is appealing to the court regarding his participation in the killing of a he heard cries for help. Curiosity prompted him to approach the place where the
certain Loly Penacerrada. He claims that he did not participate in the killing based on the claim shouts were from.
that he was not present in the said act. - 15-20 m away from the scene, he hid himself behind a clump of banana trees,
and saw all the accused ganging upon the deceased near a threshing platform.
The antecedent facts are as follows: He said he clearly recognized all the accused as the place was awash in
- At around 9:00 p.m. of February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja, barangay captain of moonlight.
Brgy. Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened by two of the accused (Augusto and - After stabbing and hacking the victim, the accused lifted his body and carried it to
Fausta). Paja learns that Fausta killed their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada, and the house. Huntoria then left home. Upon reaching his house, he related what he
would like to surrender to authorities. Knife used in killing was seen, and blood saw to his wife and mother before going to sleep.
was found smeared on Fausta’s dress. - Eight months after the incident, bothered by his conscience and the fact that his
- Paja immediately ordered a nephew to take spouses to the police at the father was a tenant of the deceased, he thought of helping the widow. Out of his
Municipal Hall in Poblacon, Ajay, where the couple informed the police on duty of own volition, he travelled to the widow’s houise, and related to her what he saw.
the incident.
- Several patrolmen, along with Paja and Augusto proceeded to the residence at Except Fausta who admitted killing the deceased as he was trying to rape her, the rest
Sitio Nabitasan where the killing incident allegedly occurred, and found the body denied participation in the crime. The appellant claimed that he was asleep in his house which
of the deceased, clad in underwear, sprawled face down inside the bedroom. was one kilometre away from the scene of the crime, and he knew of the crime only when his
grandchildren went to his house that night.
- Group stayed for an hour in which the scene was inspected, and a rough sketch
of the area was made. The trial court disregarded the version of the defense; it believed the prosecution’s
- The next day, a patrolman, accompanied by a photographer, went back to the version. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellant contended that the trial court erred in
scene for further investigations. Fausta was brought back to the police station. convicting him on the basis of the testimony of the lone witness, and in not appreciating his
- The autopsy of the deceased was performed at 11:20 a.m. Report shows the defense of alibi. The Court found no merit in the errors, and rejected defense of alibi. Worsening
following: this is that the appellate court found the sentence erroneous, and upgraded the penalty to that of
o Sixteen wounds: five fatal as they penetrated the internal organs murder—reclusion temporal/death.
o Multiple puncture, stab, incision, and lacerated wounds The case is now brought upon certification by the Court of Appeals, hence the appeal.
- The day after the autopsy, Augusto appeared before the sub-station and
voluntarily surrendered to Police Corporal Sazon for detention and protective Issue(s): Whether or not the client, under the evidence presented, has committed the felony of
custody for having been involved in the killing of the deceased. Augusto requests murder.
to be taken to where Fausta was already detained. Held: No, he has not.
Based on the investigations conducted, an information for murder dated August 26, Ratio:
1981, was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against the spouses. However, they pleaded ‘not
guilty.’ Before the trial, however, a certain Jose Huntoria presented himself to the wife of the Court’s analysis of the evidence:
deceased. Huntoria claims to be a witness of the killing, and on October 6, 1981, volunteers as a - Investigation conducted left much to be desired. Centeno gave the date of
witness for the prosecution. A reinvestigation of the case was called, in which several more were commission as March 21, 1981. The sketch made was troubling, as it did not
filed as accused, including the appellant. All the accused except for Lenida pleaded not guilty. effectively indicate the extent of the blood stains in the scenes of crime. This
would have added a lot of weight to any one of the versi
- ons of the incident.
Criminal Law I-E Prof. Arreza
- Sazon, who claimed that Gonzales surrendered to him, failed to state clearly the insulated from possible harm. It is improbable for the accused to bring their aging father when
reason for the surrender. It may even be possible that Augusto surrendered just they were clearly in better shape than he was, and it was unlikely for the appellant to offer his
so he could be safe from the victim’s kin. Sazon also admitted that Augusto services as they were more or less enough to handle what could have been a perceived enemy.
never mentioned to him the participation of other persons in the killing.
- Rojas’ statement showed two possibilities for the killing. Fausta’s admission that Although alibi is a weak defense, in cases like this where the participation of the
she was the only killer is plausible. Furthermore, there were only five fatal appellant is not clear, it may be considered. In light of the evidence on record, it may be
wounds, which will be discussed later. sufficient for an acquittal.
- Huntoria’s testimony, of which the prosecution’s argument solely rests, needs to
be examined further. Huntoria’s claims in his testimony did not exactly match with Decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. Appellant acquitted. Costs de officio.
those from his cross-examination. He first claimed that he recognized the people
involved. However, in the cross-examination, he “only saw flashes.” This implies
that he may not have recognized anyone at all.
As such, Huntoria’s testimony could not place a definite act committed or contributed
by the appellant in the killing of the deceased.
On the criminal liability of the appellant:
- There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that establishes the criminal
liability of the appellant as a principal for direct participation under Art. 17, para. 1
of the Revised Penal Code.
- Furthermore, there is nothing in the findings or evidence that inculpates him by
inducement, under paragraph 2 of the same article. Based on the definition of
felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution’s evidence could
not establish intent nor fault. Recall that the elements of felonies include:
o An act or omission
o Act or omission must be punishable
o Act is performed or omission incurred by deceit or fault
- The lone witness could not properly establish any acts or omissions done by the
appellant. He stated that he does not know who hacked or stabbed the victim,
thus implying that he does not know what the appellant did. With this, the
essential elements of felonies may not even be present.
- Furthermore, the fact that there were five stab wounds and six accused would
imply that one of them may not have caused a grave wound (especially given the
statement of the physician). This may have been the appellant, and given that
there is no evidence that the appellant caused any of the wounds, coupled with
the prosecution’s failure to prove the presence of conspiracy (that is, how many
people actually took part in the killing), it weakens the arguments against the
appellant.
On the lone witness:
- Huntoria’s credibility as a witness is tarnished by two points:
o He came out eight months after the killing. He claims that he feared for
his life, but there was no proof that he was being threatened, nor was
the length of time reasonable given the circumstances.
o He is not exactly a disinterested/neutral witness. He admitted to being
a tenant of the deceased, and stated that one of the reasons why he
testified was because the victim was his landlord.
- Under our socioeconomic set-up, a tenant owes the source of his livelihood from
his landlord. As such, they would do everything to get the landlords to their
favour. Posing as a witness would have been a convenient way to do this,
especially as he ceased to be employed as early as May 1981.
Finally, based on Philippine customs and traditions, it is unlikely for the appellant to be
in the scene of the crime, as under our family culture, aging parents are usually sheltered and
