Dear PAO,

I heard from a news report that there was this lady, A, whose body was found dead inside the apartment unit of her boyfriend, B. B denied having any knowledge as to the death of A and claimed that he just found the body of A when he came home from work. But some of B’s neighbors stated that they saw A and B arrive at the latter’s apartment unit the night before A’s body was found. They also heard noises from B’s apartment that night, as though the two were in a huge fight. It was not an isolated situation according to the neighbors, as they heard the couple fight very often in the past, and they noticed bruises on A’s face, arms, or legs. Can B be held criminally liable for the death of A considering that no one saw how A died, and there is no direct evidence linking him to the killing of A, but the circumstances known to the neighbors seem to point to him as the killer?

Ernie

Dear Ernie, Not all criminal convictions are based on direct evidence, especially as some, if not most, crimes have no eyewitnesses or direct evidence pointing to the perpetrator. In fact, our courts have, in a long line of cases, rendered judgments of conviction even if only circumstantial evidence was presented during trial. What is necessary is that the conditions laid down under the present Rules are met, particularly: “Section 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.

“Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.” (Section 4, Rule 133 of the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence) We wish to emphasize that having several or even numerous circumstances per se is not enough to convict a person accused of committing a crime. Jurisprudence has demonstrated the need for an unbroken chain of circumstances which must reasonably tend to conclude that the person so accused has indeed committed the crime. As explained by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Mario Lopez, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Raymund Camarse y Gimotea (GR 258187, Oct. 19, 2022): “In the prosecution of criminal offenses, conviction is not always based on direct evidence. The Rules of Court allows resort to circumstantial evidence provided the following conditions are satisfied, to wit: (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 Court explained that a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, compatible with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and in conflict with the notion that he is innocent. Here, none of the prosecution witnesses testified having seen Raymund kill Regine and bum the motel room. Yet, the corpus of circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of events pointing to Raymund’s guilt.” (Emphasis supplied) In the situation which you have shared with us, we believe that the testimonies of the neighbors of B may be utilized in prosecuting a criminal case, should one be filed against him. However, we also believe that there may be a need for further investigation and gathering of evidence surrounding the untimely demise of A as the court must be convinced by proof beyond reasonable doubt that B indeed killed A. It has been a constant reminder of our courts that “Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution to prove two things: the fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged, and the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.” (People of the Philippines vs. Noel Santos et al., GR 127500, June 8, 2000, Ponente: Associate Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes) We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attomey’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].