PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO B. AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Aquino

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Danilo B. Aquino, a criminal appeal from a conviction for homicide. The accused was the driver of a Richielda taxicab; the victim was his passenger, Emerita Magno, who was shot inside the cab and died four days later. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of conviction on circumstantial evidence where the circumstances, taken together, produce moral certainty; and it shows how the courts treat a self-confessed killer's confession offered to exculpate another — it must itself inspire credibility before it can generate reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

An Information for robbery with homicide was filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment, and trial on the merits followed. During the proceedings the defense filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation; the trial court remanded the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor, which reported that probable cause existed and that the matter was part of the defense. The defense then presented Reynaldo Palma, who confessed in open court to the killing.

In its Judgment dated June 26, 2008, the Regional Trial Court found no basis for the robbery, because no witness corroborated the victim's claim that she carried cash that was taken. It nonetheless found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and eight months of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered him to pay the heirs fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the perpetrator's identity, the use of circumstantial evidence, the application of res gestae, the rejection of Palma's admission, and the alleged reasonable doubt.

Facts

On the morning of January 2, 2002, Evelyn Magno and her mother Emerita went to SM Department Store in Cebu City to buy groceries. At about noon, Evelyn accompanied her mother to the taxi stand near the Sheraton Hotel; only Emerita boarded the taxi, and Evelyn was certain her mother was alone with the driver when the cab left.

At about half past one that afternoon, a policeman assigned to the Mambaling station was told that a bloodied woman had been dumped on a cliff near the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center. He responded, and along the way met a Richielda taxi with body number 72. At the cliff he found the victim holding on to a small tree; she told him she had been shot several times and robbed by the driver of that taxi, whom she described as curly-haired and bearded. She was brought to the hospital, where she told her daughter that the taxi driver had robbed her, and that had she not pretended to be dead, he might have killed her. The following day, still conscious, she positively identified the accused from his picture in the bio-data obtained from the taxi company. She died four days after the incident from complications caused by the gunshot wounds.

Investigators learned that the accused had signed the trip ticket for that taxi on the day in question. He did not appear at the garage despite his employer's requests, and the taxi was found abandoned, with bloodstains behind the driver's seat, suspected bullet holes on the left side, and bloodstained seat covers in the baggage compartment. He fled to Butuan and stayed there, and was arrested about two years later in Bogo, Cebu. His defense was denial: he claimed two passengers, a man and a woman, argued over money inside his cab, the man shot the woman, poked a gun at him, and ordered him to drive to a cliff where the woman was kicked out. He later met an inmate, Reynaldo Palma, whom he identified as that male passenger; Palma confessed in open court to the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to give weight to the open-court admission of Reynaldo Palma that he was the killer.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and res gestae.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court on circumstantial evidence provides:

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.

This is the test the Court applied to sustain the conviction, requiring more than one circumstance, proven facts, and a combination producing conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Rules of Court on proof beyond reasonable doubt provides:

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

This is the standard the Court measured the circumstantial evidence against, holding that moral certainty, not absolute certainty, is what the law demands.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Palma's confession was without persuasive value. A confession, to serve as a basis for the acquittal of another, must inspire credibility; it must not be improbable nor excite disbelief, and must be one the normal experience of mankind can accept as within the realm of probability. Palma's testimony fell short: he was uncertain whether he fired three or four shots, inconsistent on whether he directed the driver to Mandaue through the reclamation area or to Guadalupe, and inconsistent on why he shot the victim. He also could not keep straight when he told his boss about the crime, saying at one point it was the very day of the incident and later fixing it eight months afterward. The Court observed that a witness who prevaricates will eventually be entangled in the web of lies he has woven. It likewise found the story of the accused's discovery of the real killer in jail incredible: he claimed to have met Palma about two weeks after his commitment in June 2004, yet in his September 2004 bail application he still pleaded that the real felon was free as a bee. The Court was further baffled that the accused neither showed outrage nor violence, and that it was Palma who approached him out of a bothered conscience.

On the second issue, the Court found no error. Applying the threefold test for circumstantial evidence, it gathered the proven circumstances: the daughter sent her mother off alone in a taxi; the victim told the responding policeman she was robbed and shot by the driver of Richielda taxi body number 72; the accused had signed that taxi's trip ticket that day; the victim told her daughter she was robbed by the taxi driver; the accused failed to report to the garage despite repeated requests and abandoned the taxi; bloodstains and suspected bullet holes were found in the cab; the victim positively identified him from his picture; and he fled to Butuan and attempted to flee upon arrest two years later. Taken cumulatively, these circumstances pointed to the accused to the exclusion of all others and satisfied moral certainty. The Court stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute certainty, and that flight is an evident badge of guilt.

Doctrine

• Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are drawn are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Individual circumstances may be insignificant alone but produce conviction when considered cumulatively.
• Moral certainty, not absolute certainty, is the standard. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not exclude the possibility of error; it is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
• A third party's confession offered to exculpate the accused must itself inspire credibility; it must not be improbable nor excite disbelief, and must be one the normal experience of mankind can accept as within the realm of probability. An inconsistent confession generates no reasonable doubt.
• Flight is an evident badge of guilt and may be counted among the circumstances supporting conviction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Danilo B. Aquino for homicide, with the award of fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.

Remember This

Memorize the threefold test for circumstantial evidence and the rule that moral certainty, not absolute certainty, is what proof beyond reasonable doubt requires. Examiners use this case to test circumstantial evidence, the credibility standard for a self-confessed killer's confession, and flight as evidence of guilt.