THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTOR CALIWAN Y PRONGO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

VITUG, J.:

It is a sad but true reality that crime and poverty would often
be the pernicious pair that curse society. Here, a lowly fishball vendor and a
helpful brother to a needy sister, might have well been driven by dire necessity
to kill and rob another. While the dispensation of justice must be tempered with
mercy especially in favor of a poverty-stricken fellow being likely pushed to
the edge by the exigencies of survival, the law, nevertheless, cannot turn a
deaf ear to the victims of lawlessness.

Sometime in the early hours of 09 October 1997, approximately
3:00 in the morning, while the city slept, some hardworking souls, like Salvador
Sameran, a taxi driver, was plying the EDSA thoroughfare in search of
passengers. Sameran had just come from Makati and was driving northwards,
towards Cubao, when he saw a taxicab curiously parked at a junction in
Mandaluyong City and Reliance Street. The left front door of the vehicle was
ajar and a man was standing and leaning towards the driver’s seat. The man
placed something in his waist and then in his pocket. His interest pricked,
Sameran blew his horn at the stalled vehicle, whereupon, the man, apparently not
expecting the interruption, suddenly looked to his direction, affording Sameran
a full view of his face. The man abruptly ran through a nearby overpass and
crossed the wide stretch of EDSA towards Polymedic Hospital located at the other
side of the avenue. Looking up, Sameran saw at the overpass two more persons
looking at the whole incident from their high perch, and they, too, scampered.
Sensing trouble, Sameran parked his taxicab some eight meters away from the
stalled vehicle. Seconds later, he saw its driver alight and fall to the ground.
Upon coming closer, Sameran saw that the felled driver was drenched in blood. He
immediately rushed to the latter’s succor, half-carrying and half-dragging him
by the armpits towards his car. The good samaritan was unfortunately too late.
On the cold and hard EDSA pavement, the unidentified driver, whom Sameran later
learned to be Elpidio Ventura, a husband and father to five young children,
breathed his last. Injured with four fatal wounds, Elpidio Ventura was later
found to be divested of his day’s earnings, including a $100 bill, which, his
widow later recounted, he kept in his wallet as a memento of his previous
employment in Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, just at about the time the above events were
transpiring, Abraham Baba, a security guard of the Eastgate Center, located at
the other end of the EDSA overpass, was shrugging off the temptation of slumber,
when, suddenly, a man jumped from the overpass into the guardhouse, jolting him
awake. He told the person that he had no right to enter the compound and the man
replied that he was just passing by. But a closer look at this mysterious
character revealed to Baba that this was no ordinary trespasser. The man’s white
T-shirt was bloodied. A brief frisk yielded an 11-inch knife, which, when
removed from its scabbard, was seen to be stained with fresh blood. After
cuffing the intruder, Baba called the authorities. At the Mandaluyong police
station, the suspect revealed his name to be Victor Caliwan y Prongo.

Following further investigation, an information for robbery
with homicide against Victor Caliwan was filed. It read:

“I N F O R M A T I O N

“The undersigned 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor accuses VICTOR
CALIWAN y PRONGON of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, committed in the manner
herein narrated, as follows:

“That on or about the 9th day of October, 1997, in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with unidentified
persons, whose true identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and
mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with a kitchen knife, with intent
to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed upon the
person of one ELPIDIO VENTURA y FELIZARDO, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and divest said ELPIDIO VENTURA y
FELIZARDO of his day’s earnings in an undetermined amount while the latter was
on board his taxi; that by reason or on occasion of said robbery, the said
accused, with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with a kitchen knife ELPIDIO VENTURA y
FELIZARDO, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds which directly caused
his death.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

When arraigned, the accused pled “not guilty” to the
charge.

In court, Victor Caliwan had a different story to tell. A
fishball vendor for six years, he worked from Mondays to Saturdays. The day
before the fateful incident, on 08 October 1997, at 7:00 in the evening, after
taking a usual rest at his employer’s residence following a full day of plying
the streets, Victor Caliwan was on his way to Milagros Cordero, a sister
residing at a squatters’ area in Malabon to provide, as before, some financial
assistance to Milagros who had just given birth. Arriving in Malabon at 9:00 in
the evening, Caliwan promptly handed his sister Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) and
three kilos of rice. After an exchange of pleasantries, Caliwan went to sleep,
but not before requesting Milagros to wake him up at 3:00 in the early morning
to be on time in accompanying his employer to Divisoria. By 3:00 in the morning
of 09 October 1997, Victor Caliwan was on board a Baclaran-bound bus. Two hours
later, at 5:00 in the morning, he alighted at Boni Pinatubo in Mandaluyong and
was walking directly towards Sierra Madre Street when a guard stationed in front
of the Eastgate Center compound approached him and poked his gun at him. The
security guard took him inside the compound where he and two other companions
tied and took turns in mauling him for thirty minutes before turning him over to
the authorities. When shown the bloodied knife by the security guard, he denied
owning it.

Milagros Cordero also testified to corroborate the story of
Caliwan being in their house at 9:00 p.m., bringing three kilos of rice and
handing over to her Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00).

The trial court did not give credence to the defense put up by
Caliwan. The court pronounced him guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide;
viz:

“WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused
VICTOR CALIWAN Y PRONGO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of ROBBERY
WITH HOMICIDE defined and penalized under paragraph I, Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to pay the heirs of the victim Elpidio
Ventura the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity; the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
and exemplary damages; the sum of P51,700.00 as actual or compensatory damages,
and finally the sum of P1,500,000.00 as indemnity for the loss of the victim’s
earning capacity.

“With costs.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Victor Caliwan questions in this appeal the sufficiency of the
evidence upon which he has been convicted.

Indeed, no testimony was given to show Victor Caliwan in the
act of stabbing Elpidio Ventura and divesting him of his earnings. Neither
Salvador Sameran nor Abraham Baba actually saw accused Victor Caliwan stab and
then rob the defenseless Elpidio Ventura. The conviction, to stand, can only
then be predicated on circumstantial evidence. In order to support a formidable
conclusion of guilt, circumstantial evidence must point to a series of facts,
which must form an unbroken chain of events associated with the fact in issue
which, upon the application of the principle of cause and effect, would satisfy
a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can support
a conviction but it is necessary that 1) there must be more than one
circumstance, 2) facts on which the inference of guilt is derived must be
proved, and, 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.^[3]
Circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty; and at the same time, inconsistent with
the hypothesis that he is innocent; and with every other hypothesis except that
of guilt.^[4] When these conditions are
extant, circumstantial evidence can be as potent as direct testimony in
connecting the accused with the commission of the offense.^[5]

The Court has taken a close look at the testimony of
prosecution witnesses Salvador Sameran and Abraham Baba. Altogether, the
circumstances testified to inevitably point to the guilt of accused-appellant to
the exclusion of any other plausible possibility.

^[2] Rollo, p. 26.

^[3] Section 4, Rule 133, Rules of
Court; People vs. Salvame, 270 SCRA 766.

^[4] People vs. Contante, 12
SCRA 653.

^[5] People vs. Eubra, 274 SCRA 180.

^[6] TSN, 27 November 1997, pp.
5-16.

^[7] TSN, 17 December 1997, pp. 5-9.