MOISES SIMANGAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Simangan versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of Moises Simangan, who asks the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for the killing of Ernesto Flores. He was charged with murder, convicted of the lesser crime of homicide by the trial court, and affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. He comes to the Supreme Court by petition for review, insisting that the prosecution proved his guilt only by circumstantial evidence and by a classmate's account of an admission, which he calls hearsay. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two evergreen bar topics: when circumstantial evidence suffices to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, and why an extrajudicial admission relayed by the person who heard it is not hearsay but an admission against interest.

Procedural History

Moises Simangan and Loreto Bergado were charged with murder in an information filed with the Circuit Criminal Court in Cagayan. Both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of murder but of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and considering two aggravating circumstances sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Ernesto Flores thirty thousand pesos proportionately, and to pay costs pro rata. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, finding the testimonies of Sofronia, Lorna and Fernando credible and entitled to full probative weight. Simangan moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

At about eight o'clock in the evening of February 10, 1980, five men in fatigue uniforms and armed with long firearms arrived at the store of the spouses Ernesto Flores and Sofronia Saquing in Barangay Maasin, Solana, Cagayan, while the family was at dinner. Fifteen-year-old Lorna Saquing, Sofronia's niece, opened the door. Two of the men, Loreto Bergado and Bening Gumabong, were neighbors. The petitioner Moises Simangan asked Ernesto to accompany them as a guide. Ernesto offered instead that they sleep at the house, but they refused, and he agreed to go with them. Simangan warned Ernesto and Sofronia not to tell anyone that they had been to the store. Ernesto's helper Romeo Galano later returned to fetch money, matches and cigarettes, and left again at about nine thirty. Ernesto never came home that night.

The next morning a neighbor told Sofronia that Ernesto was dead. His body was found about three hundred meters away, near a creek, face down, his hands tied behind his back. The municipal health officer performed an autopsy and found multiple stab wounds; Ernesto died of shock from massive internal and external hemorrhage.

On February 18, 1980, Fernando Saquing, a civil engineering classmate and close friend of Simangan at Saint Louis University in Tuguegarao, saw Simangan writing names on a piece of paper, including the name Moises Simangan alias Ka Ronie Ledesma, and was warned not to divulge the secret. On February 24, 1980, Simangan narrated to Fernando that after buying cigarettes, the store owner agreed to go with him and his four companions; that they brought the victim to a place where twenty other comrades were waiting; and that they stabbed him over and over and tasted his blood so that they would not get sick. Simangan warned Fernando that if he revealed this, he would drink his blood too. Fernando did not know, and Simangan did not know, that Fernando was the first cousin of Sofronia. Fernando immediately told her. On March 21, 24 and 25, 1980, Sofronia, Fernando and Lorna gave their statements to the Philippine Constabulary identifying Simangan as one of the assailants. Simangan denied everything and claimed alibi; Bergado likewise denied the killing and presented corroborating neighbors.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in believing the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the evidence for the defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were convicted, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the crime the trial court found, and the penalty it imposed is drawn from this article.

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 a reasonable doubt.

This is the test the Court applies to the prosecution's chain of circumstances against Simangan.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution witnesses. Sofronia narrated in detail how the petitioner and his companions, armed with long firearms, convinced Ernesto to go with them as a guide, and she pointed to and identified the petitioner in open court. Lorna testified that she stared at the faces of the five armed men when she opened the door, and that she recognized Bergado and Gumabong as her former companions and Simangan because he was new in the place. The Court found no ill motive on the part of Lorna, Sofronia and Fernando to prevaricate; Fernando and the petitioner were close friends, so the presumption is that the witnesses acted in good faith. The delay in giving their statements to the Constabulary was sufficiently explained: Simangan had sternly warned them not to tell anyone, and the men were armed and determined. The Court also held that Fernando's testimony was not hearsay, because it was offered to prove the petitioner's extrajudicial admission of his involvement in the killing, and such admission is an admission against personal interest, admissible against the petitioner.

On the second issue, the Court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction under the threefold test. The Court catalogued the circumstances: the five armed men came to the store and bought cigarettes; Simangan asked Ernesto to guide them; they left with Ernesto and Romeo Galano; Simangan warned Sofronia and Lorna not to tell anyone; days later Simangan became worried when told that several persons had been arrested; two weeks after the death he admitted to Fernando that he and twenty others had just killed a person after the victim accompanied them to show the way; and he threatened Fernando that he would drink his blood if he told anyone. The Court held that the petitioner's alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification by Lorna and Sofronia, coupled with his own admission that he was one of the victim's assailants.

Doctrine

First, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, an extrajudicial admission of a party, relayed by the witness who heard it, is not hearsay when offered against the admitter, because it is an admission against personal interest. Third, alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses with no ill motive to testify falsely, and delay in reporting the identity of armed offenders is excused where the offenders warned the witnesses not to tell anyone.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the conviction of Moises Simangan for homicide.

Remember This

Memorize the threefold test for circumstantial evidence and the rule that an extrajudicial admission is not hearsay when offered against the admitter. Examiners use this case to test sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of admissions against interest.