People v. Fabon
G.R. No. 133226, March 16,
2000
Facts:
Accused-appellant Locsin Fabon,
alias “Loklok”, was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide accompanied
by rape and intentional mutilation.
April 23, 1995; said accused at
the house of the victim Bonifacia Lasquite did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain by means of force and violence,
take and carry away sum of money amounting to P25,000.00 more or less, and by
reason or on occasion of the robbery the same accused attack and take the life
of the victim with the use of a bladed weapon.
Issue:
Whether or not the
circumstantial evidence on record forms an unbroken chain which leads to the
conclusion that accused-appellant committed the crime for which he is being
made accountable for, to the exclusion of all others.
Held:
Yes.
Ratio:
Circumstantial evidence is that
the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one
particular piece of evidence.
In the case at bar, circumstantial
evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of
accused-appellant and overpowers his defense of denial and alibi. Aside from
the fact that denial and alibi are weak defenses, accused-appellant’s alibi of
being in his house at 5:30am does not preclude his physical presence in the
house of the victim considering that their respective residences are only 380
meters apart. Moreover, the proven circumstances in the instant case, when
viewed in their entirety, are so convincing as direct evidence and, as such,
negate the innocence of accused-appellant.
In the appreciation of evidence
in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of
proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for all the offenses he is
charged with – ei incumbit probation non qui negat. The conviction of
accused-appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense but on the
strength of the prosecution’s evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment