People v. Fabon


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