G.R. No. 47742 ; September 26, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. JOSE ENORME, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

On December 6, 1939, Jose Enorme was charged with robbery with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. He was, however, found guilty only of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Manuel Mercader in the amount of P2,000 plus costs. Enorme appealed, contending that the trial court erred in convicting him based solely on circumstantial evidence and unjustified conclusions, as no motive for the crime was proven. The Court of Appeals, upon the opinion of one of its members that the crime actually committed was robbery with homicide (punishable by reclusion perpetua to death), elevated the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Administrative Code.
The prosecution presented four principal witnesses. Go Tay testified that around 9:00 a.m. on October 27, 1939, he saw the victim, Manuel Mercader, in his store in Bentuco, Gubat, buying cigarettes and soap. Mercader paid with P2 and was seen with a roll of paper containing about twenty pesos. He left the store around 9:30 a.m. to return to his home in Tigkiw. Go Tay did not see the accused at that time. Juan Hila testified that on the same day, he saw Mercader walking towards Tigkiw on a trail, followed by the accused, Jose Enorme, at a distance of about three meters. Later, while looking for wood, Hila heard a voice from a higher location but did not see the two anymore as they had gone to a lower part of the trail. Beato Hacha testified that around 10:30 a.m., he saw the accused running out from the Tigkiw trail onto the provincial road. After gathering mushrooms, he went to a higher area and there saw Mercader’s corpse. The place where he saw the accused running was about ninety meters from the corpse. Arsenio Esmiña testified that around noon, he saw the accused on the Tigkiw trail, who told him a Chinese man was dead. Esmiña did not report this until November 1939.
The medical examination of Mercader’s body revealed contusions and contused wounds on the jaw, left temple, upper lip, and neck, with the cause of death being traumatic shock and internal hemorrhage. The mayor and chief of police who examined the scene found near the corpse a piece of wood used as a cane, a pack of “Piedmont” cigarettes, and four pieces of soap. No money was found on the body. Three abaca plants near the body were damaged. Formal action was taken only on November 13, 1939, when a complaint for robbery with homicide was filed. The accused was arrested the following day.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jose Enorme is guilty of the homicide (or robbery with homicide) of Manuel Mercader.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. The evidence consisted of the following circumstances: (1) the accused was seen following the victim at a distance of three meters on the Tigkiw trail; (2) the accused was later seen running from a point on the trail about ninety meters from where the corpse was found; (3) a voice was heard by a witness from a higher location; and (4) no money was found on the victim’s body.
The Court held that these circumstances, whether considered together or in relation to each other, do not justify the conclusion that the accused was the actual perpetrator of Mercader’s death. There was no evidence of any motive, such as robbery or prior enmity. If robbery were the motive, the assailant would likely have also taken the cigarettes and soap found near the body. Furthermore, if the accused were the aggressor attacking from behind, the wounds would more likely be on the victim’s back, not on the front parts of the body as found. The conviction was reversed, and the accused was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Moran, dissenting, argued that three vehement circumstantial evidence points established moral certainty of guilt: (1) the victim was seen with money and later followed by the accused; (2) the accused was seen running from a trail near the crime scene, and the victim’s money was missing; and (3) the accused presented a false alibi and a contradictory defense. He voted to convict the accused.