People Vs Jara
People Vs Jara
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
We are once again constrained to take a hard look into the sufficiency of extra-judicial confessions
as the sole basis for the imposition of the supreme penalty of DEATH.
The three appellants were all sentenced to death in Criminal Case No. 2564 for robbery with
homicide. In the companion case of parricide, one was sentenced to another death penalty while the
two other appellants received sentenced ranging from 12 to 20 years of imprisonment.
Our task is made difficult by the fact that the crimes were specially ruthless and barbarous in their
commission. No less than the counsel for the appellants states that the people of Puerto Princesa
are no strangers to crime and that the frequency of criminal acts in their city has somehow
benumbed the sensibilities of its citizens. Yet, the discovery on June 9, 1978 of the brutally and
badly bashed corpses of two well-known and loved women of their community was still shocking to
their senses.
There is the added factor that the police officers who investigated the crime and secured the
confessions seemed so certain that indeed the three appellants are the malefactors. The
confessions are convincing in their details. The trial court noted that "both victims were assaulted
and killed with the might and fury of one really who had harbored so long a grudge and hate" and
only Felicisimo Jara had that kind of ill-will against his estranged wife and her female companion.
Moreover, Jara, a recidivist for the crime of homicide, was characterized as an experienced killer.
There must be many residents of Puerto Princesa who are thus convinced about the correct solution
of the crime. And perhaps, the appellants could have been the killers.
The function of this Court, however, is not to indulge in surmises or probabilities. The issue before us
is whether or not the evidence of guilt is admissible under the standards fixed by the Constitution
and if the quantum of proof, which we are allowed by the Constitution to consider, establishes guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision of the former Court of First Instance of Palawan, 7th Judicial District, Branch 1 in the
consolidated cases of People of the Philippines versus Felicisimo Jara, et al. (Criminal Case No.
2564) for Robbery with Homicide and People of the Philippines vs. Felicisimo Jara, et al. (Criminal
Case No. 2565) for Parricide is involved in this automatic review. All the three accused in Criminal
Case No. 2564 were sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death, to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased Amparo Bantigue in the sum of Pl,000.00, the amount stolen,
and the sum of P12,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2565, for the killing of Luisa Jara, accused
Felicisimo Jara was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and meted out
the maximum penalty of death while the two other accused were found guilty of homicide and
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. All the accused were ordered to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of Luisa Jara in the sum of P12,000.00.
The information for the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 2564 reads as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of June, 1978, about 1:30 o'clock in the morning, at
Malvar St., Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and
treachery, after gaining entrance to the house thru the window, an opening not
intended for entrance or egress, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
strike with a hammer Amparo Vda. de Bantigue hitting her on the vital parts of her
body and stab with a scissor while she was soundly sleeping in her bedroom with
one Luisa Jara, thereby causing her instantaneous death as a result thereof, and that
after killing Amparo Vda. de Bantigue, accused in conspiracy with each other, with
intent to gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, took, stole and carried
away a piggy bank and a buddha bank containing money in the amount of not more
than P200.00, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Amparo Vda. de Bantigue,
in the total amount of TWELVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P12,200.00)
Philippine Currency.
In Criminal Case No. 2565, the information charged the accused as follows:
That on or about June 9, 1978, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning, at Malvar St.,
Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each other with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously strike several times, with a hammer one
Luisa Jara, who is the lawfully wedded wife of accused Felicisimo Jara, and
thereafter, stabbed her with a scissor in her chest and abdomen, while the latter was
soundly sleeping with one Amparo Vda. de Bantigue, resulting to the instantaneous
death of said Luisa Jara, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Luisa Jara
in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency,
All the accused pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. On motion by the prosecution and the
defense, the court a quo ordered a joint trial of the two cases which arose from one incident and
where the witnesses are the same.
The husband of Luisa, appellant Felicisimo Jara, then entered the room and saw the
condition of the victims (p. 15, TSN, March 21, 1979).
Inside the room, several ceramic piggy banks belonging to Amparo containing coins
estimated in the amount of P1,000.00 were missing (p. 43, TSN, February 6, 1979).
Scattered underneath the window of Amparo's bedroom were coins and bits and
pieces of what used to be ceramic piggy banks (Exh. F; pp. 17-20, TSN' Feb. 6,
1979).
Later, two suspects in the killing, appellants Reymundo Vergara and Roberto
Bernadas. were apprehended (pp. 59-60, TSN, March 19, 1979). After investigation,
they confessed their guilt to the Provincial Commander of the Philippine
Constabulary in Palawan and other police investigators (pp. 26-31, TSN, May 28,
1979). They also positively Identified appellant Felicisimo Jara as the mastermind
who had plotted the killing and who promised them a fee of P1,000.00 each for their
participation (Exhibits O and N). Before the City Fiscal and First Assistant Fiscal of
Puerto Princesa City, respectively, appellants Vergara and Bernadas subscribed and
swore to their extra-judicial statements wherein they narrated their role and that of
Felicisimo Jara in the killing (see Exhibits O and N).
Thereafter, the killing was reenacted before the military authorities and the public,
with appellants Vergara and Bernadas participating (p. 14, TSN, July 19, 1979).
The autopsy reports (Exhibits "A" and "C") submitted by Dr. Rufino Ynzon, the City Health Officer of
Puerto Princesa on the examination of the cadavers of the deceased victims indicate that death in
both cases resulted from "hemorrhage, intra-cranial secondary to multiple comminuted-depressed
fracture of the cranial bones." Amparo Bantigue's wounds were described as follows:
1. Wound, macerated, roughly oval in shape, about 1 l/4 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone located at the forehead, right,
upper portion.
2. Wound, macerated, roughly oval in shape, about 1 1/3 inches in length, with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone located at the forehead,
central portion.
3. Wound, macerated, roughly circular in shape, about 1 1/5 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone located at the forehead,
medially to the left eyebrow.
11. Wound, stabbed, about an inch in length at the right chest, between the 3rd and
4th intercostal space, penetrating the thoracic cavity involving the right lung.
12. Wound, stabbed, about 1 inch in length, located at the chest, central portion,
penetrating the sternum, then thoracic cavity piercing the right auricle, heart.
13. Wound, stabbed, about 1 inch in length, located at the right upper abdomen
penetrating the abdominal cavity involving the liver and stomach. (Exhibit "A").
On the other hand, Luisa Jara suffered from the following wounds:
3. Wound, macerated, roughly triangular in shape, about 1 1/2 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, located at the right side of
the nose.
8. Wound, macerated, roughly elongated in shape, about 11/2 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, located at the temporal
region, left.
10. Wound, macerated, roughly oval in shape, about 1 l/2 inches in length, with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, located at the left face.
11. Wound,incised,about l 3/4 inches in length, located at the left upper portion of
neck, left side.
12. Wound, macerated, roughly elongated in shape, about 3 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, located at the right temporal
region.
13. Contusion with hematoma, circular in shape, located laterally from the right
eyebrow.
14. Wound, macerated, roughly elongated in shape about 2 inches in length with
depressed-comminuted fracture of the underlying bone, located at the occipital
region, upper portion.
15. Wound, stabbed, about 1 inch in length, located at the chest, central portion
penetrating inside the thoracic cavity involving heart and lung.
16. Wound, stabbed, about 1 inch in length, located at the level of typhoid process
penetrating the thoracic cavity involving the right lung, lower lobe. (Exhibit "C")
Felicisimo Jara denied the charge that he was the one who killed his wife, Luisa, together with her
friend, Amparo Bantigue. He interposed alibi as a defense and testified that at the time the killings
took place at Alvin's Canteen at Malvar Street, Puerto Princesa City, he was fast asleep with his
grandchildren at his step-daughter's house in Pineda Subdivision. The other accused, Reymundo
Vergara and Roberto Bernadas retracted their respective extra-judicial confessions admitting their
participation in the crimes charged and Identifying their mastermind" as the accused Jara during
proceedings before the Inquest Fiscal. They contested the admissibility of the extra-judicial
confessions and the subsequent re- enactment of the crime on the ground that their participations in
these occasions were not free and voluntary and were without the benefit of counsel.
The court below ruled that the extra-judicial confessions of the accused Bernadas and Vergara
(Exhibits "N" and "O", respectively), together with the proof of corpus delicti of the special crime of
robbery with homicide established the guilt of the accused beyond moral certainty.
II
III
IV
VI
IN ADMITTING THE PICTURES, EXHS. "T" TO "T- 23", WHICH WERE NEVER
PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.
All these assigned errors boil down to the issue of whether or not there is sufficient evidence as
borne by the records to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
There is no dispute that the confessions in these cases were obtained in the absence of counsel.
According to the records, there was a waiver by the accused-appellants of their right to counsel.
Before the extrajudicial confession of appellant Bernadas was reduced to writing, Pfc. Henry E.
Pulga, in the presence of four other police officers, made the following "Pasubali" followed by the
answer, "Opo":
SAGOT: Opo.
Likewise, in the case of the accused Vergara, the foreword of Ms signed sworn statement reads:
SAGOT: Opo.
DELA CRUZ
DELA CRUZ
This stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later
repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or model. Police investigators either
automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or even
copy it in their handwriting. Its tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style does not create an
impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a
spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.
Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived by the person entitled to that protection,
the presumption is always against the waiver. Consequently, the prosecution must prove with
strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this Court that indeed the accused willingly and
voluntarily submitted his confession and knowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not
interested in having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that confession. That proof is missing in
this case.
The records sustain the appellants' contention that their extrajudicial confessions bear clear
earmarks of illegality and improbability.
The trial court in this case was not convinced that the extrajudicial confessions of
appellants were made involuntarily. Consider the following reasons for the court's
refusal to lend credence to appellants' claim:
(1) Apart from appellants' self-serving claim no other evidence on record supports
the allegation of involuntariness (People v. Villa, 93 SCRA 716).
(2) On the contrary, several prosecution witnesses testified that the confessions were
voluntarily given.
(3) Appellants' oral and written confessions given at various times to several
investigating authorities, not to mention the public re-enactment of the crime itself,
did not vary and they revealed details only the assailants could have possibly known
(People v. Ty Sui Wong, 83 SCRA 125; People v. Bautista y Aquino, 92 SCRA 465).
(5) The claim of coercion cannot prevail over the testimony of the subscribing fiscal
that said confession was voluntary (People v. Caramonte, 94 SCRA 150).
The People v. Castañeda ruling applies to a crime committed before the Bill of Rights was amended
to include Section 20 on the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right.
The presumption that "no one would declare anything against himself unless such declarations were
true" assumes that such declarations are given freely and voluntarily. The new Constitution, in
expressly adopting the so-called Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) rule, has reversed the
presumption. The prosecution must now prove that an extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given,
instead of relying on a presumption and requiring the accused to offset it. There would have been no
need to amend the centuries old provisions of the Bill of Rights and to expressly add the interdiction
that "no force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him (the person being investigated)" if the framers intended us to continue applying the
pre-1973 or pre-amendment presumptions.
Miranda v. Arizona, in explaining the rule which the U.S. Supreme Court adopted, states:
While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely
made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused
person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation,
the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character,
the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or
reluctant, to push him into a corner and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which
is so painfully evident . . . made the (continental) system so odious as to give rise to
a demand for its total abolition.
It is natural and to be expected that the police officers who secured the confessions in these cases
should testify that the statements were voluntarily given. However, the records show that the
interrogations were conducted incommunicado in a police-dominated atmosphere. When appellant
Bernadas gave his confession, his companions in the room were five police officers. The only people
with Vergara when he confessed were also police investigators.
The officers are told by the manuals that the 'principal psychological factor
contributing to a successful interrogation is privacy-being alone with the person
under interrogation.' The efficacy of this tactic has been explained as follows:
If at all practicable, the interrogation should take place in the investigator's office or at
least in a room of his own choice. The subject should be deprived of every
psychological advantage. In his own home he may be confident, indignant, or
recalcitrant. He is more keenly aware of his rights and more reluctant to tell of his
indiscretions or criminal behavior within the walls of his home. Moreover his family
and other friends are nearby, their presence lending moral support. In his own office,
the investigator possesses all the advantages. The atmosphere suggests the
invincibility of the forces of the law.
To highlight the isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, the manuals instruct the police
to display an air of confidence in the suspect's guilt and from outward appearance to
maintain only an interest in confirming certain details. The guilt of the subject is to be
posited as a fact. The interrogator should direct his comments toward the reasons
why the subject committed the act, rather than court failure by asking the subject
whether he did it. Like other men, perhaps the subject has a bad family life, had an
unhappy childhood, had too much to drink, had an unrequited desire for women. The
officers are instructed to minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, to cast
blame on the victim or on society. These tactics are designed to put the subject in a
psychological state where his story is but an elaboration of what the police purport to
know already-that he is guilty. Explanations to the contrary are dismissed and
discouraged.
The texts thus stress that the major qualities an interrogator should possess are
patience and perseverance. One writer describes the efficacy of these characteristics
in this manner:
In the preceding paragraphs emphasis has been placed on kindness and
stratagems. The investigator wilt however, encounter many situations where the
sheer weight of his personality wig be the deciding factor. Where emotional appeals
and tricks are employed to no avail he must rely on an oppressive atmosphere of
dogged persistence. He must interrogate steadily and without relent, leaving the
subject no prospect of surcease. He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him
with his inexorable will to obtain the truth. He should interrogate for a spell of several
hours pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to
avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated. In a serious case, the
interrogation may continue for days, with the required intervals for food and sleep,
but without respite from the atmosphere of domination. It is possible in this way to
induce the subject to talk without resorting to duress or coercion. The method should
be used only when the guilt of the subject appears highly probable. ' " (384 US at pp.
448-451)
The cited police manuals state that the above methods should be used only when the guilt of the
subject appears highly probable. As earlier stated, the investigators in the cases now before us
appear to have been convinced that the accused-appellants were the culprits. Nonetheless, the evils
of incommunicado interrogations without adequate safeguards to insure voluntariness could still
result in the conviction of innocent persons. More important, what the Constitution commands must
be obeyed even at the risk of letting even hardened criminals mix once more with the law-abiding
world.
As to the re-enactment, the extra-judicial-confessions served as a script for what was to follow.
Pictures re-enacting a crime which are based on an inadmissible confession are themselves
inadmissible.
There are other factors to be considered in these cases. Vergara and Barnadas had been detained
for more than two (2) weeks before they decided to give "voluntary" confessions. We doubt if it was
two weeks of soul-searching and introspection alone which led them to confess. There must have
been other persuasions.
There were two sensational murder cases in Palawan which preceded the killings now before us,
The PC command and the Integrated National Police were under pressure to "solve" these
additional sensational killings.
The counsel for appellants mentions a factor not refuted by the appellee in its brief, namely:
LT. COL. SABAS IMBONG, SGT. EUGENIO ENRIQUEZ, PFC HENRY PULGA and
CPL. ADOLFO JAGMIS — all are connected with the Provincial Constabulary
Command which investigated the case, prematurely publicized the solution of the
case with the alleged 'extra-judicial confessions' of two (2) accused, but who were
rebuffed when the two (2) accused, upon the first opportunity to do so in public,
which was the preliminary investigation, recanted and retracted their alleged 'extra-
judicial confessions' as they were taken with the use of force, violence, and
intimidation, was prepared by the investigators themselves, and without benefit of
counsel.
All are comrades in-arms of Pat. Mamerto Bantigue, who is the son of the deceased
Amparo Bantigue. Pat. Bantigue was implicated in several coercion and physical
injuries cases filed with the City Court by persons who had been physically attacked
and violated by him in connection with the murder of his mother. Likewise, he evaded
justice by escaping from the law after murdering a companion of accused Jara and
attempting to kill the latter. He remains at large.
A PC Sergeant, Oscar Ponce de Leon, assigned at the PC Medical Dispensary, testified that he
treated Roberto Bernadas for cigarette burns and Reymundo Vergara for a wound at the tip of his
right hand. While the medicine he applied was only merthiolate the possibility cannot be discounted
that in addition to the psychological qqqplosy of incommunicado questioning, lighted cigarettes and
other means of persuasion which leave physical marks were also utilized to secure the confessions.
Accused Reymundo Vergara was given an opportunity to go qqqscot free by turning state witness.
He refused.
Apart from their extra-judicial confessions, no other evidence to implicate Bernadas and Vergara as
perpetrators of the killing was introduced by the prosecution. Since these confessions are
inadmissible in evidence, the two appellants have to be acquitted.
The strongest evidence against Felicisimo Jara are the extra-judicial confessions of his two co-
accused. Bernadas and Vergara point to Jara as the one who bludgeoned the two victims with a
hammer and then used a pair of scissors in inflicting the stab wounds. He was also alleged to have
offered them P1,000.00 each if they would help him in the killing of his wife.
However, since the confessions of Bernadas and Vergara are inadmissible against them, with more
reason can they not be used against Jara.
Apart from the above extra-judicial confessions, other circumstantial evidence was presented to
support a verdict of conviction. Would such evidence in the absence of the extrajudicial confessions
be sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused Jara?
Evidence attesting to the fact that accused Jara and his wife had not been in good terms for about
three years before the killings was presented. They used to quarrel with each other and they had not
been sleeping together since the deceased Luisa Jara slept at Alvin's Canteen together with the
other deceased Amparo Bantigue. Godofredo Anasis nephew of Luisa Jara, testified that his aunt
was a "tomboy" and that she and Amparo Bantigue lived together as "husband and wife." The two
went to the movies together. The relationship of the two women angered Felicisimo Jara and was a
cause of their frequent quarrels. He resented not only his wife but also her woman companion.
The testimony on the fact of Luisa Jara and Amparo Bantigue sleeping together is corroborated by
the fact that they were bludgeoned to death while sleeping on one bed and their bodies discovered
on that same bed. At the Aileen's Canteen managed by the deceased Luisa, accused Felicisimo
Jara did the cooking and whenever he committed even the slightest mistakes, his wife scolded and
cursed him, treating him as though he were only one of the servants of the restaurant. (TSN, May
31, 1979, pp. 1821-1830). The records are replete with testimony to show that Felicisimo Jara had
reason to hate his wife enough to kill her and her companion.
The lower court, in its decision, stated that the nature and the number of wounds, reflected in the
autopsy reports, convincingly show that only a person who had harbored so much hate and
resentment could have inflicted such multiple fatal blows. It opined that accused Jara is the only
person who would have sufficient motive to wish the death of the deceased for he had not been
treated well as a husband by his wife.
During the investigation at the scene of the crime, blood stains were found splattered in the trousers
and shirt worn by accused Jara. His eyeglasses were also smeared with blood. When asked to
explain the presence of said blood stains, accused Jara told the police that before he learned about
the killing, he was with his stepdaughter Minerva Jimenez in the public market dressing chickens.
(TSN, May 28, 1979, pp. 397398) He also said in his testimony in open court that when he saw his
wife lying dead on the bed, he approached her and hugged her in his effort to wake her up. (TSN,
September 30, 1980, p. 1230) After a laboratory examination of the eyeglasses (Exhibit "I"), trousers
(Exhibit "J"), and shirt (Exhibit "K"), the NBI biologist verified in her report that the blood stains were
not chicken blood but human blood (Exhibit "L"). The blood stains found in accused Jara's trousers
formed certain Identical circular patterns, a splattering of blood which, according to the NBI biologist,
could be caused by an instrument like that of a hammner. Such circular patterns will only occur at
the time of the impact of the instrument, the very moment it hits the victim. He further explained that
there was no possibility of the splattering of blood if the victim died hours before because blood
starts to coagulate or clog 15 minutes after the wound is caused. (TSN, March 19, 1979, pp. 227;
244; 248-250) The blood of the deceased victims in the case at bar had already qqqcoagulated in
the morning of June 9, 1978 when accused Jara claimed that the blood stains on his shirt were
smudged when he hugged his wife.
The NBI biologist, whose findings were later signed by the Chief of the Forensic Chemistry Division
testified that human blood was found on the eyeglasses of appellant Jara, on the front side lower
portion of the left leg of the trousers, at the left buttocks of the pants and the back portion near the
trousers, and smudged human blood stains on the appellant's T-shirt. The human blood stains were
Type B. A failure to get evidence on the blood types of the two victims keeps this second
circumstantial evidence, together with the clear motive, from being well-nigh conclusive. However, it
is still strong evidence in the chain of circumstances pointing to Jara as the killer of his wife.
Another circumstance is the cover-up attempt by Jara. He lied about the blood on his clothes and
eyeglasses. He falsely claimed that the blood came from the chickens he had been slaughtering for
the market. There is no explanation about the source and cause of the human blood stains
splattered all over him.
There is no question that appellant Jara was at the scene of the crime. Upon the discovery of the
bodies 'and the forcible opening of the door, Jara was with the group. He went through the motions
of embracing his wife although the observers noted that even in death there was no love lost
between husband and wife. One of the waitresses at the Alvin's Canteen who saw accused Jara's
reaction as he entered the room where the victims lay dead observed that he shed no tears and his
face did not show any indication of sorrow (TSN, March 21, 1979, pp. 373-374).
The hammer used in the killing is an instrument with which appellant Jara is familiar. It was proven
during the trial of the case that the hammer with the letter "A" on its handle which was one of the
instruments used in the perpetration of the crime belonged to Luisa Jara who had kept it at Aileen's
Canteen where her husband, appellant Jara helped as cook.
(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. (See People v. Duero, 136 SCRA 515).
Circumstantial evidence, as a basis for conviction of crime, should be acted on and weighed with
great caution, particularly where the crime is heinous and the penalty is death, as in the instant
cases. In determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, each case is
to be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the facts and circumstances are to be
considered together as a whole, and, when so considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction,
although one or more of the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose. (23 CJS
p. 555). No general rule has been formulated as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which wig
suffice for any case, but that matters not. For all that is required is that the circumstances proved
must be consistent with each other, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. (People v. Contante, 12 SCRA
653).
The requirements for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are present in this case. The
aforementioned circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable
conclusion which points to the guilt of the accused qqqjara beyond reasonable doubt (See US v.
Villos, 6 Phil. 510; People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692). Mere denials of the accused as to his
participation in the crime are only self-serving negative evidence which cannot outweigh
circumstantial evidence clearly establishing his active participation in the crime.
The defense of alibi given by the accused Jara is weak. Aside from himself, the only person who
vouched for his presence at some place away from the scene of the crime was his stepdaughter
from whom he had sought abode. Hence, the alibi is made more dubious considering that no other
credible persons were presented who would, in the natural order of things be best situated to
support the tendered alibi (People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94, citing People v. Brioso, 37 SCRA 336;
People v. Bagasala, 39 SCRA 236; People v. Carino, 55 SCRA 516). More importantly, the defense
of alibi cannot prosper because it is not enough to prove that defendant was somewhere else when
the crime was committed. He must, likewise, demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime at that time (People v. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812). Such proof is
wanting in this case.
The killing of Amparo Bantigue was marked by treachery and evident premeditation. The trial court
noted recidivism insofar as Felicisimo Jara, previously convicted of homicide, was concemed
together with dwelling and nighttime. However, the supposed robbery of the piggy bank and Buddha
bank is proved only by the extra-judicial statements found inadmissible. The offense against
Bantigue was simple murder. Insofar as the parricide case is concerned against accused Jara, the
lower court did not err in finding guilt as having been established beyond reasonable doubt.
In Crim. Case No. 2564, the accused Bernadas and Vergara are ACQUITTED of the crime of
ROBBERY with HOMICIDE on the ground of reasonable doubt. Accused Jara is CONVICTED of the
crime of MURDER and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death
In Crim. Case No. 2565, the accused Bernadas and Vergara are likewise ACQUITTED of the crime
of HOMICIDE on the ground of reasonable doubt. Accused Jara is CONVICTED of the crime of
PARRICIDE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
Considering. however, that the accused Jara is now over 70 years of age, the penalty of death is
lowered to reclusion perpetua.
In both cases, accused Jara is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amparo Bantigue and
Luisa Jara in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00), respectively.
SO ORDERED.