Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PEOPLE Vs PABIONA

    Uploaded by

    Rene Gomez
    4 views1 page
    The case involves five accused, Pabiona, Basalatan, Silarca, and Metano who were convicted of murdering their employee Robert Pagayon. Pagayon's body was found at the bottom of a well and the accused claimed he fell, but an autopsy found his injuries were caused by multiple traumatic injuries. Pagayon's cousin testified he saw the accused mauling an unidentified person by the river who was later identified as Pagayon. The accused appealed stating the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence. The court ruled the doctrine of equipoise was applicable, as two interpretations could be inferred from the evidence, and the circumstantial evidence did not inexorably lead to the conclusion of guilt,

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    PEOPLE vs PABIONA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves five accused, Pabiona, Basalatan, Silarca, and Metano who were convicted of murdering their employee Robert Pagayon. Pagayon's body was found at the bottom of a well and the accused claimed he fell, but an autopsy found his injuries were caused by multiple traumatic injuries. Pagayon's cousin testified he saw the accused mauling an unidentified person by the river who was later identified as Pagayon. The accused appealed stating the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence. The court ruled the doctrine of equipoise was applicable, as two interpretations could be inferred from the evidence, and the circumstantial evidence did not inexorably lead to the conclusion of guilt,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views1 page

    PEOPLE Vs PABIONA

    Uploaded by

    Rene Gomez
    The case involves five accused, Pabiona, Basalatan, Silarca, and Metano who were convicted of murdering their employee Robert Pagayon. Pagayon's body was found at the bottom of a well and the accused claimed he fell, but an autopsy found his injuries were caused by multiple traumatic injuries. Pagayon's cousin testified he saw the accused mauling an unidentified person by the river who was later identified as Pagayon. The accused appealed stating the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence. The court ruled the doctrine of equipoise was applicable, as two interpretations could be inferred from the evidence, and the circumstantial evidence did not inexorably lead to the conclusion of guilt,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE VS PABIONA

    (GR. No. 145803, June 30, 2004)

    FACTS:
    Robert Pagayon was an employee of the accused was found dead. According to the
    accused they saw Pagayon who was said fell down the well. Pabiona et al, as claimed, tried to
    revive the victi. Emma Pagayon, the victims sister-in-law, maintained that there should have
    been an autopsy report and later found out that the victim cause of death is Cardio respiratory
    arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple traumatic injuries to the body.

    Michael Pagayon, cousin of the victim, further testified that he saw the five accused
    mauling unidentified person near the river, and he later said that the unidentified person was
    Robert Pagayon.

    The court convicted the five accused, Pabiona, Basalatan, Silarca, and Metano guilty
    beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. Conversely, the accused file a notice of
    appeal stating that the prosecutions contention has relied solely to circumstantial evidences
    and disregarded accused-appellants version of the case.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the doctrine of equipoise is applicable to the petitioners.
    RULING:
    YES. In the case at bar, two antithetical interpretations may be inferred from the
    evidence presented. The pieces of circumstantial evidence do not inexorably lead to the
    conclusion that appellants are guilty of the crime charged.
    The circumstances proffered by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial court only
    create suspicion that appellants probably perpetrated the crime charged. However, it is not
    sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt.
    The basis of acquittal in this case is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution
    not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty. By
    reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt
    engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation,
    to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.64 An acquittal based on reasonable doubt
    will prosper even though the appellants innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction
    rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the
    evidence of the defense.

    You might also like