Jesalva v. People
Jesalva v. People
187725
Petitioner, On September 11, 1992, the Chief of Police of Sorsogon,
Present: Sorsogon, filed a criminal complaint[5] for Frustrated Murder against
CARPIO, J., petitioner. Four days thereafter, or on September 15, 1992, the complaint
Chairperson, was amended, charging petitioner with the crime of Murder, as the
NACHURA,
- versus - PERALTA, victim Leticia Aldemo[6] (Leticia) died on September 14, 1992.[7] After
ABAD, and conducting a hearing on the bail application of petitioner, the Municipal
MENDOZA, JJ.
Trial Court (MTC) of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, on December 18, 1992, granted
Promulgated: him bail.[8] On January 11, 1993, the MTC recommended the filing of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Murder against petitioner, and then ordered the transmittal of the
Respondent. January 19, 2011
records of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon. [9]
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, dated November 18, 1997, finding petitioner CONTRARY TO LAW.
Benjamin Jesalva alias Ben Sabaw[4] (petitioner) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
The Facts
1
of 6th Street instead of towards 7th Street where Leticias
When arraigned on March 1, 1993, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty
house was situated.
to the offense charged.[11] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In the
At about 12:20 early morning of September 9, 1992, the
course of the trial, two varying versions arose.
group of SPO1 Edgardo Mendoza (SPO1 Mendoza) of the
Sorsogon PNP Mobile Patrol Section chanced upon
Version of the Prosecution petitioners Isuzu [panel] in St. Rafael Subdivision in [Our
Ladys Village] OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon. The police
patrol team approached the vehicle and SPO1 Mendoza
focused a flashlight at the front portion of the vehicle to
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are essentially
check what was going on. There, SPO1 Mendoza saw
summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as follows: petitioner whom he knew since childhood seated in front
of the wheel so he called out his name. Instead of heeding
his call, however, petitioner did not respond, immediately
In the evening of September 8, 1992, witness
started the engine and sped away toward Sorsogon town
Gloria Haboc, together with the victim Leticia Aldemo,
proper which is directly opposite his place of residence
Benjamin Jesalva (petitioner), Elog Ubaldo,[12] Jo
which is Ticol, Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
Montales and Romy Paladin were at Nenas place playing
At about the same time that night, Noel Olbes, a driver for
mahjong. A certain Mrs. Encinas and Atty. Alibanto were
the MCST Sisters holding office at the Bishops Compound in
also there. At about 10 oclock that night, Glorias group
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, was also in OLV Pangpang. While he
left Nenas place and boarded the Isuzu panel of
was walking from a certain Leas house, he saw a woman
petitioner. With the exception of Jo Montales, the group
naked from the waist down and lying on her belly on the
proceeded to Bistro Christina to eat and drink. While
highway. Her jeans and [panty] were beside her. Because it
Gloria had softdrink, Leticia drank two (2) bottles of beer,
was raining, Olbes pitied her so he carried her and her
and the rest consumed beer and [F]undador until 11:30 in
things to the shed some 10 meters away. As he was doing so,
the evening.
a tricycle being driven by Eduardo De Vera focused its
headlight in his direction. De Vera called out, What is
After they ate and drank, the group, with the exception of
that? Because he received no response from Noel Olbes, he
Elog Ubaldo who flagged down a tricycle, once again
decided to bring his passenger home first and just come back
boarded petitioners Isuzu panel as it was usually
to check the site later.
petitioner who drove them home. The victim Leticia
Aldemo was seated at the front seat. Petitioner dropped
Meanwhile, upon reaching the shed, Olbes noticed that
Romy Paladin at his house first, followed by Gloria, who
the woman was bleeding that he even got stained with
resided some 20 meters away from Leticias house. While
her blood. Afraid that he might be implicated, he
at Glorias house, petitioner wanted to drink some more
hurriedly left the woman at Hazelwood such that when
but Gloria told him to defer it until the next day because
De Vera came back, he no longer found Olbes. De Vera
the stores were already closed.Gloria then gave Leticia
then proceeded to the police station to report the incident
three (3) sticks of barbecue and accompanied her and
to [SPO1] Balaoro.
petitioner at the gate. After petitioner and Leticia
boarded the Isuzu [panel], the former immediately
De Vera, SPO1 Balaoro and SPO1 Sincua eventually
accelerated his car and went to the direction
returned to comb the area but to no avail. On their way
back at about 1:15 oclock (sic) in the morning, they met
2
Lt. Caguia talking with Noel Olbes. De Vera lost no time
inspected the place, which petitioner identified as the place where he and
in identifying him to be the man he saw with the
woman. At this point, Olbes admitted the allegation but Leticia sat. They found bloodstains thereat.[18]
professed innocence. He admitted he left the woman in
Hazelwood where the police found her.
After the prosecution presented twelve (12) witnesses, the
Eventually, Olbes was investigated by the police and was
not released until the next day. However, because the defense moved for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. On
evidence pointed to petitioner as the last person seen
February 21, 1994, the defense filed before the RTC, Branch 51, its
with the victim, a search for him was conducted. He
surrendered at one (1) oclock in the afternoon Demurrer to Evidence,[19] which the RTC, Branch 51, denied in its
accompanied by Fiscal Jose Jayona, his first cousin.[13]
Order[20] dated July 8, 1994. On August 11, 1994, the defense filed a
Motion[21] for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 8, 1994 and
The prosecution highlighted that, per testimony of Gloria Haboc, Inhibition of Presiding Judge, which the prosecution opposed. The
Leticia disclosed to her that petitioner was courting Leticia. However, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 51, voluntarily inhibited himself
Leticia told petitioner that they should just remain as friends because from taking any further action in the case;[22] hence, the case was re-
she was already married, and that she loved her handsome raffled to the RTC, Branch 52. Acting on the pending Motion for
husband.[14] Moreover, the prosecution asseverated that, at around 12:20 Reconsideration of the defense, the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch
a.m. of September 9, 1992, while conducting patrol in St. Rafael 52, denied the same and set the reception of evidence of the defense. [23]
Subdivision, [15] together with other police officers, Senior Police Officer 1
Version of the Defense
Edgardo Mendoza (SPO1 Mendoza), by using his flashlight, saw
petitioner on board his vehicle alone. Upon sight, petitioner immediately
started his vehicle and drove toward the town proper of Sorsogon, which In his relatively short stint on the witness stand, petitioner
was directly opposite his residence in Ticol, Sorsogon, disregarding SPO1 denied that he killed Leticia. He testified that he did not have any reason
Mendozas calls.[16] Lastly, at about 1:00 p.m. of September 9, 1992, to kill her, and that he had many reasons why he should not kill
petitioner, together with his first cousin Fiscal Jose Jayona (Fiscal her.[24] The prosecution manifested that it would not conduct a cross-
Jayona), went to the police station, wherein he voluntarily intimated to examination on the person of petitioner as his testimony was tantamount
SPO4 William Desder (SPO4 Desder) that Leticia jumped out of his to pure denial.[25] To prove that there was a broken chain of
vehicle.[17] At about 1:20 p.m. of September 9, 1992, SPO2 Enrique circumstantial evidence, the defense presented, as witness, Eduardo de
Renoria, together with other police officers, Fiscal Jayona, and petitioner Vera. The CA narrated:
3
12. Eduardo de Vera declared that on
September 9, 1992 at about 12:30 a.m., he was driving
6. SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro essayed that at
his tricycle en route to OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon; upon
around 1:00 a.m. of September 9, 1992, Eduardo De Vera
reaching the junction of the national road or highway, he
reported to him at the Police Sub-Station 1 that he saw a
saw a man and a woman three meters from the edge of
man, who was in squatting position, and a woman, who
the road; he stopped his tricycle and focused the
had blood on the upper right breast of her clothes,
headlight of his tricycle towards the two; he saw the
lean[ing] against the man and that after De Vera brought
woman leaning on the left arm of the man while the man
his tricycle passenger home, he returned to the site but
was on a squatting position; he asked them what is that?
he could not find the two anymore; upon receiving the
and did not get any response; that the man was hiding
report, he (SPO1 Balaoro), together with SPO1 Sincua
his face and saw little blood on the clothes of the woman;
and De Vera, proceeded to the diversion road, at the
he saw the woman with clothes, a polo shirt and pants;
junction going to the hospital and Pangpang, Sorsogon,
he decided to bring home his passenger home (sic) first
Sorsogon to investigate; they searched the place and went
and then returned to the scene but found no one there; he
to the hospital but found nothing; on their way back, at
reported the matter to [SPO1] Balaoro, who immediately
around 1:15 [a.m.] they saw Noel Olbes talking with Lt.
accompanied him to the place; they searched for the man
Caguia at Barangay Tugos; De Vera pointed to Olbes as
and woman but they could not find them; they checked
the man he saw with the woman at the crossing so they
the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital but nobody had been
brought him to Police Sub-Station 1 for investigation;
brought there; then they proceeded back to the junction
Olbes told them that he saw the woman lying on the side
and later to the Sorsogon town proper; upon reaching
of the road so he tried to lift her up but when he saw the
Barangay Tugos, they saw [Lt.] Caguia talking with a
tricycle (De Veras) he became afraid as he might be
man, whom he (De Vera) recognized as the man with the
implicated in the crime so he brought her to Hazelwood,
woman; [Lt.] Caguia directed the man to go to Police Sub-
which is five meters away from the highway; at 2:25 a.m.
Station 1; at the police Sub-Station 1, he came to know
the patrol team found Leticia Aldemo, whom they found
the name of the man Noel Olbes; he saw bloodstains on
naked from the waist down; at the garage of Hazelwood;
Olbes arms, hands, face and nose; the police interrogated
they found the long pants of the victim lying beside her
him about it and he replied that he just helped the
and noted that her panty was still on one of her knees;
woman.
the victims body appeared to have been laid down; they
did not find any blood in the garage except where the
On cross-examination, he admitted that he has
victims body was found outside the garage, they saw the
known [petitioner] for a longtime; and he has good
other pair of shoes of a woman and thick bloodstains; he
relationship with him; [petitioner] was his bondsman in
(SPO1 Balaoro) brought Olbes to Balogo station and
Criminal Case No. 95-3989 for illegal possession of
entrusted him to their investigator.
firearms and because of this, he is indebted to him and
he thus wants to repay his gratitude to [petitioner];
7. Noel Olbes testified that he is a driver for the
[petitioner] requested him to be a witness in the case.[26]
MCST Sisters who are holding office at the Bishops
Compound in Sorsogon, Sorsogon; that on September 8,
1997, he went out with his friends Danny, Oca and Ely in
Relative to the subsequent events, the CA summarized the Almendras to drink a bottle of gin; at around 6:30 p.m. he
went to downtown Sorsogon and roamed around until
testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro and Noel Olbes (Olbes), as follows:
10:30 p.m.; then he went to Bahay Kainan and at about
4
11:00 or 11:30 p.m., he went to Pena Fast Food and took hematoma, 3rd left thigh[;] (9) abrasion right knee[;] (10)
a bottle of beer; upon the invitation of Lea, he went inside multiple confluent abrasion right foot[;] (11) contusion
Pena and drank another bottle of beer; he brought Lea to hematoma right hand[;] (12) abrasion right elbow[;] (13)
her home at OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; from contusion hematoma right elbow[;] and (14) skull-
Leas house, he walked and upon reaching the junction of segmented fracture parietal bone with separation.
OLV, he saw a woman lying on her belly naked from the
waist down; the woman was just uttering guttural sound; He explained that the punctured wound in the occipital
her jeans and panty were just lying beside her; taking area (lower back of the skull) was caused by a pebble
pity on the woman and since it was raining that night, he which they recovered from said area; the punctured
carried the woman to a nearby shed in order that she wound on the parietal left area was caused by a sharp
would not be run over by motor vehicles; he also took the object and may have been secondary to a fall on a rough
panty and the jeans to the shed; he noticed that a tricycle surface; the first three findings could also have been
stopped for a while and focused its headlight on them and caused by the punch made by the perpetrator; the fourth
proceeded on its way; when he laid down the woman in finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or
the shed, he noticed that she was bleeding and he was a punch or a strong grip; the fifth and the sixth findings
stained with her blood; after seeing the blood, he got could have been caused also by some of the above-
scared and left; he walked towards the Sorsogon town mentioned means; the eighth finding could have been
proper and after about forty-five minutes, two caused by a fall or rubbing on a hard object; the ninth
policem[e]n apprehended him and brought him to the finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or
police station for investigation; while being investigated, a fist blow while the tenth finding could have been
he was not apprised of his constitutional rights and made caused by a fall on a rough object and the knee rubbing
to sign the police blotter; he was detained as he was a on a rough object; the eleventh finding could have been
suspect for the injuries of the victim; after 7 or 8 hours, due to a fall or by being dragged; the twelfth finding
he was released; and he executed a Sworn Statement and could be caused by a blunt instrument or by a fall or by
affirmed its contents.[27] fist blow and the thirteenth finding could also be caused
by a fall or fist blow.
6
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for police station are not admissible in evidence, considering that he was,
Reconsideration,[33] which the CA, however, denied in its technically, under custodial investigation, and that there was no waiver
Resolution[34] dated April 7, 2009 for lack of merit. of his right to remain silent.[36] Moreover, petitioner alleges that the fatal
injuries sustained by Leticia, per the testimony of Dr. Abrantes, are
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: consistent with a fall, thereby suggesting petitioners innocence.
Petitioner claims that the evidence shows that there was more blood in
A) THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RTC
Hazelwood than in the place where Olbes spotted Leticia, thereby
DECISIONS CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE
CRIME OF HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY suggesting that something worse than her jumping out of the vehicle
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WERE BOTH NOT IN
might have happened.[37]
ACCORD WITH ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE
REQUIRING THAT SUCH BE ACTED WITH CAUTION
AND THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL FACTS MUST BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT; On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through
AND
the OSG, argues that only questions of law may be entertained by this
B) THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE Court, and that we accord great respect to factual findings of the trial
TRIAL COURT, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING
court especially when affirmed by the CA. The OSG insists that the CA,
THAT STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER IN THE
POLICE STATION WERE ADMISSIBLE AS HE WAS affirming the RTCs ruling, did not err in convicting petitioner on the
THEN NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
basis of circumstantial evidence, because the particular circumstances
DESPITE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD
THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED BY THE enumerated by both the RTC and the CA satisfactorily meet the
POLICE HAD HIS FISCAL-COMPANION NOT
requirements of the rules and of jurisprudence for conviction. Moreover,
[TAKEN] HIM UNDER HIS CUSTODY.[35]
the OSG claims that the statements made by petitioner before SPO4
Desder, in the presence of Fiscal Jayona, were voluntarily given and
Petitioner argues that no evidence was ever introduced as to
were not elicited on custodial investigation. Lastly, the OSG counters
how, when, and where Leticia sustained her injuries. No witness ever
that petitioner was not deprived of his rights since he was never held for
testified as to who was responsible for her injuries. He refutes the
questioning by any police officer upon arriving at the police station and,
prosecutions contention that, even if he took the 6th Street, the same
besides, he was accompanied by his first cousin, Fiscal Jayona.[38]
could still lead to the 7th Street, where Leticias house is located.
Petitioner stresses that Olbes should have been considered as a suspect
Our Ruling
in this case, considering that he was the last person seen with Leticia
when she was still alive. He avers that the statements he made at the The Petition is bereft of merit.
7
Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the
only matrix wherefrom a court may draw its conclusions and findings of
Custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law guilt. There are instances when, although a witness may not have
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or actually witnessed the commission of a crime, he may still be able to
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. This positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as
presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that when, for instance, the latter is the person last seen with the victim
the investigator is trying to elicit information or a confession from immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is
him.[39] The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation the type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial
ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to
aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are
whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to usually committed in secret and under condition where concealment is
elicit incriminating statements.[40] The assailed statements herein were highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted upon under all
spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited through circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who committed heinous crimes
questioning. It was established that petitioner, together with his cousin in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to
Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the police station and voluntarily made prove.[42]
the statement that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m.
of September 9, 1992.[41] The RTC and the CA did not, therefore, err in
Thus, there can be a verdict of conviction based on circumstantial
holding that the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is
evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which
not applicable in the instant case.
leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused, to the
exclusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of the crime. However, in
Be that as it may, even without these statements, petitioner order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same
could still be convicted of the crime of Homicide. The prosecution must comply with these essential requisites, viz.: (a) there is more than
established his complicity in the crime through circumstantial evidence, one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
which were credible and sufficient, and which led to the inescapable proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
conclusion that petitioner committed the said crime. Indeed, when produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [43]
considered in their totality, the circumstances point to petitioner as the
culprit.
8
the shorter and direct route, the 7th street,
We accord respect to the following findings of the CA, affirming
where Leticia Aldemos house is located;
those of the RTC:
5. Leticia Aldemo never reached home as testified
After a thorough review of the records of the case, by her husband Efren Aldemo;
We find that the circumstantial evidence proved by the
prosecution, when viewed in its entirety, points 6. At around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 1992, the
unerringly to [petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva as the person police patrolling the St. Ra[f]ael
responsible for the death of the victim Leticia Subdivision saw the red panel thereat and
Aldemo. Truly, the following combination of the when they approached and beamed a
circumstances which comprised such evidence forms an flashlight, they saw Benjamin Jesalva
unbroken chain that points to [petitioner] and no other, behind the wheel, who suddenly drove away
as the perpetrator of the crime, to wit: in the direction of Sorsogon town proper,
opposite to where he lives. SPO1 Eduardo
1. [Petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva (who was Mendoza told Benjamin Jesalva (whom he
previously courting the victim Leticia had known since his teen-age years) to stop
Aldemo, and whom the latter advised to stop but the latter did not respond or heed his
as she was already married) together with call;
Gloria Haboc, and six other individuals left
Nena Ables house at 10 p.m. of September 7. At 12:30 oclock (sic) of even date, Noel Olbes
8, 1992 after playing mahjong thereat. They saw the body of Leticia Aldemo sprawled on
rode in [petitioners] red panel. her belly at the crossing/junction of OLV,
Pangpang Sorsogon, Sorsogon, naked from
2. Benjamin Jesalva, Leticia Aldemo, Gloria the waist down. He lifted her up and
Haboc and two others proceeded to Bistro brought the body at Hazelwood, which is
Christina. [Petitioner], together with other about 10 meters away from the highway.
two male companions, consumed one bottle
of Fundador, in addition to the three bottles 8. The police found the body of the victim at
of beer. At 11:30 p.m., the group left the Hazelwood at around 2:15 a.m. of the same
place. day, and brought her to
the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital in
3. After dropping one male companion at his comatose condition.
house, Benjamin Jesalva, together with
Leticia Aldemo, proceeded to bring Gloria 9. The police proceeded to inform the victims
Haboc to her home, which was only twenty sister, who in turn informed the victims
meters away from Leticias residence. husband of the incident.
4. After staying at Gloria Habocs house for five 10. In the morning of September 9, 1992, the
minutes, and denied another drink, police looked for Benjamin Jesalva to invite
Benjamin Jesalva immediately accelerated him at the police station but was not able to
his vehicle en route to 6th Street instead of find him.
9
11. At around 1:00 oclock p.m. of September elbow could as well be similarly caused by a
9, 1992, Benjamin Jesalva, together with blunt instrument or a punch or a strong
his first cousin, Asst. Prosecutor Jose grip. As to the abrasion on the right knee,
Jayona, presented himself at the PNP the same could have been caused by a blunt
Sorsogon, Sorsogon headquarters, where he instrument or a fist blow. The multiple
voluntarily stated that the victim Leticia confluent abrasion[s] on the right foot could
Aldemo was his passenger in his vehicle at have been caused by a fall on a rough
about 12:30 in the early morning of object. The abrasions on the right elbow
September 9, 1992 at St. Rafael Subdivision could have been caused by a blunt
but upon reaching the crossing of OLV, instrument or by a fall or by a fist blow. The
Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon near the same is true with the contusion hematoma
Provincial Hospital, she jumped out of his found on the victims right elbow.[44]
vehicle. These declarations were recorded in
the police blotter by PO1 Enrique [Renoria]
upon the instruction of SPO4 William
Desder, the PNP Sorsogon Chief Petitioners mere denial cannot outweigh the circumstantial
Investigator. evidence clearly establishing his culpability in the crime charged. It is
12. At about 1:30 p.m. of the same day, a police well-settled that the positive declarations of a prosecution witness
team, together with [petitioner] and Asst. prevail over the bare denials of an accused. The evidence for the
Prosecutor Jayona, went to St. Ra[f]ael
Subdivision to conduct an ocular prosecution was found by both the RTC and the CA to be sufficient and
inspection. [Petitioner] pointed to the police credible, while petitioners defense of denial was weak, self-serving,
the place where he and the victim spent
their time. The police photographed what speculative, and uncorroborated. Petitioners silence as to the matters
appear[ed] to be bloodstains just two meters that occurred during the time he was alone with Leticia is deafening. An
away from the place pointed by [petitioner].
13. Dr. Antonio Dioneda testified that the accused can only be exonerated if the prosecution fails to meet the
punctured wound in the occipital area was quantum of proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption of
caused by a pebble which he recovered from
said area; the punctured wound in the innocence. We find that the prosecution has met this quantum of proof in
parietal left area was caused by a sharp this case.[45]
object and may have been secondary to a
fall on a rough surface, the cerebral
contusion, the punctured wound in the
occipital and in the parietal area could also All told, we find no reversible error in the assailed CA decision
be caused by a punch by the perpetrator. As which would warrant the modification much less the reversal thereof.
to the multiple contusion hematoma
anterior lateral aspect of the deltoid left
area was caused by a blunt instrument or a
punch or a strong grip; the contusion
hematoma on the upper left arm and left
10
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court of
Appeals Decision dated October 17, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22126,
affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 52, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case No. 3243, is
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
11