Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jesalva V People
Jesalva V People
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. When arraigned on March 1, 1993, petitioner
entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
DECISION charged.11 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
In the course of the trial, two varying versions
NACHURA, J.: arose.
Eventually, Olbes was investigated by the police In his relatively short stint on the witness stand,
and was not released until the next day. However, petitioner denied that he killed Leticia. He testified
because the evidence pointed to petitioner as the that he did not have any reason to kill her, and
last person seen with the victim, a search for him that he had many reasons why he should not kill
was conducted. He "surrendered" at one (1) her.24 The prosecution manifested that it would
o’clock in the afternoon accompanied by Fiscal not conduct a cross-examination on the person of
Jose Jayona, his first cousin.13 petitioner as his testimony was tantamount to
pure denial.25 To prove that there was a broken
The prosecution highlighted that, per testimony of chain of circumstantial evidence, the defense
Gloria Haboc, Leticia disclosed to her that presented, as witness, Eduardo de Vera. The CA
petitioner was courting Leticia. However, Leticia narrated:
told petitioner that they should just remain as
friends because she was already married, and that
12. Eduardo de Vera declared that on who was in squatting position, and a
September 9, 1992 at about 12:30 a.m., woman, who had blood on the upper
he was driving his tricycle en route to right breast of her clothes, lean[ing]
OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon; upon reaching against the man and that after De Vera
the junction of the national road or brought his tricycle passenger home, he
highway, he saw a man and a woman returned to the site but he could not find
three meters from the edge of the road; the two anymore; upon receiving the
he stopped his tricycle and focused the report, he (SPO1 Balaoro), together with
headlight of his tricycle towards the two; SPO1 Sincua and De Vera, proceeded to
he saw the woman leaning on the left arm the diversion road, at the junction going
of the man while the man was on a to the hospital and Pangpang, Sorsogon,
squatting position; he asked them "what Sorsogon to investigate; they searched
is that?" and did not get any response; the place and went to the hospital but
that the man was hiding his face and saw found nothing; on their way back, at
little blood on the clothes of the woman; around 1:15 [a.m.] they saw Noel Olbes
he saw the woman with clothes, a polo talking with Lt. Caguia at Barangay Tugos;
shirt and pants; he decided to bring home De Vera pointed to Olbes as the man he
his passenger home (sic) first and then saw with the woman at the crossing so
returned to the scene but found no one they brought him to Police Sub-Station 1
there; he reported the matter to [SPO1] for investigation; Olbes told them that he
Balaoro, who immediately accompanied saw the woman lying on the side of the
him to the place; they searched for the road so he tried to lift her up but when he
man and woman but they could not find saw the tricycle (De Vera’s) he became
them; they checked the Sorsogon afraid as he might be implicated in the
Provincial Hospital but nobody had been crime so he brought her to Hazelwood,
brought there; then they proceeded back which is five meters away from the
to the junction and later to the Sorsogon highway; at 2:25 a.m. the patrol team
town proper; upon reaching Barangay found Leticia Aldemo, whom they found
Tugos, they saw [Lt.] Caguia talking with a naked from the waist down; at the garage
man, whom he (De Vera) recognized as of Hazelwood; they found the long pants
the man with the woman; [Lt.] Caguia of the victim lying beside her and noted
directed the man to go to Police Sub- that her panty was still on one of her
Station 1; at the police Sub-Station 1, he knees; the victim’s body appeared to have
came to know the name of the man – been laid down; they did not find any
Noel Olbes; he saw bloodstains on Olbes’ blood in the garage except where the
arms, hands, face and nose; the police victim’s body was found outside the
interrogated him about it and he replied garage, they saw the other pair of shoes
that he just helped the woman. of a woman and thick bloodstains; he
(SPO1 Balaoro) brought Olbes to Balogo
On cross-examination, he admitted that he has station and entrusted him to their
known [petitioner] for a longtime; and he has good investigator.
relationship with him; [petitioner] was his
bondsman in Criminal Case No. 95-3989 for illegal 7. Noel Olbes testified that he is a driver
possession of firearms and because of this, he is for the MCST Sisters who are holding
indebted to him and he thus wants to repay his office at the Bishop’s Compound in
gratitude to [petitioner]; [petitioner] requested Sorsogon, Sorsogon; that on September 8,
him to be a witness in the case.26 1997, he went out with his friends Danny,
Oca and Ely in Almendras to drink a bottle
Relative to the subsequent events, the CA of gin; at around 6:30 p.m. he went to
summarized the testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo downtown Sorsogon and roamed around
Balaoro and Noel Olbes (Olbes), as follows: until 10:30 p.m.; then he went to Bahay
Kainan and at about 11:00 or 11:30 p.m.,
6. SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro essayed that at he went to Pena Fast Food and took a
around 1:00 a.m. of September 9, 1992, bottle of beer; upon the invitation of Lea,
Eduardo De Vera reported to him at the he went inside Pena and drank another
Police Sub-Station 1 that he saw a man, bottle of beer; he brought Lea to her
home at OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon,
Sorsogon; from Lea’s house, he walked He explained that the punctured wound
and upon reaching the junction of OLV, he in the occipital area (lower back of the
saw a woman lying on her belly naked skull) was caused by a pebble which they
from the waist down; the woman was just recovered from said area; the punctured
uttering guttural sound; her jeans and wound on the parietal left area was
panty were just lying beside her; taking caused by a sharp object and may have
pity on the woman and since it was been secondary to a fall on a rough
raining that night, he carried the woman surface; the first three findings could also
to a nearby shed in order that she would have been caused by the punch made by
not be run over by motor vehicles; he also the perpetrator; the fourth finding could
took the panty and the jeans to the shed; have been caused by a blunt instrument
he noticed that a tricycle stopped for a or a punch or a strong grip; the fifth and
while and focused its headlight on them the sixth findings could have been caused
and proceeded on its way; when he laid also by some of the above-mentioned
down the woman in the shed, he noticed means; the eighth finding could have
that she was bleeding and he was stained been caused by a fall or rubbing on a hard
with her blood; after seeing the blood, he object; the ninth finding could have been
got scared and left; he walked towards caused by a blunt instrument or a fist
the Sorsogon town proper and after blow while the tenth finding could have
about forty-five minutes, two policem[e]n been caused by a fall on a rough object
apprehended him and brought him to the and the knee rubbing on a rough object;
police station for investigation; while the eleventh finding could have been due
being investigated, he was not apprised of to a fall or by being dragged; the twelfth
his constitutional rights and made to sign finding could be caused by a blunt
the police blotter; he was detained as he instrument or by a fall or by fist blow and
was a suspect for the injuries of the the thirteenth finding could also be
victim; after 7 or 8 hours, he was caused by a fall or fist blow.
released; and he executed a Sworn
Statement and affirmed its contents.27 He stated [that] the victim died despite
the operation he performed on her.
Dr. Antonio Dioneda, Jr.28 and Dr.
Wilhelmino Abrantes (Dr. Abrantes) xxxx
testified on the injuries suffered by
Leticia, which eventually caused her 14. Dr. Wilhelmino Abrantes – He
death: explained the different kinds of injuries
sustained by the victim. In addition, he
9. Dr. Antonio Dionedas testified that he stated that since there were wounds
encountered on September 9, 1992 a sustained by the victim in the dorsum
patient by the name of Leticia Aldemo, part of the foot and sustained injuries on
who was in comatose state; she sustained both knees, upper portion of the back of
the following injuries (1) severe cerebral the hand, the victim could have been
contusion; (2) 2.5 cm punctured wound, thrown off while unconscious.29
occipital area (3) .5 cm punctured wound,
parietal left area[;] (4) multiple contusion The RTC’s Ruling
hematoma antero lateral aspect deltoid
left area[;] (5) contusion hematoma 3rd
On November 18, 1997, the RTC ruled in favor of
upper left arm; (6) contusion hematoma
the prosecution, finding petitioner guilty beyond
left elbow[;] (7) abrasion left elbow[;] (8)
reasonable doubt based on circumstantial
hematoma, 3rd left thigh[;] (9) abrasion
evidence, not of the crime of Murder, but of
right knee[;] (10) multiple confluent
Homicide. The RTC ratiocinated that, in the
abrasion right foot[;] (11) contusion
absence of any direct evidence or testimonies of
hematoma right hand[;] (12) abrasion
eyewitnesses, treachery was not established, and
right elbow[;] (13) contusion hematoma
that evident premeditation and abuse of superior
right elbow[;] and (14) skull-segmented
strength were not duly proven. Thus, the RTC
fracture parietal bone with separation.
disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of
the accused Benjamin Jesalva alias Ben Sabaw the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Branch 52 dated November 18, 1997 in Criminal
Homicide penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Case No. 3243 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as
Penal Code and considering that there was no to the penalty.
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances
attendant thereto and taking into consideration Accused-appellant Benjamin J. Jesalva is sentenced
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court hereby to serve the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6)
sentences the accused to suffer the indeterminate YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
(1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum and to
pay death indemnity of the sum of ₱50,000.00 to SO ORDERED.32
the legal heirs of the victim, plus ₱42,755.45 for
compensatory damages plus ₱50,000.00 by way of
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for
moral damages and ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees
Reconsideration,33 which the CA, however, denied
(People v. Aguiluz, March 11, 1992).
in its Resolution34 dated April 7, 2009 for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.30
Hence, this Petition based on the following
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.31 grounds:
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, Petitioner argues that no evidence was ever
homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. introduced as to how, when, and where Leticia
With the attendant mitigating circumstance of sustained her injuries. No witness ever testified as
voluntary surrender of accused-appellant, the to who was responsible for her injuries. He refutes
penalty reclusion temporal is imposed in its the prosecution’s contention that, even if he took
minimum period. Accordingly, accused-appellant the 6th Street, the same could still lead to the 7th
Benjamin J. Jesalva should suffer the Street, where Leticia’s house is located. Petitioner
indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and stresses that Olbes should have been considered
ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum as a suspect in this case, considering that he was
and SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision the last person seen with Leticia when she was still
mayor as minimum. alive. He avers that the statements he made at the
police station are not admissible in evidence, all elicited through questioning. It was established
considering that he was, technically, under that petitioner, together with his cousin Fiscal
custodial investigation, and that there was no Jayona, personally went to the police station and
waiver of his right to remain silent.36 Moreover, voluntarily made the statement that Leticia
petitioner alleges that the fatal injuries sustained jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of
by Leticia, per the testimony of Dr. Abrantes, are September 9, 1992.41 The RTC and the CA did not,
consistent with a fall, thereby suggesting therefore, err in holding that the constitutional
petitioner’s innocence. Petitioner claims that the procedure for custodial investigation is not
evidence shows that there was more blood in applicable in the instant case.
Hazelwood than in the place where Olbes spotted
Leticia, thereby suggesting that something worse Be that as it may, even without these statements,
than her jumping out of the vehicle might have petitioner could still be convicted of the crime of
happened.37 Homicide. The prosecution established his
complicity in the crime through circumstantial
On the other hand, respondent People of the evidence, which were credible and sufficient, and
Philippines, through the OSG, argues that only which led to the inescapable conclusion that
questions of law may be entertained by this Court, petitioner committed the said crime. Indeed, when
and that we accord great respect to factual considered in their totality, the circumstances
findings of the trial court especially when affirmed point to petitioner as the culprit.
by the CA. The OSG insists that the CA, affirming
the RTC’s ruling, did not err in convicting petitioner Direct evidence of the commission of the crime
on the basis of circumstantial evidence, because charged is not the only matrix wherefrom a court
the particular circumstances enumerated by both may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt.
the RTC and the CA satisfactorily meet the There are instances when, although a witness may
requirements of the rules and of jurisprudence for not have actually witnessed the commission of a
conviction. Moreover, the OSG claims that the crime, he may still be able to positively identify a
statements made by petitioner before SPO4 suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as
Desder, in the presence of Fiscal Jayona, were when, for instance, the latter is the person last
voluntarily given and were not elicited on custodial seen with the victim immediately before and right
investigation. Lastly, the OSG counters that after the commission of the crime. This is the type
petitioner was not deprived of his rights since he of positive identification, which forms part of
was never held for questioning by any police circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct
officer upon arriving at the police station and, evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing
besides, he was accompanied by his first cousin, circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
Fiscal Jayona.38 Crimes are usually committed in secret and under
condition where concealment is highly probable. If
Our Ruling direct evidence is insisted upon under all
circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who
The Petition is bereft of merit. committed heinous crimes in secret or in secluded
places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to
Custodial investigation refers to "any questioning prove.42
initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise Thus, there can be a verdict of conviction based on
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant circumstantial evidence when the circumstances
way." This presupposes that he is suspected of proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a
having committed a crime and that the fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the
investigator is trying to elicit information or a accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as the
confession from him.39 The rule begins to operate perpetrator of the crime. However, in order that
at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to be a circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to
general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and convict, the same must comply with these
direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who essential requisites, viz.: (a) there is more than one
has been taken into custody and to whom the circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
police would then direct interrogatory questions inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the
which tend to elicit incriminating combination of all the circumstances is such as to
statements.40 The assailed statements herein were produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.43
spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at
We accord respect to the following findings of the away in the direction of Sorsogon town
CA, affirming those of the RTC: proper, opposite to where he lives. SPO1
Eduardo Mendoza told Benjamin Jesalva
After a thorough review of the records of the case, (whom he had known since his teen-age
We find that the circumstantial evidence proved years) to stop but the latter did not
by the prosecution, when viewed in its entirety, respond or heed his call;
points unerringly to [petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva
as the person responsible for the death of the 7. At 12:30 o’clock (sic) of even date, Noel
victim Leticia Aldemo. Truly, the following Olbes saw the body of Leticia Aldemo
combination of the circumstances which sprawled on her belly at the
comprised such evidence forms an unbroken chain crossing/junction of OLV, Pangpang
that points to [petitioner] and no other, as the Sorsogon, Sorsogon, naked from the waist
perpetrator of the crime, to wit: down. He lifted her up and brought the
body at Hazelwood, which is about 10
1. [Petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva (who was meters away from the highway.
previously courting the victim Leticia
Aldemo, and whom the latter advised to 8. The police found the body of the victim
stop as she was already married) together at Hazelwood at around 2:15 a.m. of the
with Gloria Haboc, and six other same day, and brought her to the
individuals left Nena Ables’ house at 10 Sorsogon Provincial Hospital in comatose
p.m. of September 8, 1992 after playing condition.
mahjong thereat. They rode in
[petitioner’s] red panel. 9. The police proceeded to inform the
victim’s sister, who in turn informed the
2. Benjamin Jesalva, Leticia Aldemo, victim’s husband of the incident.
Gloria Haboc and two others proceeded
to Bistro Christina. [Petitioner], together 10. In the morning of September 9, 1992,
with other two male companions, the police looked for Benjamin Jesalva to
consumed one bottle of Fundador, in invite him at the police station but was
addition to the three bottles of beer. At not able to find him.
11:30 p.m., the group left the place.
11. At around 1:00 o’clock p.m. of
3. After dropping one male companion at September 9, 1992, Benjamin Jesalva,
his house, Benjamin Jesalva, together together with his first cousin, Asst.
with Leticia Aldemo, proceeded to bring Prosecutor Jose Jayona, presented
Gloria Haboc to her home, which was only himself at the PNP Sorsogon, Sorsogon
twenty meters away from Leticia’s headquarters, where he voluntarily stated
residence. that the victim Leticia Aldemo was his
passenger in his vehicle at about 12:30 in
4. After staying at Gloria Haboc’s house the early morning of September 9, 1992
for five minutes, and denied another at St. Rafael Subdivision but upon
drink, Benjamin Jesalva immediately reaching the crossing of OLV, Pangpang,
accelerated his vehicle en route to 6th Sorsogon, Sorsogon near the Provincial
Street instead of the shorter and direct Hospital, she jumped out of his vehicle.
route, the 7th street, where Leticia These declarations were recorded in the
Aldemo’s house is located; police blotter by PO1 Enrique [Renoria]
upon the instruction of SPO4 William
5. Leticia Aldemo never reached home as Desder, the PNP Sorsogon Chief
testified by her husband Efren Aldemo; Investigator.
6. At around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 12. At about 1:30 p.m. of the same day, a
1992, the police patrolling the St. Ra[f]ael police team, together with [petitioner]
Subdivision saw the red panel thereat and and Asst. Prosecutor Jayona, went to St.
when they approached and beamed a Ra[f]ael Subdivision to conduct an ocular
flashlight, they saw Benjamin Jesalva inspection. [Petitioner] pointed to the
behind the wheel, who suddenly drove police the place where he and the victim
spent their time. The police WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court
photographed what appear[ed] to be of Appeals Decision dated October 17, 2008 in CA-
bloodstains just two meters away from G.R. CR No. 22126, affirming with modification the
the place pointed by [petitioner]. decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52,
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case No. 3243, is
13. Dr. Antonio Dioneda testified that the hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
punctured wound in the occipital area
was caused by a pebble which he SO ORDERED.
recovered from said area; the punctured
wound in the parietal left area was
caused by a sharp 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 be caused by
a punch by the perpetrator. As 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 elbow
could as well be similarly caused by a
blunt instrument or a punch or a strong
grip. As to the abrasion on the right knee,
the same could have been caused by a
blunt instrument or a fist blow. The
multiple confluent abrasion[s] on the
right foot could have been caused by a fall
on a rough object. The abrasions on the
right elbow could have been caused by a
blunt instrument or by a fall or by a fist
blow. The same is true with the contusion
hematoma found on the victim’s right
elbow.44