G.R. No. 83436 February 9, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO OCAMPO alias “Isko,” ANTONIO GANTANG, alias “Tony,” (at large), AQUILINO PEDILINO, (at large) NESTO VIZARRA, (at large) and PEPITO SARMIENTO, (at large), defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Adjacent to a 46-hectare fishpond owned by Enrique Baluyot is the land owned by Jesus Segui, which was traversed by a road constructed by Baluyot’s workers. Jesus Segui cultivated bananas and coconuts on his land. The fishpond was managed by accused-appellant Francisco “Isko” Ocampo, who supervised co-accused Antonio Gantang and Manolito Macaraig. On February 27, 1986, at around 9:00 p.m., three persons went to the house of Jesus Segui, requesting him to accompany them to the Barangay Captain. Purificacion Segui, the wife, lighted her flashlight and recognized two visitors as Francisco Ocampo and Antonio Gantang; the third man wore a mask. Purificacion advised her husband not to leave, but the men threatened to cut his feet, forcing him to accompany them. Purificacion surreptitiously followed and heard her husband shout, “Diyos ko, bakit mo po ako ginaganito, anong kasalanan ko,” from a house about 11 to 15 meters away. She sought help from Barangay Captain Buenaventura Altobar, who refused to assist due to the late hour. The next day, policemen and the barangay captain investigated but found no body. On March 1, 1986, Jesus Segui’s lifeless body was discovered floating near the river mouth by the fishpond. A post mortem examination revealed seventeen hacking wounds and abrasions. An information for murder was filed. The trial court found Francisco Ocampo guilty of murder, qualified by evident premeditation, with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and indemnity. Manolito Macaraig was acquitted. Ocampo appealed, arguing the trial court erred in relying on circumstantial evidence and pointing out alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict accused-appellant Francisco Ocampo of the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution’s evidence, though circumstantial, satisfies the conditions under Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain pointing to Ocampo as the author of the crime: animosity existed between Ocampo and Segui due to a complaint about missing animals and Segui’s plants along the pathway used by Ocampo’s workers; Ocampo was positively identified as one of three persons who forcibly took Segui from his house on the night of February 27, 1986; Segui was brought toward the fishpond managed by Ocampo; Purificacion heard her husband’s cries from a house near the fishpond; and Segui’s body was found days later floating near that fishpond. The alleged inconsistencies in Purificacion Segui’s testimony are minor, complementary, and do not impair her credibility; they may even suggest truthfulness. The delay in implicating the accused does not discredit the witness, as it pertains to events after the crime. The defense of denial is weak against positive identification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity are affirmed.