G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NARCISO EVARDO Y JUAN, EFIPANIO EVARDO Y JUAN, TAMBI LADJA Y ANTISAN and JOHN DOE, accused, NARCISO EVERADO Y JUAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Narciso Evardo, along with his brother Efipanio Evardo, Tambi Ladja, and a John Doe, were charged with Robbery with Double Homicide. The information alleged that on September 18, 1987, in Zamboanga City, the accused, armed with a scythe and a paddle, conspired to rob Ricardo Mendoza of his Garand rifle and, on the occasion thereof, killed Ricardo and his son Robert Mendoza. Only appellant Narciso Evardo was under custody for trial, as two co-accused died beforehand and John Doe remained unidentified.
The prosecution established that on September 18, 1987, appellant and his brother Efipanio arrived at the Mendoza house and invited Ricardo and Robert to go to Kabog Island to see a hidden pumpboat engine, with Ricardo acting as an escort. Ricardo brought his government-issued Garand rifle. The group left together. The following morning, appellant went to the Mendoza house asking if Ricardo and Robert had returned, telling Vilma Mendoza they had gone back to sea to look for fish. Later, CHDF members reported finding dead bodies at sea, one wearing a fatigue shirt. The Mendoza women reported that the Evardo brothers were the last persons with the victims. CHDF members found appellant armed with a scythe and brought him to the police. The dead bodies of the victims were found in appellant’s vinta, along with a wooden paddle, but the Garand rifle was missing. Police Investigator Cresencio Guevarra testified that appellant admitted during the preliminary investigation that he and Efipanio killed the victims.
The defense presented appellant’s denial of involvement, his alibi that he was in Basilan and only in Limaong to help harvest palay, and his claim of being tortured by CHDF members. Medical evidence of injuries sustained by appellant and his companions was presented. The trial court convicted appellant of Robbery with Double Homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for homicide but not for robbery with homicide. The proven circumstances formed an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that appellant was guilty of killing the victims. These circumstances included: (1) appellant and his brother were the last persons seen with the victims; (2) the victims’ bodies were found in appellant’s vinta; (3) appellant gave a false alibi to Vilma Mendoza; (4) appellant was found armed with a scythe; (5) appellant admitted the killings during the preliminary investigation; and (6) appellant’s motive was his recent conversion to Islam, which created a rift with the victims. However, the element of robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the taking of the rifle was not conclusively established to have occurred on the occasion of the killings. Appellant’s denial and alibi were inherently weak defenses and uncorroborated. The defense of alibi failed as appellant did not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
The Court modified the conviction to two counts of Homicide. Appellant was sentenced twice to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. His civil liability was increased to P50,000.00 for each set of heirs, totaling P100,000.00.