GR 116272; (March, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116272 March 27, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOEL PAGUNTALAN @ “BOBONG” and JESUS SOTTO @ “DJANGO”, accused. JESUS SOTTO @ DJANGO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On April 25, 1993, during a religious procession in Barangay Linao, Ormoc City, Arturo Tiu was fatally shot by Noel Paguntalan. Paguntalan fled the scene, ran through the compound of his employer, Jesus Sotto, and remained at large. The police recovered a .22 cal. magnum revolver without a serial number at the crime scene. The following day, Paguntalan went to a farmhand of Sotto, Gregorio Lape, at Sotto’s resthouse, requesting medicine. Lape informed Sotto, who told him to advise Paguntalan to surrender. Sotto and his aide, retired Major Alfredo Manago, attempted to negotiate Paguntalan’s surrender with the police, but when police arrived at the resthouse on April 27, Paguntalan was gone. An amended information charged Paguntalan with murder and Sotto with murder, alleging Sotto, as Paguntalan’s employer and owner of the gun, provided the gun prior to the commission of the crime. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Sotto of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, based on circumstantial evidence including a land dispute between Sotto and the victim’s father-in-law, the close relationship between Sotto and Paguntalan, Paguntalan’s flight to Sotto’s compound and resthouse, and the court’s inference that Sotto owned the gun used. Sotto appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Jesus Sotto conspired with Noel Paguntalan in the killing of Arturo Tiu.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the trial court and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Jesus Sotto. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence was grossly inadequate to establish conspiracy or Sotto’s participation in the crime. The circumstances did not constitute an unbroken chain leading to the sole conclusion of Sotto’s guilt. The inference of gun ownership was based on speculation, not proof. The fact that Paguntalan fled to Sotto’s properties and Sotto’s subsequent actions to facilitate surrender did not convincingly show a prior agreement to kill. Conclusions based on conjecture cannot support a conviction. The prosecution failed to meet the required quantum of proof for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Sotto was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.