GR 135413; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135413 -15, November 15, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMER MOYONG y TALORONG and JORRY VELASCO (at large), accused. AMER MOYONG y TALORONG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Amer Moyong was convicted of three counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City for the killings of Pascual Bawar, Normita Bawar, and Joselito Aquino on December 7, 1997. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence. In the early morning, barangay officials responded to a disturbance at the victims’ hotel. A tricycle driver, Joselito Jaro, later spotted Moyong crawling from a small opening near the hotel’s fire exit onto a rooftop. Upon apprehension, Moyong’s clothing was stained with blood. Inside the hotel, police found the three victims dead from multiple stab wounds.
At trial, Moyong denied direct participation, claiming his co-accused Jorry Velasco (who remained at large) was the sole perpetrator. He testified he was bathing when Velasco attacked the victims, later threatening him to stab an already deceased Pascual Bawar to “mess things up.” He claimed he then panicked and hid on the rooftop. The trial court rejected his defense, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction and imposing the death penalty for each count, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and scoffing at the corpses.
ISSUE
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain a conviction for three counts of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crimes from murder to homicide and reduced the penalty. The Court held the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove Moyong’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the killings. The combination of circumstances—his apprehension fleeing the crime scene via the hotel roof, his blood-stained clothing shortly after the crimes, and the lack of evidence supporting his claim of being forced to stab a corpse—was consistent only with the hypothesis of his participation and inconsistent with innocence.
However, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced, which is essential to prove the victims were deliberately denied any opportunity for defense. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and scoffing at the corpses were also not established with conclusive evidence. Nocturnity was not aggravating as it was not purposely sought. Consequently, without any qualifying circumstance, the crimes committed were homicide, not murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Moyong to an indeterminate penalty of nine years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count. The award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity per victim was affirmed.