G.R. No. 187497; October 12, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MELANIO GALO alias “DODO” and “EDGAR,” alias “ALDO,” alias “YOCYOC,” alias “DODO,” alias “JIMMY,” alias “JOSEPH,” alias “DINDO,” and alias “G.R.,” Accused, EDWIN VILLAMOR alias “TATA,” Appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated May 9, 2001, charged appellant Edwin Villamor and eight other co-accused with Murder for the death of Ruben Resuelo, Sr. Only the appellant was apprehended. The prosecution presented witnesses whose testimonies established the following circumstances: (1) Witness Jose Valderama saw the appellant, Melanio Galo, and three other armed men walking behind a “hog-tied” Ruben Resuelo, Sr. in the afternoon of October 9, 2000; (2) Witness Demencita Matutis testified that the appellant and his armed companions stayed at her house from October 3 until the morning of October 9, 2000; (3) Witness Francisco Anuada stated that two armed men borrowed a bolo from him at midnight on October 9, 2000, saying they would bury Resuelo’s body, and he later discovered a shallow grave on his farm containing a body with a protruding hand; the body was later reburied elsewhere on his farm; (4) The victim’s body, bearing multiple stab wounds and with hands and feet tied, was exhumed on October 11, 2000, after Barangay Captain Estremos Acyo was informed; (5) Barangay Captain Acyo testified that when he visited the appellant in detention, the appellant denied involvement but implicated his companions in the killing and admitted to being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). The appellant, in his defense, denied participation, claimed he was in Makilala at the time of the incident, and stated he surrendered in April 2001 as a former NPA member. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification regarding damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for Murder based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. The combination of proven circumstances satisfied the requirements of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court: (a) there was more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived were proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produced a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances, as found by the trial court and the CA, unerringly pointed to the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. These circumstances included: his presence with armed companions in the area before and during the incident; being seen with the hog-tied victim; the discovery of the victim’s buried body shortly after; and his admission of being an NPA member operating in the area. The defenses of denial and alibi were properly rejected as they were negated by the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court also sustained the CA’s modification of damages, awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.