G.R. No. 226158 November 8, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Liberato Pentecostes y Cronico, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence. On March 24, 2005, accused-appellant Liberato Pentecostes attended a drinking session at the house of Angel Vargas, father of the seven-year-old victim, Vivian Vargas. After the session ended around 2:00 p.m., Vivian was sent on an errand and subsequently went missing. Between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., two witnesses, Antonio Vargas and Jason Basagre, encountered Liberato carrying Vivian on his back near his corn plantation, heading toward a body of water. When greeted, Liberato merely looked back angrily. Vivian’s lifeless body was recovered the next morning, and an autopsy confirmed death by drowning. When police summoned attendees of the drinking session for questioning, Liberato fled.
For the defense, Liberato testified that he went home alone after the drinking session. He claimed to have seen another person, Joel Basagre, with Vivian later that afternoon and informed Angel Vargas of this during the search. He admitted running from the police out of fear. His testimony was marked by inconsistencies, including initially denying knowledge of the victim before later admitting he knew her. It was also established that Liberato was a previously convicted individual, having served time for Robbery with Homicide.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when it constitutes an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion: the accused’s guilt. The Court meticulously examined the established circumstances: (1) Liberato was present at the victim’s house before she went missing; (2) he was positively seen by credible witnesses carrying the victim toward a body of water near the time of her disappearance; (3) his flight from investigation is indicative of guilt; (4) his defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated; and (5) his testimony was riddled with irreconcilable inconsistencies, damaging his credibility. Taken together, these circumstances form a cohesive chain that excludes any reasonable hypothesis except that Liberato drowned Vivian. The Court found no merit in the argument that the evidence was “devious,” as each circumstance was proven by credible testimony and logically interlinked. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated due to the victim’s tender age and the sudden and deliberate method of attack, ensuring she had no opportunity to defend herself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole and the awarded damages were sustained.