G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA y LANDA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Raymundo Gonzaga was charged with Robbery with Homicide. The information alleged that on or about April 18, 1985, in Manila, he conspired with others, and by means of force and intimidation, entered the residence of Ernesto Marcelino, robbed cash and jewelry valued at P26,750.00, and on the occasion thereof, stabbed and killed Marcelino. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and moral damages. The facts as found by the trial court are: The victim, Ernesto Marcelino, was a businessman who employed the accused-appellant as a wallpaper installer on a contractual basis until his dismissal on March 30, 1985. At around 6:15 a.m. on April 18, 1985, accused-appellant and three armed male companions dragged an employee, Roger Satur, into the victim’s house, cut the telephone cord, and proceeded to the second floor. They herded the victim’s live-in employees in the kitchen. Accused-appellant alone entered the victim’s bedroom. The employees heard a commotion and groaning. Accused-appellant later emerged holding a bloodied knife, exchanged his blood-stained shoes for slippers, and fled with his companions. The victim was found dead with multiple stab wounds, and cash and jewelry were missing. The police recovered knives from the scene and a letter from accused-appellant. Acting on information, police found one of the stolen necklaces with a suspect’s wife. Accused-appellant was arrested in Camarines Sur on September 7, 1985, where he verbally admitted participation and revealed the hiding place of another stolen necklace inside a bamboo post in his house. On September 9, 1985, he executed a written extrajudicial confession after waiving his right to counsel verbally, not in writing. During trial, accused-appellant denied stabbing the victim, claiming he was present only to collect unpaid salary, and that a certain “Edel” was the assailant. He alleged his confession was coerced.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of Robbery with Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification as to the indemnity. The Court held that the combination of circumstantial evidence satisfied the requirements for conviction under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court. The incriminating circumstances were: (1) accused-appellant was dismissed by the victim on March 30, 1985; (2) he was seen dragging an employee at knifepoint into the house with three armed companions; (3) the victim was stabbed inside his bedroom after accused-appellant entered; (4) accused-appellant was the only one who entered the bedroom; (5) he was seen coming out of the bedroom holding a bloodied knife; (6) he exchanged his blood-stained shoes for slippers; (7) he immediately fled after the incident; and (8) when apprehended, he surrendered one of the stolen necklaces he had hidden. The Court found these circumstances constituted an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion of his guilt. The alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were on minor details and did not destroy their credibility. The accused-appellant’s denial could not prevail over the positive circumstantial evidence. The written extrajudicial confession was not considered due to the lack of a written waiver of the right to counsel. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The decision was AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P50,000.00.