GR 94533; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94533. February 4, 1992.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IGNACIO TONOG, JR., alias ABDUL TONOG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Ignacio Tonog, Jr. was convicted of Murder for the killing of Efren Flores. The prosecution evidence showed that on April 25, 1988, the victim’s body with multiple stab wounds was found. Police investigation, based on information from Liberato Solamillo, pointed to Tonog. Police apprehended Tonog without a warrant, noting bloodstains on his pants, which he claimed were from a pig. At the station, he allegedly gave an unrecorded oral confession. Forensic analysis later matched the blood type on his pants and a recovered knife to the victim. Liberato testified that on the night of the killing, he saw Tonog and co-accused Allan Solamillo with the victim, and later observed blood on Solamillo’s shirt and heard an incriminating statement. The victim sustained 27 wounds.
The defense was alibi and denial. Tonog claimed he left a drinking session after a dispute with Solamillo, slept elsewhere, and was innocent. He argued his warrantless arrest was illegal and his alleged confession inadmissible.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of Ignacio Tonog, Jr. for Murder is proper based on the evidence presented.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated, and it was physically possible for Tonog to have been at the crime scene. The Court upheld the admissibility of the bloodstained pants as evidence, finding that the warrantless arrest was lawful as Tonog was validly “invited” and voluntarily accompanied the police, and the pants were seized with his consent. While the unrecorded oral confession was correctly disregarded for being inadmissible, the conviction rested on sufficient circumstantial evidence. This evidence—the blood type match, Liberato’s credible testimony placing Tonog with the victim and co-accused near the time of the crime, and the incriminating statement overheard—formed an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that Tonog was a perpetrator. The Court modified the aggravating circumstances, disallowing cruelty due to lack of proof of deliberate augmentation of suffering, but correctly appreciating abuse of superior strength given the two armed assailants against one victim. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00. The judgment was affirmed with modification.