People v.

Gonzales
March 19, 1990 | Sarmiento, J.
Felony

Doctrine: One of the means by which criminal liability is incurred is through the
commission of a felony. The elements of felonies in general are: (1) there must be an act or
omission; (2) the act or omission must be punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and
(3) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault

Case Summary: This is an appeal from the accused who was charged with the crime of
murder due to his alleged participation in the killing of their family’s landlord. He asserted
that he was not present when the murder happened and is thus innocent from the act being
accused of him. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

Facts:
1. On February 21, 1981, at around 9:00 in the evening, Barangay Captain Bartolome
Paja of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened from his sleep by the spouses
Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. Augusto confessed that he and his wife killed their
landlord, Lloyd Peñacerrada, and they would like to surrender to the authorities. When
they came to inform the barangay captain, Augusto was still holding the knife used in
the killing and Fausta was wearing a dress with blood smeared in it. Paja immediately
ordered his nephew to take the spouses to the police at the Municipal Hall in
Poblacion, Ajuy. Here, the spouses confessed and informed the police on duty of the
incident.
2. Several patrolmen, along with Paja and Augusto proceeded to the Gonzales’ residence
at Sitio Nabitasan where the incident took place; they have found the body of the
accused, clad only in underwear sprawled face down inside the bedroom. The group
stayed for an hour to inspect the scene of the crime; a rough sketch of the area was
also made.
3. Fausta Gonzales, who admitted on killing the landlord because the latter allegedly
tried to rape her, was brought by Paja to the police sub-station in Ajuy.
4. The body of the victim was then brought to the Municipal Hall of Ajuy for autopsy.
The autopsy performed by a certain Dr. Jesus Rojas revealed that the deceased
obtained a total of 16 wounds: 7 stab wounds, four incised wounds and 1 lacerated
wound. Five of those wounds proved to be fatal because they penetrated the internal
organs, heart, lungs and intestines of the victim.
5. On February 23, 1981, Augusto Gonzales appeared before the police sub-station
poblacion of Ajuy and voluntarily surrendered to Police Corporal Ben Sazon for
detention and protective custody for “having been involved” in the killing of Lloyd
Peñacerrada.
6. Based on the investigations conducted by the authorities, the spouses, together with
four other companions whose identities remain unknown, were charged with the crime
of murder for having willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab, hack,
hit and wound Lloyd D. Peñacerrada.
7. Despite their previous admissions, the spouses both entered a plea of not guilty during
arraignment. Before the trial started some 8 months after the incident occurred, a
 certain Jose Huntoria, who identified himself as one of the previous tenants of the
victim (his father was the one who was really the former tenant of the victim,
however, in his mind, this fact also made him the victim’s tenant), came out and
presented himself as an eye-witness to the murder. He went to the victim’s widow and
volunteered to testify for the prosecution.
8. A re-investigation of the case was conducted by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo and on
the basis of which an Amended Information, 16 dated March 3, 1982, naming as
additional accused Custodio Gonzales, Sr. (the herein appellant), Custodio Gonzales,
Jr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida, was filed. All the accused except Lanida
pleaded not guilty to the crime.
9. At the trial, the prosecution has presented Dr. Rojas as a witness. He certified that he
was the one who conducted the autopsy on the body of the victim. In his testimony,
Dr. Rojas admitted the possibility that only one weapon might have caused all the
wounds (except the lacerated wound) inflicted on the victim but he nevertheless
opined that due to the number and different characteristics of the wounds, the
probability that at least two instruments were used is high.
10. Several witnesses were called to testify (i.e. police authorities who conducted the
investigation, the victim’s widow and Barangay Captain Bartolome Paja), however,
the prosecution’s case mostly rested on Jose Huntoria’s alleged eyewitness account of
the incident. Huntoria’s recollection of the incident is as follows:
- On February 21, 1981, at around 5:00 PM, he left his work at Barangay Central in
Ajuy, Iloilo. He took a short-cut on his way home, and in so doing, he passed at
the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses’ house at around 8:00 PM.
- When he passed by the spouses’ house, he heard cries for help. Aroused by his
curiosity, he approached the place where the shouts were emanating. When he
was some 15 to 20 meters way, he hid himself behind a clump of banana trees and
saw all the accused ganging upon the deceased near a threshing platform. He
asserted that he clearly recognized all the accused as the place was awash in
moonlight.
- Huntoria alleged that after stabbing and hacking the victim, the accused lifted his
body and carried it into the house of the spouses which was situated some 20 to
25 meters away from the threshing platform (or “linasan”).
- Huntoria proceeded home and relayed the events he witnessed to his mother and
to his wife.
11. According to Huntoria, he did not immediately report the events he witnessed for fear
of his life.
12. Despite his alibi, the trial court favored Huntoria’s testimony and convicted all the
accused with the crime of murder. Through their counsel, all the accused filed a
notice of appeal from the trial court’s decision, however, during the pendency of the
appeal, all accused except Custodio Gonzales, Sr. withdrew their appeal and chose to
pursue their respective applications for parole before the Department of Justice Parole
Division.
13. All the accused, except Fausta, denied participation in the crime. The appellant,
Custodio Gonzales, Sr. claimed that he was asleep in his house which was located
some 1 km away from the scene of the crime when the incident happened. He
 asserted that he only came to know about the incident when his grandchildren (Fausta
and Augustino’s children) informed him.
14. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the lone appellant contended that the trial court
erred in convicting him on the basis of the testimony of Jose Huntoria, the lone
alleged eyewitness, and in not appreciating his defense of alibi. The Court of Appeals
upheld the decision of the trial court based on the witness account of Huntoria,
however, it modified the penalty imposed by the trial court, increasing it from
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua; hence, this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issue: W/N the appellant, Custodio Gonzales, Sr. be convicted of the crime of murder
under the evidences presented by the prosecution? –NO

Ruling:
1. “Act,” as used in Article 3 of the RPC must be understood as “any bodily movement
tending to produce some effect in the external world.” In this instance, there must
therefore be shown an “act” committed by the appellant which would have inflicted
any harm to the body of the victim that produced his death. However, even Huntoria,
as earlier emphasized, admitted quite candidly that he did not see who “stabbed” or
who “hacked” the victim. Thus this principal witness did not say, because he could
not, whether the appellant “hacked” or “stabbed” the victim. In fact, Huntoria does not
know what specific act was performed by the appellant. This lack of specificity then
makes the case fall short of the test laid down by Article 3 of the RPC.
2. The Court held that the evidences submitted are insufficient to convict Custodio
Gonzales, Sr. guilty of the crime of murder based on the following grounds:
a. The investigation conducted by the policemen leave much to be desired.
During investigation, there were conflicts as to where the scene of the
crime was, however, the sketch of the crime scene did not capture the
quantity of the blood stains and their locations relative to the scenes of the
crime – this would have provided a clue as to which version was more
credible.
b. Huntoria, the sole witness could not determine who among the six accused
did the stabbing and what particular weapon was used. He also could not
accurately determine what specific act was performed by the appellant.
Juxtaposing this with the doctor’s testimony that it was possible that one
bladed instrument was used in the killing, the guilt of the accused could
not be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition: The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, thereby,
acquitting the appellant from the crime of murder.