UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Criminal Law 1 – Law 109

Sir Arreza

People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) vs Fausta Gonzales, Augusto Gonzales, Custodio

Gonzales, Sr. (accused-appellant), Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales and Rogelio Lanida (accused)
Sarmiento, J.:
GR No. 80762 – March 19, 1990

The case is a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals where the court found the accused-appellant
guilty of murder. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted the accused, arguing that the
evidence presented by the prosecution were insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 3. Definition – Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

FACTS:
On the evening of February 21, 1981 Augusto and Fausta Gonzales informed Bartolome Paja, the
barangay captain of Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo that Fausta had just killed their landlord, Lloyd Peñacerrada and
would like to surrender to the authorities. After reaching the Ajuy Police sub-station and informing the
police on duty of the incident, the group went back to Paja’s residence. Fausta stayed there while Paja,
Patrolman Centeno and Augusto proceeded to the latter’s residence where the killing allegedly
occurred. It was there that they saw the body of Peñacerrada, wearing only underwear, lying face down
in the bedroom. Patrolman Centeno inspected and scene and made a rough sketch of the area. The next
day, at around 7:00 am, Centeno and a photographer went back to the scene of the killing to conduct
further investigations. The body of the victim was then brought to the Municipal Hall of Ajuy for
autopsy. The autopsy report conducted by Dr. Jesus Rojas ruled the cause of death as massive
hemmorrhage due to multiple lacerated, stabbed, incised and punctured wounds. Further, he found 16
wounds (4 punctured, 7 stab, 4 incised and 1 lacerated), 5 of which are fatal because they penetrated
the internal organs, heart, lungs and intestines of Peñacerrada. Two days after the incident, Augusto
went to the police sub-station for detention and protective custody for “having been involved” in the
killing of Peñacerrada.

The Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo filed an information for murder against the Augusto and Fausta, stating that
with four other companions whose identities are still unknown, the accused conspiring, confederating
and helping each other, with treachery and evident premeditation, with deliberate intent and decided
purpose to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab, hack hit and
wound Peñacerrada thus inflicting multiple wounds on different parts of his body that caused his
immediate death. The couple pleaded not guilty. Before trial, Jose Huntoria, went to Nanie Peñacerrada,
the widow of the accused, claiming to have witnessed the killing. Based on the amended information,
the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo also accused Custodio Gonzales, Sr., Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales,
and Rogelio Lanida. All the accused, except Lanida, who eluded arrest, pleaded not guilty. According to
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law 1 – Law 109
Sir Arreza

Huntoria, he saw all the accused taking turns in stabbing the victim near a “linasan”. He further
explained that he did not immediately report what he saw to the police for fear of his life. However,
eight months after the alleged incident, his conscience was starting to bother him. He also wanted to
help Nanie because his father was a tenant of the deceased. Fausta admitted to killing Peñacerrada,
stating that she did so to defend her honor because the deceased attempted to rape her. All the other
accused denied participation in the crime. Gonzales Sr. (accused-appellant) stated that he was asleep in
his home when the incident happened. The trial court believed the testimony of Huntoria and found all
the accused, except Lanida, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to 12 years and 1 day
to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heir of the deceased victim in the
amount of Php 40,000 plus moral damages in the sum of Php 14,000.

Gonzales Sr. appealed before the Court of Appeals, stating that the trial court erred in convicting him

based on the testimony of Huntoria and in not appreciating his defense of alibi. The Court of Appeals
upheld the decision of the trial court, holding that (1) the claim that Huntoria would have difficulty
recognizing the assailant is without merit, (2) Huntoria’s explanation for the delay of his testimony is
satisfactory (3) Huntoria’s credibility is without question because he and the accused-appellant were in
good terms (4) the defense of alibi is without merit. The appellate court, however, found that the
sentence imposed on the accused-appellant should be reclusion perpetua (from 12 years and 1 day to
17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal) and modified the indemnity of death to Php 30,000 (from
Php 40,000). The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE/S:
W/N the accused-appellant is guilty of murder based on the evidence presented.

HELD:
No. The guilt of the appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The investigation conducted by police authorities supplied erroneous/missing information.

a. Centeno gave the date of the commission of the crime as “March 21, 1981” instead of
February 21, 1981.
b. The sketch of the scene failed to indicate the quantity of the various blood stains.
Considering that two different versions were presented by the prosecution and defense,
the extent of the blood stains would have provided more evidence as to which version is
more credible.
c. Authorities failed to state clearly the reason for Augusto’s “surrender”.
d. Investigators mentioned in their criminal complaint, without evidence, 4 other
unnamed persons who allegedly conspired in the killing.
2. Huntoria is an unreliable witness.
a. He was not able to determine who among the accused did the stabbing/hacking and the
particular weapons used by each of them. Huntoria failed to impute a definite and specific
act committed by the accused. This lack of specificity makes the case fall short of the test
laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, that (1) there must be an act or omission,
(2) the act or omission must be punishable under the RPC and (3) the act or omission be
done by means or fault. That the appellant performed an act or incurred an omission was
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law 1 – Law 109
Sir Arreza

not proven in the first place. It is entirely possible that the 5 fatal wounds were inflicted by
the 5 other accused and not by the accused-appellant. This is supported by the testimony
of Dr. Rojas where he stated that it is entirely possible that only one person was
responsible for the killing.
b. The court found that delay in Huntoria’s testimony is unreasonable & has not been
satisfactorily explained. There is no evidence that he was threatened by anybody. Further,
when he testified, the rest of the accused were still free, thus the supposed danger on his
life was still present.
c. Huntoria is not a disinterested party in this case. He admitted that one of the principal
reasons why he testified was because the victim was also his landlord. Tenants are
naturally beholden to their landlord. Huntoria, in particular, had a good reason as to why
he needed to ingratiate himself to the family of the deceased. He ceased to be employed 3
months after the killing. Volunteering his testimony would alleviate the financial distress
he was in. Further, the landlord’s family proved to be quite generous in their treatment of
Huntoria after he gave his testimony. The victim’s uncle gave him employment and
provided lodging for his family.

3. The facts of the crime, as stated by the prosecution, are contrary to Filipino custom and tradition.
a. Adult children protect their aging parents from physical and emotional harm. It is therefore
improbable for the other accused to summon the aid of their 65-year old father.
4. The defense of alibi should be taken into consideration.
a. While alibi is a weak defense, when it is considered along with the other evidence on
record, it may be sufficient to acquit the accused.

Ruling: The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. Appellant is acquitted.