Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERRYMEL ESTILLORE y POSTICO 406 SCRA 605 (2003)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERRYMEL ESTILLORE y POSTICO 406 SCRA 605 (2003)

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant Gerrymel Estillore y Postico was charged with murder with aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength for killing his common-law wife Mary Jane Del Carmen by setting her on fire. The prosecution presented three witnesses: Guinaja, Cadavis and Dr. Bautista. Guinaja testified regarding what occurred after the said murder particularly the plea of the victim for help from him and Estillore‘s sister. Cadavis testified that Esillores and Mary Jane were having a quarrel before the said murder. Dr. Bautista, a medico-legal officer testified that based on the examination on the body of the victim it is highly improbable that she committed suicide. As a defense, Estillore alleges that his wife committed suicide and that while being rushed to the hospital she told him that she loved him. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) appreciated the aggravating circumstance and convicted Estillore of the crime of murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in finding Estillore guilty beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:

In determining whether Postico is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court considered the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the facts testified to by Cadavis and Guinaja whom it found to be both friends of appellant and who have no motive to falsely testify against him. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot then be gainsaid that a combination of all these enumerated circumstances, along with the unrequited opinion of Dr. Bautista points to Estillore as the one who set the victim on fire which caused her death. Estillore having failed to disprove the prosecution evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the affirmance of his conviction for murder under Article 248, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is in order. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, however, that every complaint or information should state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. In the case at bar, the information did not specifically allege that Estillore employed means to weaken the defense nor show how the act which resulted in the death of the victim was committed. The said aggravating circumstance cannot thus be appreciated.