Scribd
Upload
454 views2 pages

People Vs Paguntalan

Noel Paguntalan fatally shot Arturo Tiu during a religious procession. Paguntalan then fled to the home of his employer, Jesus Sotto. Sotto was found guilty of conspiring with Paguntalan to kill Tiu and for providing the unlicensed firearm used. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence against Sotto did not constitute an unbroken chain leading solely to Sotto's guilt. The Court found doubts in the prosecution's evidence and conclusions based on speculation. Therefore, the Court acquitted Sotto of criminal liability due to reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Michael Renz Palabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
454 views2 pages

People Vs Paguntalan

Noel Paguntalan fatally shot Arturo Tiu during a religious procession. Paguntalan then fled to the home of his employer, Jesus Sotto. Sotto was found guilty of conspiring with Paguntalan to kill Tiu and for providing the unlicensed firearm used. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence against Sotto did not constitute an unbroken chain leading solely to Sotto's guilt. The Court found doubts in the prosecution's evidence and conclusions based on speculation. Therefore, the Court acquitted Sotto of criminal liability due to reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Michael Renz Palabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v. Paguntalan (G.R. No.

116272, March 27, 1995)

FACTS:
Arturo Tiu was fatally shot by Noel “Bobong” Paguntalan during a religious
procession. Immediately after shooting, he ran towards the compound of Jesus Sotto,
his employer, for whom he had been working as Stay-in Janitor. The latter was also
found guilty for allegedly confederating with Paguntalan in killing the victim by
persuading him and that the unlicensed firearms used in the commission of the crime
was also his. The bits of circumstances shown and explained collectively indicate that
Noel Paguntalan, Jesus Sotto, and one or more unindicated individuals acted in concert,
had a common design and understanding to kill Arturo Tiu. Though no direct evidence
of conspiracy is shown in the evidence, this does not detract from the fact that the act
of Noel Paguntalan in killing Arturo Tiu is also an act of his co-conspirators.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Sotto is criminally liable.

RULING:

No. Jesus Sotto is not criminally liable. Jurisprudence of recent vintage intrude
that before conviction can he had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances
proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the
crime and that circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with extreme caution.
In the present case, the trial court reasons the following: 1)all guns without a
trigger guard exclusively belongs to accused-appellant to Paguntalan the trial court
blamed the former for his reluctance to offer an explanation on the so-called transfer;
2) the fascination of accused-appellant with Django movies, as manifested by his
preoccupation of wearing a hat similar to the hat worn by Django in the movies, is
adequate foundation to jump to the conclusion that he would likewise be obsessed in
possessing a .22 revolver like that used by Django in the movies; and 3) the low
economic status of the triggerman is enough to lay the basis for concluding that the gun could have
been supplied by accused-appellant for it is just like saying that only accused-appellantcan purchase
or supply the gun to the exclusion of other persons financially capable ofowning a gun. All of these
were rejected by the supreme court because it anchored on the erroneous syllogism. It has
practically tossed the onus probandi incumbent upon the prosecution, anent the
ingredients of the Crime, to the shoulders of accused-appellant, contrary to judicial
dictum that perdition of the accused must rest riot on the weakness of the evidence for
the defense but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court
entertains serious doubts as to the "fact of agreement", as the same is drawn form
after-events and anchored as it is on unfounded conjectures. Indeed, conclusions based
on speculations cannot serve as basis for conviction. With these pieces of evidence and
circumstances, Jesus Sotto is acquitted of the crime charged due to reasonable doubt.

You might also like