Cabrera, Jordan S.
21-15-178
BsCrim-24 Human Rights Education
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs Austria
G.R. No. L-55109 ( April 8, 1991)
PONENTE
BIDIN, J.
SYNOPSIS
On September 17, 1975, Gregorio Eras, Deputy Chief of Police, Sagay, Negros Occidental, filed a complaint for
robbery with homicide against Eduardo Austria, Pablo Austria, Jaime de la Torre and Leopoldo Abanilla, After
preliminary examination, Judge Emilio Ignalaga, Acting Municipal Judge, Sagay, Negros Occidental, issued a
warrant of arrest against herein appellants. No bail was recommended (Original Records, p. 9). On December 11,
1975, an information was filed against accused/appellants, which reads:
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision* dated March 18, 1980 of the then Circuit Criminal Court, 12th Judicial
District, Bacolod City, finding accused-appellants Eduardo Austria, Pablo Austria and Jaime dela Torre guilty
of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of death, to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of deceased Tomas Azuelo in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.
It appears from the records that in the morning of August 10, 1975, the police dug out of the ground in a
sugarcane field in sitio Palanas, Sagay, Negros Occidental, the lifeless body of Tomas Azuelo. Found near his
grave were the traces of blood and a bloodstained piece of wood. Post mortem examination showed that Tomas
Azuelo's skull was fractured and his body sustained eighteen (18) stab wounds, fifteen (15) of which were
fatal. The payroll, together with the sum of P771.40 intended for the wages of laborers of Hacienda Austria, of
which Azuelo was the overseer, was missing.
Four suspects for the death of Tomas Azuelo were picked up by the police working together with the Philippine
Constabulary. One of the suspects, Pablo Austria, was the last person who was seen with Tomas Azuelo. They
boarded a tricycle together, on August 9, 1975 at about 3:30 p.m., from the poblacion of Sagay and alighted at
about 4:00 p.m. at crossing Tupas.
ISSUES
Whether or not the appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the circumstantial evidence of the
prosecution.
RULING
In the first place, as stated in the appealed decision, the evidence of the prosecution against appellant Eduardo
Austria is merely circumstantial. Aside from the extra-judicial confessions of the deceased appellants, there is
neither direct evidence nor actual witness to the commission of the crime. To overcome the presumption of
innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby REVERSED and the accused/appellant Eduardo Austria is
ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
DOCTRINES
As regards appellant Eduardo Austria, the only evidence against him is that he was seen at about 1:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of August 9, 1975 along the road going to Hda Austria. This evidence even if tied up with the testimony of
Iluminada Azuelo that Austria harbored ill-feelings against the deceased because he was dismissed from the
hacienda by the deceased does not establish or support an inference, much less a conclusion, that he participated in
the commission of the offense charged. The conviction of appellant Eduardo Austria on an inference based on
another inference cannot be maintained.
Cabrera, Jordan S. 21-15-178
BsCrim-24 Human Rights Education
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DRAMAYO
G.R. No. L-21325 (October 29, 1971)
PONENTE
FERNANDO, J.
SYNOPSIS
There is an element of ingenuity as well as of novelty in the plea made by counsel de oficio in this appeal of
the accused Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of
Estelito Nogaliza. The claim is vigorously pressed that because the information alleged conspiracy on the part
of seven defendants, with only the two appellants being convicted, two having been utilized as state witnesses
and the other three having been acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence as to their culpa bility, the
judgment of conviction against the appellants cannot stand, there being a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. To
bolster such a contention, certain alleged deficiencies in the proof offered by the prosecution were noted. A
careful study of the evidence of record would leave no other rational conclusion but that the deceased met his
death at the hands of the appellants in the manner as found by the lower court. Hence the appeal cannot
prosper.
FACTS
The gory incident which was attended by a fatality started on the morning of January 9, 1964. The two accused,
now appellants, Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin, in the company of the deceased Estelito Nogaliza, all of
Barrio Magsaysay, of the Municipality of Sapao, Surigao del Norte, saw its chief of police. Their purpose was
to shed light on a robbery committed in the house of the deceased five days before by being available as
witnesses. The response was decidedly in the negative as they themselves were prime suspects, having been
implicated by at least two individuals who had confessed. At about 7:00 o'clock of the same day, while they
were in the house of their co-accused Priolo Billona, the accused Dramayo invited all those present including
the other accused Francisco Billons, Modesto Ronquilla. Crescencio and Severo Savandal, for a drinking
session at a place at the back of the school house. It was on that occasion that Dramayo brought up the idea of
killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in the robbery case. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin
to ambush Estelito, who was returning from Sapao. The others were to station themselves nearby.
Soon the unfortunate victim was sighted. He was accosted by Dramayo with a request for a cigarette. It was
then that Ecubin hit him with a piece of wood on the side of the head near the right ear. Dramayo's participation
consisted of repeated stabs with a short pointed bolo as he lay prostrate from the blow of Ecubin. It was the
former also, who warned the rest of the group to keep their mouths sealed as to what had just happened. His
equanimity appeared undisturbed for early the next morning, he went to the house of the deceased and
informed the, latter's widow Corazon that he had just seen the cadaver of Estelito. The barrio lieutenant and the
chief of police were duly notified. The latter, upon noticing blood stains on the trousers of Dramayo, asked him
to explain. The answer was that a skin ailment of his daughter was the cause thereof. The death was due to the
wounds inflicted, two in the epigastric region, one in the right lumbar region, and another in the left breast.
ISSUES
Whether or not the presumption of innocence will apply to the accused over the evidence presented.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the judgment of September 8, 1965 affirmed with the modification that the indemnification to the
heirs of Estelito Nogaliza should be in the sum P12,000.00. With costs.
DOCTRINES
Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution
demonstrate that culpability lies. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. Their
freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Their guilt be
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for
conviction be in existence. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard this Court has always
been committed.
