People (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs Danilo Morada y Tumlod (Accused-Appellant)

Date: May 19, 1999

Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Facts:
Danilo Morada was accused of killing Jonalyn Navidad. The prosecution presented 5 witnesses,
while the defense presented 2, including the accused himself.
Prosecution:
SPO3 Arsenio Gomez testified that on April 13, 1995, received a phone call that a certain
Jonalyn Navidad has been hacked. At the scene of the crime, Gomez and barangay captain
Edgardo Manimbao found a pair of slippers with thumbtacks embedded in the instep. The slippers
were identified by Alejandro de la Cruz, a bystander, as owned by Danilo Morada. Gomez and
Manimbao went to Danilo's house. They found a stained t-shirt, and a stained bolo near the
house. When they entered the house, Danilo, Danilo's wife, and Danilo's brother were present.
Danilo's brother said that the slippers belonged to Danilo. Gomez then invited Danilo to the police
station for questioning. During oral investigation, Danilo admitted that he killed Jonalyn, but this
was not taken down because no lawyer was available to assist Danilo. The shirt and the bolo were
sent to the NBI where it tested positive on the presence of human blood. Gomez admits that the
shirt and bolo were taken without warrant.
Barangay captain Manimbao said a version of facts similar to Gomez. He added that
Danilo's wife identified the stained shirt as Danilo's. He also added that at the jail Danilo wanted
to talk to him, and that Danilo eventually confessed that he owned the slippers, and that he killed
Jonalyn.
Christopher Saliva testified that on April 13, 1995, he saw Danilo walking away from the
scene of the crime carrying a bolo, and that when Danilo saw him, Danilo's face turned pale.
Saliva knew both Danilo and Jonalyn as they were childhood friends.
Eric Navidad, the brother of Jonalyn, testified that he found Jonalyn's body near a creek.
He saw a pair of yellow slippers near the body, which he identified as Danilo's. He claims that the
slippers were worn by Danilo while playing basketball. He stated that Danilo, although already
married, was courting Jonalyn.
Alejandro de la Cruz testified that on the day of the accident, he was roused by his wife
and was told of the incident. He went to the scene where he saw a pair of yellow slippers. He
identified the slippers because of the thumbtacks. He claimed that he remembered the slippers
belonging to Danilo as hid the slippers when he and some friends played a game during the wake
of his father.
Defense:
Danilo claims that at the time of the incident, he was staying at his house, together with
his wife, and that that they had a visitor, Rosita Cabanero. He claimed that earlier that day,
Jonalyn's mother came and sought his help because Jonalyn was found slumped in a creek. He
and his brother, Joel, helped Jonalyn's father to load her into a jeep so that she can be brought to
the hospital. He and his brother went back to his house. 30 minutes later, Gomez and some other
police went to his house and arrested him. He claimed that the bolo and the t-shirt were taken
without warrant. He claimed that he was beaten up at the municipal building to admit to the
killing. He claims that the t-shirt taken from him had no stain at the time it was taken. He said
that the slippers found in the scene were not his. He admitted being close to Jonalyn, but he
denied having any special feelings for her. He claims that he is being implicated in the killing
because Jonalyn's family wanted to eject him from the land.
Rosita Cabanero corroborated Danilo's testimony.
Trial:
The RTC of Dasmarinas, Cavite found Danilo guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.
It held that the circumstances occurring before, during, and after the hacking of Jonalyn, linked
together, leads to the conclusion that Danilo murdered her. Direct appeal to the SC.
(Danilo Morada was accused of killing Jonalyn Navidad. He was alleged to have confessed to the
police and to the barangay captain that he killed Jonalyn. His shirt and bolo were alleged to be

stained with blood, and these were taken without any warrant. At the scene of the crime, a pair of
slippers allegedly belonging to Danilo was found. No one directly saw Jonalyn being hacked.)
Issue/Reasoning:
Issue: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented support the conviction beyond reasonable
doubt
- No
- Rule 133, Sec 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence state when circumstantial evidence is sufficient
for conviction.
As to the alleged confession:
- The alleged confession cannot be used as evidence.
- In People vs Andal, the Court held that the constitutional guarantees during custodial
investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the
authorities and given during ordinary conversation or during media interviews, whereby the
suspect orally admits the commission of the crime. The ruling in that case does not, however,
authorize the police to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media reporters
who are acting for the police.
- In this case, it is doubtful whether Danilo's confession was given divorced from the police
interrogation. SPO3 Gomez himself stated that they interrogated Danilo, and that it was with the
help of Manimbao that Danilo admitted to the killing, and that they were not able to reduce the
confession in writing due to the absence of a lawyer. Manimbao's conversation with Danilo was
part of the then ongoing police investigation. Since the confession was given without the
safeguards in Art III Sec 12 of the Constitution, and the additional ones provided in RA 7438,
particularly the requirement that the confession be in writing and duly signed by the suspect in
the presence of counsel, Danilo's confession is inadmissible.
- Moreover, Manibao's testimony as to the confession is improbable. He testified that Danilo
wanted to talk to him so that he could get out of jail. If that were the case, it was very unlikely
that Danilo would admit his guilt.
As to the shirt and bolo:
- These cannot be used as evidence
- Danilo admits that the shirt and bolo are his, but denies that they were bloodstained when they
were taken from him. It is improbable that these incriminating evidence will be left in public view:
the shirt hanging from a tree, and the bolo in the yard.
- Even if these items were bloodstained, the bloodstain must be shown to match that of the
victim's to sustain conviction.
As to other circumstantial evidence:
- Not enough to sustain conviction.
- Saliva gave his statement to the police on April 16, after Gomez and Manibao executed a joint
statement that they had taken the bloodstained shirt and bolo. Judging by the delay, it appears
that it did not immediately occur to him that Danilo might have something to do with the killing.
- Eric Navidad was interviewed by the police in connection with the killing. It appears that he
never told the police that he recognized the slippers. He only made this claim when he testified in
court.
-Alejandro's identification of the slippers is improbable. Given that he was at his father's wake, it
is unlikely that he was playing with some friends when he saw the slippers. He must be very
observant to notice something in otherwise nondescript sandals.
- There may indeed be suspicion that accused-appellant is the author of the crime. But our legal
culture demands proof beyond reasonable doubt to be established according to law before any
person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Judgment cannot be rendered on the
basis of mere guesses, surmises, or suspicion. It is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence
establishes a strong suspicion or a probability of guilt
Dispositive:
Decision appealed from is reversed. Danilo Morada is acquitted on the ground of reasonable
doubt.