THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EMMANUEL DESALISA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EMMANUEL DESALISA G.R. No. 95262 JANUARY 4,
1994
FACTS:
Emmanuel Desalisa and Norma Desalisa are husband and wife with a two year old daughter.
They live in a small nipa house on a hill at Pinaductan, San Juan, Bacon, Sorsogon. There are
two other houses in the neighborhood which are 150 meters away: the house of his parents-inlaw and the house of Carlito Dichoso. These cannot, however, be seen from the couple's house
because of the many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.
The couple had a serious quarrel because the accused-appellant was jealous of a man. On
October 9, 1983, the said accused moved by hatred and jealousy, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to f
kill armed with a sharp pointed instrument, assault, attack, and inflict physical injuries on the
vagina of his wife and who was pregnant for about five (5) months, and thereafter with the use
of rope hang her to a jackfruit tree causing her death and that of her fetus.
The accused-appelant denied the allegation and said that the hanging of the victim was suicidal.
There are no actual witnesses of the crime but the circumstantial evidence brought by the
testimonies given by the parents of the victim, their neighbor, the physician, P/Cpl. Gillego, pin
points Emmanuel Desalisa as the killer of the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether the quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellant's guilt, albeit based on
circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
YES. The quantum of proof necessary to establish accused-appellants guilt, albeit based on
circumstantial evidence, is sufficient. There is more than one circumstance. The facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven. The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. There is ample evidence to support the
finding that the hanging of the victim was homicidal and not suicidal, as claimed by AccusedAppellant. A day after the incident, Vicente Dioneda found scattered plates and kettle with
untouched rice on the floor of the house of accused-appellant while Cpl. Gillego found that
some things in the house were not in proper places. These are indicia of previous struggle.
There were blood stains on the victims dress, panty, and feet. On her genitalia, the doctor found
a punctured wound, 1 cm. long and 2 cm. deep, with slight blood clot which could have been
caused by any pointed object, sharp bolo or sharp pointed instrument. Accused-appellant
admitted during the cross examination that he was armed with a sharp bladed instrument while
he was looking for his wife. The doctor also found hematoma with contusion on both labia of her
genitalia, which could have been caused by a fist blow. According to the doctor, these injuries
could not have been self-inflicted.
Although accused-appellant spent the night in the house of Carlito Dichoso and did not flee, this
circumstance standing alone is no brief on his innocence. There is no case law holding that nonflight is conclusive proof of innocence.