G.R. No.

80762 March 19, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FAUSTA GONZALES, AUGUSTO GONZALES, CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., CUSTODIO GONZALES, JR., NERIO GONZALES and
ROGELIO LANIDA, accused, CUSTODIO GONZALES, SR., accused-appellant.

Topics: Art. 3 &4 of RPC

FACTS:
A previous decision in the Regional Trial Court, the Court found the accused-appellants Gonzales et al. guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.Through their
counsel, all the accused filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s decision. However, during the pendency of
appeal, all accused-appellants except Custodio Gonzales Sr. withdrew their appeal and chose instead to pursue
their respective applications for parole before the then Ministry now Department of Justice Parole Division. Thus, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision on Gonzales’ appeal. It modified the appealed decision in that the lone appellant
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnification of the heirs of Lloyd in the amount of P30,000.00.

The antecedent facts show that: At around 9pm on February 1981, the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla Iloilo
was awakened from his sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. Augusto informed Paja that his wife had
just killed their landlord Lloyd Penacerrada and thus would like to surrender to the authorities. Seeing Augusto still
holding the knife allegedly used in the killing and Fausta with her dress smeared in blood, Paja immediately ordered
his nephew to take the spouses to the police authorities at their municipal hall. Thus, an investigation was made
behind the killing, and two days after the said incident, Augusto appeared before the police station and voluntarily
surrendered for detention and protective custody for “having been involved” in the killing of Lloyd. He requested that
he be taken in the same headquarters where his wife Fausta was detained. During arraignment, the spouses entered
a plea of ‘not guilty’. Before trial however, Huntoria, who claimed to have witnessed the killing, presented himself to
Nanie Penacerrada—the victim’s widow, and volunteered to testify for the prosecution.
A reinvestigation was therefore conducted, and the prosecution’s case rested on Huntoria’s
alleged eyewitness account of the incident, who alleges to have seen the incident. The Court of Appeals affirmed
Huntoria’s testimony and found lone accused-appellant Custodio Gonzales guilty, who, among all the accused-
appellants, did not seek for parole before the Department of Justice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Custodio Gonzales is guilty of murder, based on Hustoria’s account where the prosecution’s case
rested.

RULING:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s stand is insufficient to convict Custodio Gonzales guilty of the
crime charged.

1. The investigation conducted by the police authorities leave much to be desired. During investigation, there were
conflicts as to where the scene of the crime was. While the sketch indicated are the alleged various blood stains and
their locations relative to the scenes of the crime, there was however no indication as to their quantity. Considering
there were two versions where the killing was carried out, the extent of blood stains found would have provided a
definite clue as to which version was more credible.

2. The police also failed to state the reason of Augusto Gonzales’ surrender. Further, Augusto never mentioned the
participation of other persons in the killing of the victim.

3. Furthermore, the autopsy report would show that the killing would have been caused by two or more bladed
instrument, but opined that one bladed instrument is still possible. And insofar as Dr. Rojas’ testimony was
concerned, while Huntoria admitted that he saw six persons taking turns in killing the victim, he however could not
determine who among the six accused did the stabbing and what particular weapon was used.

Considering the abovesaid facts, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal liability is incurred:

a.) By any person committing a felony (delitos) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended,
b.) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishments or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means

Further, Article 3 defines how felony is committed—which is either by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault
(culpa). Thus there is deceit when the act performed is by deliberate intent, while there is fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

In this case, while the prosecution accuses and the two lower courts both found that the appellant has committed
felony in Lloyd’s death, there is paucity of proof as to what act was performed by the appellant. Yet, Huntoria, as
earlier emphasized, admitted candidly that he failed to see who stabbed or hacked the victim. In fact, he does not
even know what specific act was performed in the killing. This lack of specificity then makes the case fall short of the
test laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

Moreover, Huntoria’s credibility as witness is tarnished by the fact that he only came out eight months since he
allegedly saw the incident. He also failed to explain satisfactorily the reason for his long delay in revealing what he
allegedly witnessed.