G.R. No. 121778 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. AARON BIONAT, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, in its Decision [22] of 7 March 1995, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as charged in Criminal Case No. 550-S and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P50,000.00 for the death of the victim and P30,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages. Accused seasonably appealed to us from the decision. We accepted his appeal in the resolution of 10 July 1996. In his Appellants Brief, the accused interposes the following assignment of errors: 1. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY NOTWITHSTANDING ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO THE ACTUAL PARTICIPATION OF THE ACCUSED IN THE ALLEGED KILLING OF THE VICTIM 2. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED TOOK FLIGHT AFTER THE ALLEGED KILLING 3. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS MURDER 4. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED 5. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ACT OF ACCUSED OF RETURNING TO HIS RESIDENCE IN SURALLAH IS INDICATIVE OF HIS INNOCENCE. Accused argues that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not point to him as having participated in the actual killing of Ernesto Romay, as his alleged participation was limited to tying up the victim. Accused also contradicts the trial courts finding that he fled after the killing, calling our attention to the fact that he did not leave Surallah after the alleged killing as the prosecution witnesses even saw him two months thereafter when he escorted Escovidal in going to their farm. Furthermore, accused contends that if he were indeed guilty, then he could have stayed in Sara, Iloilo to avoid prosecution. Accused also insists that the failure of the widow to confront him when she first saw him and her eagerness to find out from him who the mastermind of the killing of her husband was, when taken together with the other circumstances exposing the frailty of the prosecutions evidence linking him to the actual killing of the victim, are indicative of doubt on the part of the prosecution regarding the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. In the Appellees Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General recommends our affirmance in toto of the challenged decision. Our evaluation of the evidence on record leads us to no other conclusion than to agree with the trial court that the evidence for the prosecution established with moral certainty that the accused committed the crime charged and is guilty thereof. Firstly, accused claims that it was error for the court to convict him of murder absent an eyewitness detailing his actual participation in the killing of the victim. While it is true that there was no eyewitness to the actual killing of Ernesto Romay, this does not preclude accuseds conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circum