G.R. No. 182548 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CESARIO OSIANAS, PABLITO LARIOSA, JOSE VILLARIN, MARIO PALABRICA, AND VICENTE CUMAWAS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the accused CESARIO OSIANAS, PABLITO LARIOSA, JOEL VILLARIN, MARIO PALABRICA and VICENTE CUMAWAS are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 727, RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 727-A, and RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 727-B; to indemnify the heirs of the victims in each case the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of this suit. [5] The accused-appellants appealed to this Court. On 13 September 2004, however, we transferred [6] the appeal to the Court of Appeals in conformity with our decision in People v. Mateo . [7] The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00511. On 13 November 2007, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the Decision of the RTC. The Court of Appeals disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 26, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), 6 th Judicial Region, Branch 61, in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, in Criminal Case Nos. 727, 727-A and 727-B, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Cesario Osianas y Laredo alias "Egoy", et. al., is AFFIRMED with modification in that appellants are ordered to pay the heirs of each of the victims the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. [8] On 6 December 2007, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. THIS COURT'S RULING Identification of the Assailants Accused-appellants argue that since Teresita Cuerpo had not seen the killing of the victims, it was an error for the lower courts to rule that she had positively identified the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Such conclusion, according to the accused-appellants, was based on surmises, speculations and conjectures. [9] Accused-appellants likewise point out that Dionisio Palmero merely testified that he saw the victims passing with the accused-appellants near his (Dionisio's) house. He did not see the killing, either. While accused-appellants are correct that there was no direct evidence that they killed the victims, circumstantial evidence can always be resorted to. Hence, we have consistently held that: Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability. Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e. , the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, c